I read this article and it doesn't give me a lot. They say there is ''substantial experimental evidence'' that changing macronutrient balance can cause weight loss i.e. more lost on a low-carb diet compared to a high-carb diet of the same calories. Now I don't have access to their other review article mentioned but I am really sceptical of the claim of substantial evidence. Most of these studies likely involve very low enrolments and difficulty controlling known variables like exercise and adherence to the diet. Maybe. Maybe I'm wrong though. I'd be keen if you could link other relevant stuff that is open access. I'm sceptical because the ''study'' they mention in this article involved 21 PEOPLE with 3 arms... so 7 in each of the arms. They even say that this studydemonstratedmetabolic advantage... and talk it up as being extremely well controlled. lolwut... it was a pilot study not even designed to answer the actual question. Really dumb to include this because it is 1) misleading 2) unscientific 3) reduces their own credibility 4) makes it obvious they are desperate to get their message/agenda out there 5) makes sceptical readers less likely to keep an open mind.


As for everything else you are right in a way

But all this study into hormones, etc just isn't that important. Obesity is a lifestyle. We don't need MORE scientific knowledge to know how not to get fat. We did it for millennia. Eat mostly natural foods - veggies, fruits, meat, dairy, etc. Actually exercise like we are meant to. It's fukn obvious that eating deep fried meals with 5L of coke every day makes us fat.

No OP, it's actually true. Basic caloric equation, regular exercise, sound nutritional diet, progressive overload, lots of rest... basically everything a smart human should be doing will work 99% of the time to achieve a fit and healthy body. Sure you can break it down further but for most people they just need to follow the core guidelines and stop blaming everything else.

"Mah hormones" is the new fad cope for obese people. Any science article that rids their responsibility they will be all over it like cake.

IIFYM works for 99.9% of people, you're just over complicating it.

Pay some attention to your macros and not just calories and you'll be fine.

why would u not preach calories in calories out, if you get more calories in than your body needs/expends (calories out) you'll gain weight simple as **** and impossible to deny. You're preaching about caloric quality which no1 gives a **** when giving these types of advices, it's common sense that 3k calories of pizza is different from 3k calories of decent meals.

Calories in vs Calories out for weight loss or weight gain = is true.

Dont believe me? Eat 200 calories a day of pizza (like once slice) and see if you dont lose weight..



However, more importantly (in my experience) when you get leaner (sub 12%) there are more factors that take play in how you look like.

Water bloat / manipulation, carb levels/cycling, sodium levels and so on.

I cant have good abs if my sodium and carbs are high. They just kinda disappear.

Note that meat takes energy to digest so when they say it's 200 cals of meat, it's really closer to 150-175 net. SRS

It's like you're saying "winning games of football isn't about scoring more points than the other team, stop preaching that B.S." then going on to explain your suggestions of tactics that help you score more points than the other team.

no way op

reminds me of a time I was told that
Foods affect our bodies in different ways and go through different metabolic pathways.

Not only that, but the foods we eat can directly affect the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat.

Therefore, the types of foods we base our diet around are just as important as the amount of calories we are eating.

From this comes "a calorie is a calorie" - the idea that all calories are created equal, no matter what foods they come from.

Even though it is true that obesity is caused by excess calories and weight loss caused by a calorie deficit, this is still such a drastic oversimplification that it is downright wrong.

The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they're turned into energyhttps://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com.../1475-2891-3-9Research study link #1

Too many calories doesn't tell us that much

How much energy we eat and how much energy we expend matters. It is of utmost importance.

The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can not be destroyed, it can only change form. So if the energy that is entering the body is greater than the energy leaving the body, then the body will store the energy, usually as body fat.

If we take in more energy (calories) than we expend, we gain weight. If we expend more energy than we take in, we lose weight. This is an unbreakable law of physics and isn't even debatable.

However... this fact, tells us nothing about WHY this is happening.

A person who has gained weight is the same as a person who eats more than they burn.

Let me explain this with a simple analogy...

