10 ms·

Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. It's tautologically true but d

Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. It's tautologically true but doesn't help anybody.

amelius 5y ago
It's basically differentiating the original equation wrt the only quantity you can say something about, which effectively throws out all the things you know nothing about and which you can then "conveniently" ignore.
jwdunne 5y ago
It also assumes that the human body is a machine with singular inputs and singular outputs, as though it’s a pure function. But it’s more complicated than that. Especially when you bring homeostasis into it, where the body will adjust calorific expenditure downwards in response to sustained reduced calorific intake, as just a single example. But there’s lots of things going on that influence the calories coming in, the calories stored and the calories expended. It’s unfair to reduce it down so far. It leads to fat shaming by people whom have never struggled with their weight who justify their cruelty by parroting “calories in calories out”. Even worse, some of those will do silly experiments where they put on weight really really fast and then lose it just as fast, totally ignoring the fact that their body has been in the original state for a long time.
- DJBunnies 5y ago
  It’s not cruel, it’s science. If it’s not working it’s not being done correctly. I struggled when I was younger.
  - jwdunne 5y ago
    Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate?
    - gadders 5y ago
      It's value neutral. It's just a fact. It's like saying the sky is blue, or the earth is a sphere. How people react to that information is up to them. What other science would you like prevented to spare people's feelings?
      - jwdunne 5y ago
        So, really, you agree that science cannot justify the cruelty of fat shaming? As you said, it’s value neutral. Which part of my comment says I’d like science to spare people’s feelings? Show me the science that justifies fat shaming and inappropriate behaviour. Fat shaming somebody because “science” doesn’t make you any less of shit person. In fact, you can’t really use any science to excuse poor behaviour. So I think we might be in violent agreement? Do you talk to your mother like that when you misunderstand her? Wow.
        gadders 5y ago
        I'm saying that the phenomena of fat shaming should not be used to suppress the fact that calories in/calories out is how you lose weight and works. Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. Would I contradict an obese person who said "Calories In/Calories Out" was wrong? Yes.
        jwdunne 5y ago
        Okay, which part of my comment says that fat shaming should be used to suppress science? Which part of my comment says that it’s wrong? It IS a simplified view and there ARE many more variables that influence the success of dietary change. And there are even more that influence the wider obesity problem. But that doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s wrong. As you said, the sky is blue. Is that wrong? No. Is it simplified? Yes, sometimes it’s grey. Sometimes it’s a deep blue. Sometimes it’s pretty much black. But, generally speaking, yeah it’s blue. Is CICO the solution to the obesity epidemic? No, because it’d have worked to reduce the epidemic by now. It’s clearly _not_ the only thing we need to solve the epidemic. There is a difference between the method to lose weight and the solution to the obesity epidemic. The latter has many more variables in play. Next time you contradict an obese person who “says CICO is wrong”, make sure they’re actually saying it’s wrong. I am, however, glad you wouldn’t run up to people and shout “calories in / calories out”. That‘s a relief.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    It's science but it doesn't give very useful actionable things you can do to change your weight. Generally people interpret it to mean you get two inputs you can change, food intake and exercise, and they're independent. Unfortunately, those two things are not independent. Increased exercise often leads to increased hunger which leads to increased eating for many people in the real world. Just saying "eat less" in this context is about as useful as telling someone to be better at their job. Many people will not have the willpower to sustain eating the diet they currently eat but eat less of it. Decreasing calories consumed can lower basal metabolic rate. You can easily google for data on this from the Biggest Loser contestants. There are also other ways to modify those two parameters that don't involve food and exercise. Are you a type 1 diabetic and want to lose weight? Just under dose your insulin and the pounds will fly off. Want to lose weight but you aren't diabetic? Take a little DNP. Want to lose weight faster? Take a little more DNP. Just don't take too much or instead of losing weight you'll die of hyperthermia. Taking DNP or under dosing insulin are not things I would ever recommend anyone do but they are both examples of non food and activity related ways to affect calories out.
- kapp_in_life 5y ago
  >It leads to fat shaming by people whom have never struggled with their weight who justify their cruelty by parroting “calories in calories out”. Is it? In my experience the people who parrot that are people who were fat and through a combination of diet and exercise returned to a healthy weight. I do agree though there's more to weight loss than just CICO(maybe insulin). Peter attia had a recent interesting episode on obesity and nutritional science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8js28V95flc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8js28V95flc
