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.

Fuk u

but calories in, calories out works, nvm read your sig you're a fresh PT.

That's funny op because 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
"Too Many Calories" Doesn't Tell us 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 completely wrong.

It is a drastic 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.

man lands on nameks moon.

well clearly not since lots of morono-miscers preaching calories in calories out here

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...hp?t=175742521

LOL holy fuk the autism is off the charts with this one. and you actually train people? jesus christ smh

somewhat agreed

a calorie is a calorie yes but the quality of it is important

if you're on a diet you'll feel like **** eating pure 2,000 calories of pizza

because most likely thats only a few slices and won't keep you full/energized

whereas you eat 2,000 calories of brocc/chicken/rice you'll be very energized, satiated, full etc

but you can always balance both, at the end of the day if you don't eat more than your body burns you lose weight, vice versa

You wrote a big wall of text that I skimmed through and basically rambled on how digestion works and how some foods digest better than others can I get a Doctorate too brah?

wall of text in; wall of text out

Only an autist would make a comment without providing a sentence to refute my claims.

The Thermic Effect of Food
Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.

Some of these pathways are more efficient than others.

The more efficient a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food’s energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.

The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.

Protein contains 4 calories per gram, but a large part of these protein calories is lost as heat when it’s metabolized by the body.

The thermic effect of food is a measure of how much different foods increase energy expenditure, due to the energy required to digest, absorb and metabolize the nutrients.

Here is the thermic effect of the different macronutrientshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174324:

Fat: 2–3%
Carbs: 6–8%
Protein: 25–30%
Sources vary on the exact numbers, but it’s clear that protein requires much more energy to metabolize than fat and carbshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888

If you go with a thermic effect of 25% for protein and 2% for fat, this would mean that 100 calories of protein would end up as 75 calories, while 100 calories of fat would end up as 98 calories.

Studies show that high-protein diets boost metabolism by 80–100 calories per day, compared to lower-protein diets.

Put simply, high-protein diets have a metabolic advantage.

the body can get only so much energy from a certain amount of molecule X, and if it can it will. it's really that simple. the energy output is a function of mainly weight, age, physical activity and body composition. whatever effect the psychological and physiological aspect of different foods on the output is minimal.
proof:
youtube dot com/watch?v=mTABw0EyIWY

EDIT: the efficiency differences between the different pathways are 30% at most, probably less than 20%. also obviously for building muscle and being healthy you have to get all your fats, proteins and micro nutrients in, but for just losing weight you could eat pizza at a deficit and still lose fat roughly at the rate of a kg of fat per 8000cals of food, and it won't be different than eating fruits or steaks or whatever at the same deficit level. obviously different foods also have different effects on appetite but if you want to cut you should be counting cals anyway.

TLDR: so it’s calories in vs calories out but keep your proteins/fats and cut out the excess carbs you don’t need?

Edit: strong reps to post count correlation for me.

lol'd. repped.

Damn good catch bro, forgot he was talking about calories in, calories out. Will give you a brojob after our leg sesh today nomsayin.

Taking a look at Fructose vs Glucose
The two main simple sugars in your diet are glucose and fructose.

Gram for gram, the two provide the same number of calories.

But the way they are metabolized in the body is completely differenthttps://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...02822310006449

Glucose can be metabolized by all of your body's tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amounthttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17921361

Here are a few examples of why glucose calories are not the same as fructose calories:

1Ghrelin is the hunger hormone. It goes up when you’re hungry and down after you've eaten. One study showed that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels — that is more hunger — than glucosehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085.

2Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in your brain in the same way as glucose, leading to a reduced feeling of fullnesshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085

3Consuming a lot of fructose can cause insulin resistance, abdominal fat gain, increased triglycerides, blood sugar and small, dense LDL compared to the exact same number of calories from glucose

As you can see: the same number of calories — vastly different effects on hunger, hormones and metabolic health.

that's irrelevant to op's rant m8, he buys into the whole " muh insulin" bull chit because of the science without taking a step back to realize that we honestly don't know jack chit about how our body uses different foods and their affects on hormones apart from a very very very basic sense. Ghrelin was discovered not even 20years ago, let that sink in for how little is understood.

To make the blanket statement that "CICO is oversimplified chit" is hilarious coming from someone who has a degree on the subject because no chit it's oversimplified, but no one has any better science or proof that you can avoid significant fat gain/loss by manipulating your insulin levels through diet.

oh

well i skimread and did not read for the most part

lmao

honestly think it's tedious to even think about **** like that

just relax, eat your chit and get through your day tbh

Did not read a singe word.

Calories in calories out works. Period. Basic physiology.

Saying otherwise is a cope for fats.

Trust me, I use iifym for my clients b/c calories in vs. calories out is a simple way to explain it to somebody. Just getting them to track and actually see wtf they are eating is the biggest goal I have in my first month with a client.

But I've had clients with conditions like hypothyroidism and so it does get a bit more complicated and why I try to read more into the calories in vs calories out debate.

It's the area that I need to learn much more in. I didn't go to school for nutrition and don't feel like wasting 4 years to become a registered dietitian so the research is all i got to learn.





it’s true that all calories have the same amount of energy. One dietary calorie contains 4,184 Joules of energy. In that respect, a calorie is a calorie.

But when it comes to your body, things are not that simple. The human body is a highly complex biochemical system with elaborate processes that regulate energy balance.

Different foods go through different biochemical pathways, some of which are inefficient and cause energy (calories) to be lost as heat (1).

Even more important is the fact that different foods and macronutrients have a major effect on the hormones and brain centers that control hunger and eating behavior.

The foods you eat can have a huge impact on the biological processes that control when, what and how much you eat.

No it's not. "Calories In, Calories Out" is not an over-simplification of anything, it's exactly what people say it is. It is (effectively) the sole determinant of weight balance. No one says it's the be-all and end-all of dieting.No one ever says that. I respect the effort you put in to the thread but I don't get how you came to the conclusion that is the title was somehow necessary or relevant.

the calories in calories out theory doesn't say anything about hunger levels. it's for a given caloric input, so you're not debunking that aspect.
about the efficiencies of the pathways, can you prove the differences aren't negligible? if it's like 2% or something like that, CICO is a good enough approximation that it doesn't really matter

Common sense response here. Actually going out of your way to try and analyse minutepotentialdifferences in this kind of thing, which probably won't actually make any difference to results, is stupid af IMO.

I may have been a bit extreme in my word choice.

Depends on the person. I only brought this up as I have a client with hypothyroidism so it's a bit more complicated than calories in vs. calories out for her.

Obviously, new research constantly being published so I'm sure my views on many things will change but I try to stay up to date so I don't spew bull****.

No op


It’s cal in, cal out for everyone, including your hypothyroid client


Stop acting like you are discovering something revolutionary

no one, at least someone who actually lifts or kinda, has ever preached that a calorie in and out is the end all be all. it is always followed by macros/micronutrients and meals/day. stop trying to show off your newfound knowledge ******* ass bitch suck my ass