The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Has "calories in / calories out" been DEBUNKED?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 18th, 2022 7:27 PM Author: exhilarant doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652660) |
Date: December 18th, 2022 7:50 PM Author: green laughsome trailer park it's been rebunked (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652751) |
 |
Date: December 21st, 2022 5:00 PM Author: Mauve Apoplectic Kitty Cat Locale (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45670428) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 7:58 PM Author: Soul-stirring electric furnace it's entirely correct. the caveat is that 2 foods of the same calories may not fill you up in the same way and satisfy u. so it's not just calories -- it's eating nutritious food that is calorie efficient. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652779) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:35 PM Author: Red Kitchen /thread unfortunately you'll get ppl here who will disagree with you and blame it solely on seed oils or something retarded
|
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:43 PM Author: Soul-stirring electric furnace Seed oils and other bad shit may have bad health consequences but thread is simply about weight gain or loss (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652948) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:47 PM Author: Red Kitchen the nutritional literature over-fucking-whelmingly confirms the health-promoting benefits of vegetable oils when consumed in place of saturated fat and/or refined carbs. E.g., cooking and baking with olive oil/canola oil instead of butter. However, what people here do is equate these oils with the ultra processed food that often contains the oils. Those are two different things. The "seed oil" in the Oreo isn't what's making you fat. It's the Oreo that's making you fat. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:21 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National Oh come on, man. While I generally agree with your statements about some vegetable/seed oils, the highly processed fats found in industrialized baked goods like Oreos are uniquely bad for you.
Until about 10 years ago, almost all the fats found in Oreos were partially hydrogenated, producing trans fats (which could be labeled as unsaturated fats even though they behaved like saturated fats) via trans-cis isomerism. Since trans fats have been banned, industrial food-oil producers have turned to fat interestification to create triglycerides that would not be found in the sources the oils are derived from. Early looks at interestified fats seem to show they seem to promote inflammation and adipose tissue growth.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30813339/ |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:26 PM Author: Red Kitchen ctrl + f "mice" shut the fuck up show me HUMAN OUTCOME DATA that demonstrates "seed oils" are bad for you EVERYTHING with human outcome data demonstrates they're health-promoting when consumed in isolation (not wrapped up on junk food) when replacing saturated fat |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:30 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National It’s about interestified food oils, not “vegetable oils” Why don’t you walk me through how you think food studies in humans work. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:32 PM Author: Red Kitchen I don;t know, but that you think a fucking mouse study is more probative tells me you dont know what the fuck youre talking about (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653191) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:29 PM Author: Red Kitchen seed oils aren't "inflammatory" in humans, retard https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/3/136/htm https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405457720302047 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050683/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5587404/ |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:46 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National Holy shit you are dumb. I don’t know why I’m even bothering to engage with you when you clearly don’t have the capacity to get it. I said I generally agreed with your “seed oil” points. I just pointed out that Oreos were made with trans-fats (previously) and fully hydrogenated / interestified fats today.
Why don’t you go eat a tub of 1990s margarine if you love unsaturated vegetable oils so much. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:49 PM Author: Red Kitchen You brought up a retarded mouse study to argue that vegetable oils are “possibly” inflammatory in humans You also argued that ten years ago some vegetable oils were partially hydrogenated I rightly pointed out that you’re a retard |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 10:00 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National So let me get this straight. I point out that industrial food oils are completely unnatural interestified fats and provided a study that shows they may be harmful. Then you took that to mean that all vegetable oils are interestified? And you think that the other person, not you, is the retarded party, despite all the evidence you’ve provided in this thread. Is that correct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653300) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 2:40 PM Author: Red Kitchen unnatural tho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45656831) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 10:04 PM Author: White disrespectful macaca cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653325) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:47 PM Author: Internet-worthy factory reset button organic girlfriend They're so dumb. "But I'm different! The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to me!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653235) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:01 PM Author: Brindle Clown Property Pure calories in calories out has been debunked yes. For example, studies show a high carb diet will cause weight gain over a low carb diet even if the diets have the same caloric value. Anyone who doesn’t realize this intuitively also is a little dim imo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652790) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:02 PM Author: unholy pale ceo step-uncle's house absolutely all nutritional studies are total horseshit, carbs probably just made people lazier (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652794) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:06 PM Author: Brindle Clown Property Lol that’s real retarded sir (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652808) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:06 PM Author: unholy pale ceo step-uncle's house oh I'm sure when they asked guys who eat 3 donuts and 4 loaves of bread a day how active they are they were 100% honest (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652809) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:07 PM Author: Brindle Clown Property Wtf you are talking about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652813) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:08 PM Author: unholy pale ceo step-uncle's house nutritional studies tracking calories in/out are based on self reported levels of intake and activity, which is why they are entirely flame, they aren't hooking fat guys up to electrodes for months on end you enormous retard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652817) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:10 PM Author: Brindle Clown Property Nah I’m referring to a controlled trial where there were 3 groups. Low carb, medium carb, high carb. The diets were pre assigned and tracked. Obviously I’m not referring to some “study” conducted by a questionnaire.