karamanolev 5y ago
In some way, you're right, but I think there's more to it. Let's ignore for a moment whether it's true. I've seen it said in the sense that if you eat too many "good" calories (from salads or other healthy foods) and spend the same, you'll get just as fat as from bad calories. So the money analogy in a way works - if you get $100 cash, you'll be just as rich/poor as if you get them via a bank transfer. All of that glosses over a million details, like how full you'll be feeling after 1000 cal from salad vs 1000 cal from Coke, but that's a whole another can of worms.
skinkestek 5y ago
> Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. But that is not what anyone I've heard is saying. At least I think of "calories in / calories out" is a an attempt to defend against people believing in miracle diets or that they "cannot" lose weight.
captainmuon 5y ago
I've never understood calories. Sure if you eat less but keep the food composition and exercize the same, you loose weight. That's trivial. But calories is energy and weight is mass. I've joked if you eat a bar of plutonium you won't gain a ton. And if you eat a kg of sugar, you'll get a stomach ache but won't suddenly gain a lot. I think something that is often neglected is: What portion of the calories you eat is used, what portion is stored, and what portion is discarded? It seems there is an adjusting screw that makes us store more of the consumed calories than before. If we just eat less calories total, we also gain less (sure), but we often won't have enough power to go around. I can't find the source anymore, but I read a theory about high fructose corn sugar, or glucose-fructose sirup. Many debunkers say there is no problem with glucose-fructose sirup over sucrose (plain sugar), since sucrose is just split in the body into glucose and fructose, so it's the same. But the theory went that the body regulates sugar intake by regulating the breakdown of sucrose. If it is already broken down, there is nothing stopping the cells from taking all the simple sugars and using them. I don't know if there is any merit to that idea - it doesn't matter, it's just the pattern of the argument I find interesting - that you have to understand the metabolic pathways and what the body does with the nutrients, rather than just count calories.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  When people say calories they mean calories that can be converted to ATP. This is why fiber is not considered to have calories (for humans, but is for cows) despite containing forms of energy.
  - readonthegoapp 5y ago
    You're saying fiber content is actually stripped out of calorie counts on packaging?
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      I oversimplified but yes almost. > Determining whether or not fiber calories should “count” depends on context and requires some background. Calories are a basic unit of energy that measure, among other things, how much burning power they provide to the body. Fats, proteins, carbohydrates and alcohol provide the body with energy or calories. The traditional estimates are that 1 gram of fat provides 9 calories, each gram of either proteins and carbohydrates provide 4 calories, and a gram of alcohol provides 7 calories. However, this doesn’t account for differences in how well food is digested and the nutrients available to the body. Poorly digested foods may not release as much energy for the body to use. This is particularly important in the case of fibers. > Dietary fibers are complex carbohydrates, so some people estimate that they provide 4 calories per gram just like any other carbohydrate. However, others say that calories from fiber don’t count since your body’s digestive enzymes can’t break down fiber. However, fibers differ in how well they are digested or how much energy is available to the body. Some fibers, called soluble fibers, either absorb water and become gels or dissolve in water and reach the intestine where they are digested by bacteria. As they are digested by bacteria, soluble fibers produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) that provide your body energy. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that fibers fermented by bacteria provide about 2 calories per gram of fiber. Insoluble fibers travel to the intestine with very little change. Instead of being digested, insoluble fibers increase bulk, soften stool, and shorten transit time through the gastro-intestinal tract. Because these fibers are not digested at all, the FDA estimates that insoluble fibers do not contribute any calories.
phreeza 5y ago
It's obvious to scientifically literate folks, but not to everyone. Much weight loss advice is equivalent to saying "spending money in cash is fine, credit cards are what make you poor", which actually may contain a grain of truth but kind of obscures the actual mechanism.
defaultname 5y ago