Imagine that the entrance hall of a movie theater is full of people. These people are all there because they're going to watch a very popular movie that just came out.

If you would ask... "why is this entrance hall full of people?" and someone were to answer with "because more people are entering it than leaving it" - then you'd think it was a fairly ridiculous answer, right?

It tells you nothing about the cause of the entrance hall being full, it is simply stating the obvious.

Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.

The next logical question to ask would be... why are people eating more?

Is it a consequence of a series of logical decisions to eat a bit more and exercise a bit less, or is there something in our physiology that is causing it... such as hormones?

If it's behavior that is causing the increased calorie intake (weight gain) then what is driving the behavior?

The fact is that all our thoughts, desires and actions are controlled by hormones and neural circuits.

Saying that it's "greed" or "laziness" that is causing the increased calorie intake totally disregards the complex physiological processes that control our behavior and how the foods we eat can directly affect these processes.


Different Foods Affect Our Hormones in Different Ways

Fructose
Fructose, when it enters the liver from the digestive tract, can be turned into glucose and stored as glycogen.

But if the liver is full of glycogen, it can be turned into fat... which is then shipped out or lodges in the liver.

Consumed in excess, it can cause insulin resistance, which raises insulin levels all over the body. Insulin drives fat gain.

Fructose also doesn't get registered in the same way as glucose and doesn't impact satiety in the same way. Fructose doesn't lower the hunger hormone ghrelin.

So... a 100 calories of fructose may increase your insulin over the long term, lead to higher ghrelin levels and increased appetite.

Protein
Then you have a 100 calories of protein.

About 30% of the calories in the protein will be spent on digesting it, because the metabolic pathway requires energy.

Protein may also increase levels of fullness and boost the metabolic rate.

This increased protein may even be used to build muscles, which are metabolically active tissues that burn calories around the clock.

Clearly... a 100 calories of fructose will have completely different effects on the body than a 100 calories of quality protein. A calorie is NOT a calorie.

In this way, the fructose will drive increased energy intake compared to the protein, via its effects on hormones, body and brain.

Drinking a can of soda every day for 5 years will have a vastly different effect on the body and long-term energy balance, compared to eating the same calories from eggs.

Some people say that "any" food can be harmful in excess. Well... I disagree. Try eating broc**** in excess, or eggs. You will feel full very quickly and not want to take another bite.

Compare that to a food like ice cream, which is very easy to consume large amounts of.

Cliffs, TLDR

Take Home Message
Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of "calories in, calories out" is not as simple as it seems, but definitely a good starting point for the average individual.

It is an oversimplification that doesn't account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones.

calories in v calories out is like making changes with a sledgehammer, whereas monitoring it beyond that point is like using a fine chisel. If you overcomplicate it people get discouraged, unless they get really into it, then they may look into fine tuning things.

But what if I'm an ectomorph?

Most people are dim and require gross oversimplifications.

I must be the only one who agrees with OP, and I am talking from my own experiences.

EDIT: after reading responses, not sure what OP's take home message is here, so this is just me talking:

1500 calories of chit food is not as good as 1500 calories of clean, nutrient dense foods. Your body will react/process/absorb it all differently. For someone just trying to lose pounds, IIFYM works, and yes its basic match....calories in vs. calories out.

However for someone seeking to actually improve their performance, strength and sculpt a physique it is not that simple. 90% of people trying to lose weight however have no interest in researching and learning about these types of things though, so IIFYM is a way to dumb it down.

I'm a big supporter of flexible dieting, but I don't believe in teaching IIFYM to beginners or people who have a lot of weight to lose. They will take the " It's ok to have a piece of pizza today since it fits your macros" and eventually it can get to eating a whole pizza that day. IIFYM works assuming adherence to it, and knowledge of how your own body responds to certain foods.

Cals in vs out is all that matters for bodyweight. Body composition is another issue. Nobody disputed that.

Didn't read, just tell me how to get huge

This really sums it up. On recharge RN.