But seriously you think eating 3k calories of refined carbs will have the same metabolic impact of eating 3k calories of steak? If so you have a lot of learning to do. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:12 PM Author: unholy pale ceo step-uncle's house well different metabolic impact just means fewer calories out, moron, I never said eating pure sugar was good for you, just that it comes down to the same thing at the end of the day
also those trials are also just people saying what they did |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:16 PM Author: Brindle Clown Property 1. It doesn’t mean that as the term is used, otherwise it would be a useless term. 2. No they aren’t, as I just explained. Controlled trials where subjects were fed different diets assigned to them.
The study shows the impact on weight gain that different diets have even if the calories are the exact same. This means that determining whether a diet is advantageous based purely on its caloric content is faulty. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:17 PM Author: unholy pale ceo step-uncle's house calories in is what you're discussing
calories out is a separate matter that you are entirely ignoring, yes a diet of pure bread is going to make you fatter, because your fat ass won't burn as many calories for a variety of reasons, one being that you only eat bread |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:25 PM Author: Brindle Clown Property That could be an aspect of it (increasing metabolism I guess) but another aspect I think is more significant is that heavy carb intake leads to higher weight gain because of how it is processed by the body and how it can contribute to insulin resistance. The fact is high carb diets have excess calories that are not nutritious and not used by the body and have to be stored as fat.
I believe the calories in calories out meme is those trying to say eating whatever you want is fine so long as you track the calories, which has been disproven I’d say in terms of weight gain and body composition |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:26 PM Author: unholy pale ceo step-uncle's house I agree that how it is processed has an effect, but at the end of the day if you go out and burn a calorie you burned a goddamed calorie and there's no getting around that, your body doesn't have magic reserves of extra secret carb calories that will never be used
the confounding factors are what makes it seem this way to you |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:43 PM Author: Fluffy goal in life By “disproven” I assume you mean that most people who use that dietary approach as a means of losing significant weight eventually fail. But that’s true of all diets because most people can’t do anything consistently for long term benefits. That’s why median retirement savings are a joke, and most people in the US are overweight and prediabetic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652953) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:53 PM Author: Red Kitchen didn't know people still believed Gary Taubes in 2022 lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653007) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:03 PM Author: submissive ultramarine mood I'm hyper-intelligent and hyper-neurotic so my brain demolishes glucose all day every day (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652797) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:12 PM Author: vivacious hyperactive locus weed whacker Curious how "caloric value" is measured. If I eat 2000 calories of carrots, I assume I will gain less weight than if I eat 2000 calories of sugar cookies, simply because carrots take more energy to break down.
I wonder if any studies have compared "pure CICO" with "linear net CICO", as distinct from "nonlinear" claims of complex dietary interactions. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:36 PM Author: Red Kitchen what the guy above said is utterly retarded Gary Taubes hocus pocus horseshit the nutritional literature absolutely supports the energy balance hypothesis |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:35 PM Author: Red Kitchen this is absolutely false (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652926) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:41 PM Author: Red Kitchen not what the studies show actually, dumbass https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29466592/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479499/ |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 10:06 PM Author: White disrespectful macaca (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653335) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 3:10 PM Author: trip soggy heaven incel "a high carb diet" is the "in," not the "out."
If you're not addressing both, you're failing. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:19 PM Author: 180 Lodge It's not about CICO per se, it's about how CICO bros totally ignore things like what carbs/sugar do to one's blood glucose levels versus fat. Discuss. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652866) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:23 PM Author: Fluffy goal in life It’s still largely correct, but the caveat is that it may be substantially easier to limit calories on certain types of diets. For me, that’s low carb. I lost 40 lbs without counting any calories. But the thing that let me build mass but also get a six pack was calorie counting. It’s super effective if you are hyper focused on nutrition and can stick to your targets. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652886) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:24 PM Author: unholy pale ceo step-uncle's house this combined with shit diets almost always resulting in less activity and caloric burn (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652891) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:30 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National As a broad approximation CICO is correct, but it ignores things like the thermic effect of food, insulin response, meal timing, and the impact of a whole slew of other hormones on body composition.