But it's the fundamental, most basic truth. If there is anything that people who want to lose weight should do, it's eat less. Skip the snack. Smaller portions. That's incredibly hard to do, of course, and easier said than done, but ultimately it is behind virtually all successful weight loss. What is behind an enormous number of failed weight loss attempts are waving that away and believing some specific macronutrient is really the cause, if you just subscribe to whatever the current trend is. People get really upset about the calories reality. And indeed if you compare caloric intake between say 1970 and 2010, there was a significant jump in the average diet. Grain products rose, but not nearly as much as fats and oils rose. People ate more and they got fatter. When excess accumulates over time, the increase doesn't have to be large. More calories in, BMI increased.
- pydry 5y ago
  It no more fundamental or surprising than the "truth" that giving up smoking is done by not smoking cigarettes.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    The point is that it's entirely unsurpising. It's the most basic, trivial thing possible. But there are massive industries[1] that exist to tell people that no, it's really that you aren't eating enough food that is red. Or that fell to the ground. Or whatever. Whatever magical, simple fix means that they can still eat an excess of calories. These diets have a failure rate approaching 100%. The US is the most diet focused country in planetary history, yet also one of the fattest. Maybe pretending that the basic thermodynamics are just some unachievable mirage is a really profoundly stupid approach? And yes, people who have actually lost weight (or, more often than not, not gain it in the first place) simply ate less (it's magnitudes harder to burn more calories to any meaningful amount). Virtually universally. But this makes obese people angry. It always makes them angry. [1] - And authors. This paper cites Stephen Guyenet casually dismissing "CICO". The guy makes his living pitching easy "AHA" moments to fat people. It is, ironically, his bread and butter.
    - 5y ago
black_puppydog 5y ago
> "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. Actually many programs for social welfare are exactly based on the idea that it is more complicated than that. The proponents of universal basic incomes for example have been fighting tooth and nail to even get this "tautological" fact accepted, and it is only now taking hold. The consequences of that would be that "simply" giving people money makes them less poor. It sounds simple when put like that, but it is a real struggle to have the conclusions of that be put into policy.
gadders 5y ago
It helped me. I wanted to lose 16kg by a certain date. I put my details into the Precision Nutrition calorie calculator. It told me how many calories I would need to consume per day to hit my goal. I tracked my calories, and stuck to the daily allowance it recommended. I lost nearly all the weight by the agreed timeline (I lost 14.9kg in the end).
- EMM_386 5y ago
  It really is as "simple" as that. While there are many biological processes that try to maintain homeostasis and weight, if you ingest less calories you will eventually lose weight. Think of it this way ... if you were thrown in prison today and they gave you only essential nutrients to survive, you'd lose a lot of weight. Your body might go into starvation mode first and try to fight against it, but without any calories coming in, you will lose weight 100% of the time. I decided after years of wanting to lose weight, but doing nothing about it, I would just give up and do 1,000 calorie max / day for 3 months. I lost 20 pounds to bring my BMI in-range without any other changes, and I'm middle aged. That's not the healthiest way to go about this, but it does work.
  - gadders 5y ago
    I actually wanted to lose the weight for my 50th birthday, so I'm not some 25-year old with the metabolism of a greyhound.
- gadders 5y ago
  Just in case anyone is interested: I have a Withings/Nokia scale that syncs to my phone, and then used the Android App Libra to plot a trendline for my intended weight loss and compared that in the app against the trendline it drew through my actual weight loss. I also used the free Samsung Health App to get the calorie values for what I ate, or used the ones on the packet.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Absolutely. CICO is the kind of thing that is so obviously true that anyone claiming it isn't shouldn't be taken seriously. I wouldn't say CICO doesn't help anyone though, because there's a whole lot of people out there trying to make money by telling you you can ignore CICO with this one simple trick. CICO is a useful thing to keep telling yourself when trying to lose weight because the calories are everything and there's no cheating it. Trust me, I have tried. Source: lost >150lbs and kept it off until the pandemic where I gained about 30 of it back. Stress is a bitch.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  CICO makes sense as a rule of thumb, but the kind of calories certainly matters. I'm no dietician, but carbohydrates, sugar, and fat each react differently with the body's digestive and endocrine system. Surely that has some effect beyond mere CICO calculations. I'd love to see a study that compares change in bodyfat with 2000 calories of cake frosting vs 2000 calories of red meat.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    I'm not aware of any such study, however there was this: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/... In which a man loses 27lbs on a diet of twinkies and was even healthier overall according to all metrics. Between this and personal experience I'm prepared to say that as far as weight loss is concerned it really doesn't matter. Granted, different foods may have an effect on mood, energy level, and satiety which will all contribute to the CO part of the CICO equation, but all other variables kept constant a calorie is a calorie.