"metabolic pathways" just sounds like bro-science to me

This is exactly what he is doing, and it enables fat people like InstantLoser to come up with excuses for why they cant stick to their diets.

Correct

when people say cals in cals out there is a basic understanding that it's not just a free for all though. op is intentionally creating a false dilemma to appear more profound

Well I for one found it an interesting read. Thx op, learned something new.

If CICO and what op preaches is so simple, then why does almost everyone still look like chit (misc standards)?

Everyone already knows that its an over simplification. The thing is people need to keep things simple to lose weight.

It works when your body responds normally to it. But many people have ate themselves into a different state...particularly insulin resistance. That's why whenever I'm helping a friend lose weight, or I'm coming off of a bulk myself, the first thing I address is the insulin. Once that's back to "normal" levels we can pick back up with calories in/calories out.

Cliffs
- The math isn't always as simple as it is for some

It may be a gross oversimplification, but the average overweight american can not even understand basic nutrition such as that chugging 20 “diet” sodas a day is terrible, so simplified methods are probably the best to preach.

agreed it's definitely cico for fat LOSS

definitely not the be all end all for fat gain.

I've been eating like s-it past 3 weeks, with several 4-7k binge days, and the math says I should put on a few pounds - I put on far less than expected.

And two summers ago, I ate like crap all day every day with my ex, didn't move much at all, and I got chubby in three months - if it were cals in v cals out, I'd get fat, not chubby.

Good cliffs, that is where I'm trying to go with this. For most people here, keep on with CICO but with larger individuals...it's more complicated and you need to address body composition while losing fat (not losing weight.)

Nobody wants to lose weight or gain weight. They want to lose fat while retaining muscle and they want to gain weight while minimizing fat gain. It's still a simply way of saying things, but nobody wants to lose weight...that would include muscle loss and who wants that. Not even obese people.

IIFYM has some self corrections within it...IF you are actually tracking your macros in detail and not just eyeballing it and playing a guessing game. I tracked every single thing I ingested for 3 months...religiously. One thing I learned in a hurry was how much a little junk food really screwed up my entire day of macros. It seemed like "just" 1 or 2 IPA's made it nearly impossible to meet my macros for the day...it came with a real cost.

Going back to your example, pizza was definitely one of those things that I had no clue did so much damage to my macros. Before I tracked everything I'd have about 4-6 slices on Friday nights. It was pizza and movie night with my wife. Ever since I tracked it I now know I can only have a slice or two, or I have to make major adjustments to everything I eat that day leading up to the pizza. I've done fasting with just protein shakes sometimes, because I've got virtually no other way to meet my protein macro before hitting my calorie ceiling if I'm eating 4-6 pieces. Its simply not possible on a cut/maintain calorie range for me.

For the vast majority of people they don't need to get any more complicated than thatfor losing weight. These people get bogged down in the fine detail for the last x% or use it as an excuse as to why they are fat.

Some brah on here ate ice cream for months and months and lost weight.

This. You will lose weight, but you wont necessarily be "healthy." It's all about moderation. Letting people squeeze in some guilty pleasures, yet still sticking within a "budget" of calories will keep them consistent, actually keep the weight off long term, and will actually teach them to manage their intake. People can only eat Chicken/Rice/Broc**** for so long before they get mentally exhausted and give up. That one cookie, or double cheeseburger is NOT going to kill you or make you gain back all 20 pounds.
All of the above. Everyone knows it's an oversimplification, but a majority of people need that to understand the big picture.

What's next, man lands on moon?

Lincoln shot in ford's theater?

Water is wet?

Poocy smells like fish?

It's lower than you think?

Cliffs:


OP thinks he's Matt Damon, really he's the long-hair.

Sometimes things make your metabolism slower, and you burn less calories

Sometimes things speed it up, and you burn more calories

Doesn't change the fact that calories in - calories out is still how you lose/gain weight

You can lose weight on a diet of candy. The chit has been done. Is it healthy? Of course not, but calories in/out isn't a health discussion, it is a weight discussion, and we all know those are two different topics.