• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Calories in vs. Calories out is apparently scientific fact!

pdmjoker

Well-Known Member
Messages
426
Type of diabetes
Prediabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
According to this page it is: https://www.precisionnutrition.com/calories-in-calories-out

I quote:

CICO is an easy way of saying:
  • When you take in more energy than you burn, you gain weight.
  • When you take in less energy than you burn, you lose weight.
This is a fundamental concept in body weight regulation, and about as close to scientific fact as we can get.​
---
Oddly, this page doesn't mention the action of a fat storage hormone called Insulin. People with untreated Type 1 Diabetes have low levels of Insulin and lose weight readily even if their calorie intake is the same. (Conversely, people with Insulin Resistance have high insulin levels and find it v hard to lose weight. I gather Low Carb improves IR and therefore enables weight loss. Fewer carbs also means less insulin.)

In conclusion,

A Calorie isn't a Calorie
and
Weight loss isn't all about Calories in vs. Calories out!​

I believe those really are facts!
 
I can’t believe I am about to apparently defend cico here but if you read carefully I’m actually not.

I think in a laboratory test tube the theory is fine. Burning a unit of food (a calorie) produces x amount of energy but we are multisystemic, hormonal, variable human beings not test tubes.


Those type 1 you refer to lose weight and those type 2 that gain it are not “burning” the food/energy that is “taken in” due to insulin issues.

The type 1 (unmedicated) not matter how much they eat cannot burn the glucose due to lack of insulin so it is the same as not taking it in and therefore weight lost.

The type 2 also cannot burn the intake but for them the excess of insulin stores it therefore they gain weight.

So if in fact you can access equally all food and utilise all food then cico probably has a fair bit of truth to it. The assumptions made that all food calories are accessible energy is the fault in the theory imo.
 
Out of curiosity I have a question for Type 1's who have been through that stage before diagnosis where they are losing weight....
Did you eat more trying to maintain your weight or did you lose your appetite and find that you didn't want to eat as much as usual?
 
I read completely. The author couched everything with CICO still applies no matter what the protocol etc. It occurred to me that he could have replaced CICO with "the sun comes up everyday", this would have worked just as well.

Why I feel it matters that the author's view should be discarded is for 3 reasons. The first is that in my view science should be absolute and repeatable. I would say 1 add 1 is scientific fact, this statement I do not feel is acceptable:

"This is a fundamental concept in body weight regulation, and about as close to scientific fact as we can get."

Imagine if we relied on "we think the air plane engine is ok to run multiple times at 80%".

My second point is that the author cited many of the ways / factors that determine weight loss outside of CICO, I think at that point he self defeats his own argument.

My third point is that "weight loss" can be misleading due to body composition changes, particularly on higher protein regimes, where maybe fat loss, bone density and muscle mass should be focused on
 
So.... the 6 cherries I ate last evening (5.6 net carbs / 26 calories) which raised my BG from 6.1 to 11.2 within half an hour, would make me fatter than 6 slices of streaky bacon (Zero carbs / 270 calories)? I know which one was more satisfying!

I am trying so hard to grasp this concept! Think a blood glucose meter and time researching personal reactions to food is worth it's weigh in gold!
 
I lost weight rapidly before my diagnosis. It was masked by Christmas, so was eating in excess anyway. It wasn’t until I took a good look at myself that I realised how gaunt and underweight I was. 6 years on I am still about a stone under where I ever was throughout the whole of my adult life. Always a size 16, now a size 10. I get weighed every week and as soon as I see myself creeping up I eat less and move more. It does wonders and puts me back to that nice low weight the following week. I am not ultra low carb but am sensible. I don’t eat like I did prediagnosis at all. But am leaner and fitter and don’t believe insulin is the issue for me. Just the amount I put in my mouth.
 
CICO is fact, but it's only a worthwhile concept if you're a steam engine. If you're a human, with an unimaginably complex, hormonally controlled energy distribution and storage system...not so much.
 
I'll try to explain better: The point I was making is that saying weight loss ONLY depends on Calories In vs Calories Out is untrue. I didn't say calorie consumption was immaterial.
What a person eats PLUS the way their body responds to it is much closer to the truth.

We are told fat has a much higher calorific value than carbs, but carbs cause insulin to be produced. Insulin plays a role in regulation of fat storage. Lowering insulin significantly by eating fewer carbs changes the way the body responds to calories. Hence Low Carb High Fat can be v effective for weight loss although the oversimplified "Calories In vs Calories Out" model doesn't allow for this. I hope that helps...
 

Yes, I'm totally on the same hymn sheet as you. It's mind blowing after years of being brainwashed and being told it's 'my fault' for not being able to lose weight, or losing weight then putting the whole lot back on and more! I must have the will power of gnat not be able to successfully diet. I've had half a century of this 'lie' - think I've lost about 2 tons over that time.

Pleased we've now got the internet and can communicate widely. Plus, blood glucose meters are now easily accessible.
 
Ate loads! I was stuffing myself and thinking running around after 2 horses must be using up a HUGE amount of energy. It was summer and hot so I was drinking cans of pop too (which I don't normally do). Oddly thirsty, but hey it was 28 degrees
 
Just a hypothetical question. I've just eaten about 150g of streaky bacon and you'd not be surprised to find it made no impact on my BG because it doesn't have any carbs.

So in theory, I could live on streaky bacon and no matter how many calories I consumed eating the rashers, insulin wouldn't be triggered. If no insulin is triggered then no weight gain? Streaky bacon is more or less one part protein to two parts fat.
 
I think the overarching story of CICO is that a properly functioning endocrine system automatically balances energy input and basal expenditure in order to maintain homeostasis. The notion that humans need a slide rule and spreadsheet in order to stay lean is born from decades of upsetting that fine balance by way of eating artificial food.
 

No. Dietary fat can be stored as body fat without a requirement for insulin. Insulin is needed to make fat from glucose derived from dietary carbohydrate, unused amino acids (protein) or both. But...your appetite is far more likely to prevent you overeating the fat and protein than it would carbohydrate.
 
No insulin is triggered but fat can still be stored directly in cells. It should cause the release of leptin a hormone which tells you to stop eating.
 

Hi there, I was eating absolutely normally with maybe slightly more because of going on a holiday. When I got back from the holiday I had lost weight and thought well that's strange because I would have expected to put on a pound or two. My appetite remained the same though. x
 

Mr_Pot said:
No insulin is triggered but fat can still be stored directly in cells. It should cause the release of leptin a hormone which tells you to stop eating.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I guess I should have thought of dietary fat filling up fat cell, my thoughts were on insulin being the only hormone doing this job.

God bless Leptin!

Thank you for your replies....

https://www.dietdoctor.com/eating-e...tary fat, on the other,fat cells to be stored.
 

My late father developed diabetes as a result of high doses of IV steroid, administered weekly, for the condition that walked him to life's exit. In those days his condition was never defined, except as Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes.

In he rapid preamble to diagnosis, he ate, and drank, constantly. My mother couldn't keep up with his hunger and he was also drinking full sugar fizzy drinks. He had never previously shown any interest in fizzy drinks, and it was none of that "Diet" malarkey. The real McCoy or nothing thanks.

He was never a big man, but never quite managed to regain the weigh the lost over the balance of his lifetime.
 

Have you not heard of this guy?

https://www.carnivorecast.com/podcast/baconexperiment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…