magicalhippo 5y ago
It helped me a lot. It was very easy to use, and by not having any off-limits foods or similar, just a calorie target, it helped me find meals that I enjoyed while keeping me full. It also was a nice perspective to have in mind for me. Calories in, calories out means it doesn't really matter what I do today, it's what I do each day that matters.
- joflicu 5y ago
  How do you know the calories of home-cooked or restaurant meals to estimate the targets accurately?
  - tracedddd 5y ago
    You measure everything as best you can, and generally avoid restaurants.
  - magicalhippo 5y ago
    Restaurants are usually difficult, so I treated them as an "off day", and hence would not go to them too often. One might order a salad, but who knows how much sugar, oils and whatnot they put in there. For home-cooked I would do rough estimation based on weight and some quick web searches for calorie content of the ingredients. After a short while I got a pretty decent hang of where the calories were, so could focus more on those. I had a small kitchen weight for the "heavy hitters", for the rest I just estimated based on listed weight and how much I used (~1/3 of package fex). In the beginning I did weigh slices of bread and so on, and quickly built up a good overview over how many calories there were in such recurring items. Except for oils, butter and similar I wouldn't be super-accurate. But having a fairly good idea of how many calories was in my food really helped me plan portion sizes and compositions to roughly match the deficit I wanted, as determined by a web page estimating my calorie requirement[1]. Like I said, focusing purely on calories in, calories out, rather than say "yes foods" and "no foods", made it a lot easier for me as I could eat what I wanted, just perhaps not as much. For example, I quickly found out that my weekend favorite of steak with french fries and bearnaise was way over target. However, I found that if I ensured my steak was no more than 250g, swapped french fries for quality green peas and reduced the butter in the sauce by half, the calories were around my target value. So I could still enjoy my weekend treat. One potential issue was to feel full while reducing portion sizes. For that I leaned on some studies I read about which seemed to suggest high protein and high fiber. So I tried to have at least 20% of my calories in proteins, and also have as much fiber as possible. My breakfast bread is 90+% whole grain, my pasta is whole grain, I swapped out iceberg lettuce for romain lettuce (which has much more fiber) etc. Based on this I had a almost entirely linear decrease in weight over a year, without feeling like I was on a diet. In the end I lost 30kg. [1]: https://nhi.no/skjema-og-kalkulatorer/kalkulatorer/diverse/beregning-av-kaloribehov/ https://nhi.no/skjema-og-kalkulatorer/kalkulatorer/diverse/b...
dobin 5y ago
If someone can't eat less calories than he expends, thats usually called addiction (boredom, food as reward etc.), and should be treated accordingly
ju_sh 5y ago
Losing fat without any attempt to track calories in vs calories out is like trying to improve the performance of an algotighm without profiling it or tracking how the changes made affect the outcome. If you’re serious about losing fat, it’s essential helps to track the calories you eat, calories you burn, macro nutrient split (carbs, fats, proteins) and your weight. - Calculate your TDEE (Total daily energy expenditure, also known as `maintenance calories`) There are many online calculators to do this - Calculate your daily calorie intake to lose weight (Subtract 15-20% from your `maintenance calories`) - Decide on a rough macro nutrient split (40% protein, 40% carb, 20% fat is a good place to start) - Track the calories you eat and burn. There are apps for this that make it very easy (myfitnesspal is one example) - Weigh yourself regularly and record it (Daily is better, first thing in the morning, without clothes and after any restroom activity) - If you’re not losing weight, increase your daily exercise or reduce your calories by a further 5% until you see your weight going down - Note: A healthy weight loss strategy is to aim to lose 1-2 lbs per week You can absolutely loose fat without doing any of this but it’s 100x harder and will take much longer.
- oezi 5y ago
  I think there are two things to embrace: - Saving more than 500 calories per day is very hard, thus you are likely to only loose 1 lb per week/10 days of body fat. - You need the will power to stay on course and fight off the hunger sensation. This is the hardest of any diet. I don't believe that people can change their diet mix / macro nutrient split because there isn't enough choice to change your diet fundamentally without becoming bored quickly or being unhealthy or eco-unfriendly (for instance eating more meat).
SavantIdiot 5y ago
If you swallow 16oz of dried corn kernels whole or 16oz of cornflour, they have the same calories but you are going to metabolize them in a very different way. I don't understand the CIN/COUT argument when different calories are metabolized differently. Perhaps I am misunderstanding how calories are approximated for foods.

Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. It's tautologically true but doesn't help anybody.

amelius 5y ago

It's basically differentiating the original equation wrt the only quantity you can say something about, which effectively throws out all the things you know nothing about and which you can then "conveniently" ignore.

jwdunne 5y ago

It also assumes that the human body is a machine with singular inputs and singular outputs, as though it’s a pure function. But it’s more complicated than that. Especially when you bring homeostasis into it, where the body will adjust calorific expenditure downwards in response to sustained reduced calorific intake, as just a single example. But there’s lots of things going on that influence the calories coming in, the calories stored and the calories expended. It’s unfair to reduce it down so far. It leads to fat shaming by people whom have never struggled with their weight who justify their cruelty by parroting “calories in calories out”. Even worse, some of those will do silly experiments where they put on weight really really fast and then lose it just as fast, totally ignoring the fact that their body has been in the original state for a long time.

DJBunnies 5y ago
It’s not cruel, it’s science. If it’s not working it’s not being done correctly. I struggled when I was younger.
- jwdunne 5y ago
  Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate?
  - gadders 5y ago
    It's value neutral. It's just a fact. It's like saying the sky is blue, or the earth is a sphere. How people react to that information is up to them. What other science would you like prevented to spare people's feelings?
    - jwdunne 5y ago
      So, really, you agree that science cannot justify the cruelty of fat shaming? As you said, it’s value neutral. Which part of my comment says I’d like science to spare people’s feelings? Show me the science that justifies fat shaming and inappropriate behaviour. Fat shaming somebody because “science” doesn’t make you any less of shit person. In fact, you can’t really use any science to excuse poor behaviour. So I think we might be in violent agreement? Do you talk to your mother like that when you misunderstand her? Wow.
      - gadders 5y ago
        I'm saying that the phenomena of fat shaming should not be used to suppress the fact that calories in/calories out is how you lose weight and works. Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. Would I contradict an obese person who said "Calories In/Calories Out" was wrong? Yes.
        jwdunne 5y ago
        Okay, which part of my comment says that fat shaming should be used to suppress science? Which part of my comment says that it’s wrong? It IS a simplified view and there ARE many more variables that influence the success of dietary change. And there are even more that influence the wider obesity problem. But that doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s wrong. As you said, the sky is blue. Is that wrong? No. Is it simplified? Yes, sometimes it’s grey. Sometimes it’s a deep blue. Sometimes it’s pretty much black. But, generally speaking, yeah it’s blue. Is CICO the solution to the obesity epidemic? No, because it’d have worked to reduce the epidemic by now. It’s clearly _not_ the only thing we need to solve the epidemic. There is a difference between the method to lose weight and the solution to the obesity epidemic. The latter has many more variables in play. Next time you contradict an obese person who “says CICO is wrong”, make sure they’re actually saying it’s wrong. I am, however, glad you wouldn’t run up to people and shout “calories in / calories out”. That‘s a relief.
- fredophile 5y ago
  It's science but it doesn't give very useful actionable things you can do to change your weight. Generally people interpret it to mean you get two inputs you can change, food intake and exercise, and they're independent. Unfortunately, those two things are not independent. Increased exercise often leads to increased hunger which leads to increased eating for many people in the real world. Just saying "eat less" in this context is about as useful as telling someone to be better at their job. Many people will not have the willpower to sustain eating the diet they currently eat but eat less of it. Decreasing calories consumed can lower basal metabolic rate. You can easily google for data on this from the Biggest Loser contestants. There are also other ways to modify those two parameters that don't involve food and exercise. Are you a type 1 diabetic and want to lose weight? Just under dose your insulin and the pounds will fly off. Want to lose weight but you aren't diabetic? Take a little DNP. Want to lose weight faster? Take a little more DNP. Just don't take too much or instead of losing weight you'll die of hyperthermia. Taking DNP or under dosing insulin are not things I would ever recommend anyone do but they are both examples of non food and activity related ways to affect calories out.
kapp_in_life 5y ago
>It leads to fat shaming by people whom have never struggled with their weight who justify their cruelty by parroting “calories in calories out”. Is it? In my experience the people who parrot that are people who were fat and through a combination of diet and exercise returned to a healthy weight. I do agree though there's more to weight loss than just CICO(maybe insulin). Peter attia had a recent interesting episode on obesity and nutritional science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8js28V95flc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8js28V95flc

karamanolev 5y ago

In some way, you're right, but I think there's more to it. Let's ignore for a moment whether it's true. I've seen it said in the sense that if you eat too many "good" calories (from salads or other healthy foods) and spend the same, you'll get just as fat as from bad calories. So the money analogy in a way works - if you get $100 cash, you'll be just as rich/poor as if you get them via a bank transfer. All of that glosses over a million details, like how full you'll be feeling after 1000 cal from salad vs 1000 cal from Coke, but that's a whole another can of worms.

skinkestek 5y ago

> Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. But that is not what anyone I've heard is saying. At least I think of "calories in / calories out" is a an attempt to defend against people believing in miracle diets or that they "cannot" lose weight.

captainmuon 5y ago

I've never understood calories. Sure if you eat less but keep the food composition and exercize the same, you loose weight. That's trivial. But calories is energy and weight is mass. I've joked if you eat a bar of plutonium you won't gain a ton. And if you eat a kg of sugar, you'll get a stomach ache but won't suddenly gain a lot. I think something that is often neglected is: What portion of the calories you eat is used, what portion is stored, and what portion is discarded? It seems there is an adjusting screw that makes us store more of the consumed calories than before. If we just eat less calories total, we also gain less (sure), but we often won't have enough power to go around. I can't find the source anymore, but I read a theory about high fructose corn sugar, or glucose-fructose sirup. Many debunkers say there is no problem with glucose-fructose sirup over sucrose (plain sugar), since sucrose is just split in the body into glucose and fructose, so it's the same. But the theory went that the body regulates sugar intake by regulating the breakdown of sucrose. If it is already broken down, there is nothing stopping the cells from taking all the simple sugars and using them. I don't know if there is any merit to that idea - it doesn't matter, it's just the pattern of the argument I find interesting - that you have to understand the metabolic pathways and what the body does with the nutrients, rather than just count calories.

guerrilla 5y ago
When people say calories they mean calories that can be converted to ATP. This is why fiber is not considered to have calories (for humans, but is for cows) despite containing forms of energy.
- readonthegoapp 5y ago
  You're saying fiber content is actually stripped out of calorie counts on packaging?
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    I oversimplified but yes almost. > Determining whether or not fiber calories should “count” depends on context and requires some background. Calories are a basic unit of energy that measure, among other things, how much burning power they provide to the body. Fats, proteins, carbohydrates and alcohol provide the body with energy or calories. The traditional estimates are that 1 gram of fat provides 9 calories, each gram of either proteins and carbohydrates provide 4 calories, and a gram of alcohol provides 7 calories. However, this doesn’t account for differences in how well food is digested and the nutrients available to the body. Poorly digested foods may not release as much energy for the body to use. This is particularly important in the case of fibers. > Dietary fibers are complex carbohydrates, so some people estimate that they provide 4 calories per gram just like any other carbohydrate. However, others say that calories from fiber don’t count since your body’s digestive enzymes can’t break down fiber. However, fibers differ in how well they are digested or how much energy is available to the body. Some fibers, called soluble fibers, either absorb water and become gels or dissolve in water and reach the intestine where they are digested by bacteria. As they are digested by bacteria, soluble fibers produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) that provide your body energy. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that fibers fermented by bacteria provide about 2 calories per gram of fiber. Insoluble fibers travel to the intestine with very little change. Instead of being digested, insoluble fibers increase bulk, soften stool, and shorten transit time through the gastro-intestinal tract. Because these fibers are not digested at all, the FDA estimates that insoluble fibers do not contribute any calories.

phreeza 5y ago

It's obvious to scientifically literate folks, but not to everyone. Much weight loss advice is equivalent to saying "spending money in cash is fine, credit cards are what make you poor", which actually may contain a grain of truth but kind of obscures the actual mechanism.

defaultname 5y ago

But it's the fundamental, most basic truth. If there is anything that people who want to lose weight should do, it's eat less. Skip the snack. Smaller portions. That's incredibly hard to do, of course, and easier said than done, but ultimately it is behind virtually all successful weight loss. What is behind an enormous number of failed weight loss attempts are waving that away and believing some specific macronutrient is really the cause, if you just subscribe to whatever the current trend is. People get really upset about the calories reality. And indeed if you compare caloric intake between say 1970 and 2010, there was a significant jump in the average diet. Grain products rose, but not nearly as much as fats and oils rose. People ate more and they got fatter. When excess accumulates over time, the increase doesn't have to be large. More calories in, BMI increased.

pydry 5y ago
It no more fundamental or surprising than the "truth" that giving up smoking is done by not smoking cigarettes.
- defaultname 5y ago
  The point is that it's entirely unsurpising. It's the most basic, trivial thing possible. But there are massive industries[1] that exist to tell people that no, it's really that you aren't eating enough food that is red. Or that fell to the ground. Or whatever. Whatever magical, simple fix means that they can still eat an excess of calories. These diets have a failure rate approaching 100%. The US is the most diet focused country in planetary history, yet also one of the fattest. Maybe pretending that the basic thermodynamics are just some unachievable mirage is a really profoundly stupid approach? And yes, people who have actually lost weight (or, more often than not, not gain it in the first place) simply ate less (it's magnitudes harder to burn more calories to any meaningful amount). Virtually universally. But this makes obese people angry. It always makes them angry. [1] - And authors. This paper cites Stephen Guyenet casually dismissing "CICO". The guy makes his living pitching easy "AHA" moments to fat people. It is, ironically, his bread and butter.
  - 5y ago

black_puppydog 5y ago

> "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. Actually many programs for social welfare are exactly based on the idea that it is more complicated than that. The proponents of universal basic incomes for example have been fighting tooth and nail to even get this "tautological" fact accepted, and it is only now taking hold. The consequences of that would be that "simply" giving people money makes them less poor. It sounds simple when put like that, but it is a real struggle to have the conclusions of that be put into policy.

gadders 5y ago

It helped me. I wanted to lose 16kg by a certain date. I put my details into the Precision Nutrition calorie calculator. It told me how many calories I would need to consume per day to hit my goal. I tracked my calories, and stuck to the daily allowance it recommended. I lost nearly all the weight by the agreed timeline (I lost 14.9kg in the end).

EMM_386 5y ago
It really is as "simple" as that. While there are many biological processes that try to maintain homeostasis and weight, if you ingest less calories you will eventually lose weight. Think of it this way ... if you were thrown in prison today and they gave you only essential nutrients to survive, you'd lose a lot of weight. Your body might go into starvation mode first and try to fight against it, but without any calories coming in, you will lose weight 100% of the time. I decided after years of wanting to lose weight, but doing nothing about it, I would just give up and do 1,000 calorie max / day for 3 months. I lost 20 pounds to bring my BMI in-range without any other changes, and I'm middle aged. That's not the healthiest way to go about this, but it does work.
- gadders 5y ago
  I actually wanted to lose the weight for my 50th birthday, so I'm not some 25-year old with the metabolism of a greyhound.
gadders 5y ago
Just in case anyone is interested: I have a Withings/Nokia scale that syncs to my phone, and then used the Android App Libra to plot a trendline for my intended weight loss and compared that in the app against the trendline it drew through my actual weight loss. I also used the free Samsung Health App to get the calorie values for what I ate, or used the ones on the packet.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Absolutely. CICO is the kind of thing that is so obviously true that anyone claiming it isn't shouldn't be taken seriously. I wouldn't say CICO doesn't help anyone though, because there's a whole lot of people out there trying to make money by telling you you can ignore CICO with this one simple trick. CICO is a useful thing to keep telling yourself when trying to lose weight because the calories are everything and there's no cheating it. Trust me, I have tried. Source: lost >150lbs and kept it off until the pandemic where I gained about 30 of it back. Stress is a bitch.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
CICO makes sense as a rule of thumb, but the kind of calories certainly matters. I'm no dietician, but carbohydrates, sugar, and fat each react differently with the body's digestive and endocrine system. Surely that has some effect beyond mere CICO calculations. I'd love to see a study that compares change in bodyfat with 2000 calories of cake frosting vs 2000 calories of red meat.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I'm not aware of any such study, however there was this: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/... In which a man loses 27lbs on a diet of twinkies and was even healthier overall according to all metrics. Between this and personal experience I'm prepared to say that as far as weight loss is concerned it really doesn't matter. Granted, different foods may have an effect on mood, energy level, and satiety which will all contribute to the CO part of the CICO equation, but all other variables kept constant a calorie is a calorie.

magicalhippo 5y ago

It helped me a lot. It was very easy to use, and by not having any off-limits foods or similar, just a calorie target, it helped me find meals that I enjoyed while keeping me full. It also was a nice perspective to have in mind for me. Calories in, calories out means it doesn't really matter what I do today, it's what I do each day that matters.

joflicu 5y ago
How do you know the calories of home-cooked or restaurant meals to estimate the targets accurately?
- tracedddd 5y ago
  You measure everything as best you can, and generally avoid restaurants.
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  Restaurants are usually difficult, so I treated them as an "off day", and hence would not go to them too often. One might order a salad, but who knows how much sugar, oils and whatnot they put in there. For home-cooked I would do rough estimation based on weight and some quick web searches for calorie content of the ingredients. After a short while I got a pretty decent hang of where the calories were, so could focus more on those. I had a small kitchen weight for the "heavy hitters", for the rest I just estimated based on listed weight and how much I used (~1/3 of package fex). In the beginning I did weigh slices of bread and so on, and quickly built up a good overview over how many calories there were in such recurring items. Except for oils, butter and similar I wouldn't be super-accurate. But having a fairly good idea of how many calories was in my food really helped me plan portion sizes and compositions to roughly match the deficit I wanted, as determined by a web page estimating my calorie requirement[1]. Like I said, focusing purely on calories in, calories out, rather than say "yes foods" and "no foods", made it a lot easier for me as I could eat what I wanted, just perhaps not as much. For example, I quickly found out that my weekend favorite of steak with french fries and bearnaise was way over target. However, I found that if I ensured my steak was no more than 250g, swapped french fries for quality green peas and reduced the butter in the sauce by half, the calories were around my target value. So I could still enjoy my weekend treat. One potential issue was to feel full while reducing portion sizes. For that I leaned on some studies I read about which seemed to suggest high protein and high fiber. So I tried to have at least 20% of my calories in proteins, and also have as much fiber as possible. My breakfast bread is 90+% whole grain, my pasta is whole grain, I swapped out iceberg lettuce for romain lettuce (which has much more fiber) etc. Based on this I had a almost entirely linear decrease in weight over a year, without feeling like I was on a diet. In the end I lost 30kg. [1]: https://nhi.no/skjema-og-kalkulatorer/kalkulatorer/diverse/beregning-av-kaloribehov/ https://nhi.no/skjema-og-kalkulatorer/kalkulatorer/diverse/b...

dobin 5y ago

If someone can't eat less calories than he expends, thats usually called addiction (boredom, food as reward etc.), and should be treated accordingly

ju_sh 5y ago

Losing fat without any attempt to track calories in vs calories out is like trying to improve the performance of an algotighm without profiling it or tracking how the changes made affect the outcome. If you’re serious about losing fat, it’s essential helps to track the calories you eat, calories you burn, macro nutrient split (carbs, fats, proteins) and your weight. - Calculate your TDEE (Total daily energy expenditure, also known as `maintenance calories`) There are many online calculators to do this - Calculate your daily calorie intake to lose weight (Subtract 15-20% from your `maintenance calories`) - Decide on a rough macro nutrient split (40% protein, 40% carb, 20% fat is a good place to start) - Track the calories you eat and burn. There are apps for this that make it very easy (myfitnesspal is one example) - Weigh yourself regularly and record it (Daily is better, first thing in the morning, without clothes and after any restroom activity) - If you’re not losing weight, increase your daily exercise or reduce your calories by a further 5% until you see your weight going down - Note: A healthy weight loss strategy is to aim to lose 1-2 lbs per week You can absolutely loose fat without doing any of this but it’s 100x harder and will take much longer.

oezi 5y ago
I think there are two things to embrace: - Saving more than 500 calories per day is very hard, thus you are likely to only loose 1 lb per week/10 days of body fat. - You need the will power to stay on course and fight off the hunger sensation. This is the hardest of any diet. I don't believe that people can change their diet mix / macro nutrient split because there isn't enough choice to change your diet fundamentally without becoming bored quickly or being unhealthy or eco-unfriendly (for instance eating more meat).

SavantIdiot 5y ago

If you swallow 16oz of dried corn kernels whole or 16oz of cornflour, they have the same calories but you are going to metabolize them in a very different way. I don't understand the CIN/COUT argument when different calories are metabolized differently. Perhaps I am misunderstanding how calories are approximated for foods.