CICO will keep you in a normal BMI, but you’ll never really get cut with it unless you get lucky |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:35 PM Author: Fluffy goal in life I actually disagree with the cutting thing. It’s way easier to get cut if you know you are running a consistent and reasonable caloric deficit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652924) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:48 PM Author: Red Kitchen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652982) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:50 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National I’m using “cut” here to refer to shedding body fat and water to promote high muscle definition, not simply losing weight (e.g. cutting to make weight for wrestling). You will definitely lose weight running a caloric deficit, but your body composition at the end of your diet will be highly impacted by your level of activity, the macronutrient profile of what you eat, the hormonal responses the food creates, and the timing of when you eat it (such as keeping blood sugar and insulin levels low when liponeogenesis most commonly occurs). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45652995) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:51 PM Author: Red Kitchen sounds like hocus pocus mechanistic BS body builders definitely count calories and eat a ton of protein. Eat a high protein diet that's calorically deficient. That's how you cut. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:03 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National It’s not hocus-pocus; it’s very basic nutrition science that every successful bodybuilder is familiar with. A former Mr. Olympia competitor is who originally taught me about it.
And anyways, isn’t your second statement exactly what I was saying (just dumber and less informed) and completely at odds with your “CICO is entirely correct” absolutism above? If it was CICO-only, why would eating a ton of protein matter? |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:07 PM Author: Red Kitchen you lose less muscle mass (vs fat mass) when you prioritize protein consumption in a caloric deficit. Has nothing to do with CICO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653088) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:28 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National So let me get this straight. You are saying: (1) I am an idiot for saying, among other things, that what you eat impacts your body composition and an equal amount of calories in two different foods result in different outcomes, and (2) what you eat impacts your body composition and an equal amount of calories in two different foods will result in different outcomes. Also, CICO is absolutely the only thing that matters, but also CICO has nothing to do with it.
Do I have that correct? |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:32 PM Author: Red Kitchen if by "different outcomes" you mean different weight, then yes you're a retard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653187) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:42 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National So you think that if suddenly started eating only 1500 calories daily, all in pure fat, I would lose exactly the same amount of weight as if I ate 1500 calories consisting entirely of carbs, and the same as if I ate 1500 calories only if protein? I would just lose different types of tissues, but an equal weight in all cases? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653219) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:44 PM Author: Red Kitchen yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653225) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:45 PM Author: Red Kitchen look up Kevin Hall, PhD. He literally tests this kind of shit in a metabolic ward setting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653229) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 10:02 PM Author: Judgmental Yarmulke National I looked through his select publications and this is the only one that looked remotely related to what we were talking about: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26278052/ Unfortunately is doesn’t have anything to say in the abstract about non-adipose tissue loss.
This comment on another person’s paper may have also addressed some of it, but it’s paywalled and I can’t read it. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2686143 |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 9:01 PM Author: Thirsty Goyim You're correct and the poasters you're replying to don't understand how insulin works, or how the body uses macronutrients differently (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45658963) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 9:05 PM Author: Red Kitchen nope, retard https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26278052/ |
|
Date: December 20th, 2022 7:08 AM Author: Thirsty Goyim No fucking shit caloric restriction is necessary -- but you should also precisely breakdown which macros you need so you don't ruin insulin sensitivity or underfeed protein and lose muscle mass. Furthermore, some macro ratios are much better for fat loss, retard.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699189/ |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:56 PM Author: Thirsty Goyim (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653024) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 8:57 PM Author: Thirsty Goyim (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653025) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 9:17 PM Author: glassy harsh milk I feel like OP wanted a lazy 100 poast thread in his 'by you'. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653131) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 3:48 PM Author: exhilarant doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45657263) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 11:03 PM Author: Aqua House-broken Tanning Salon Faggot Firefighter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45653661) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2022 11:03 PM Author: Aqua House-broken Tanning Salon Faggot Firefighter The calories in, calories out argument is pretty stupid.
Yeah, obviously the more of something you eat, the more calories you consume, the more likely you are to gain weight.
But it should be even more obvious that it can't *only* be calories in calories out. It should be evident to even a 5 year old that your body isn't going to process eating ice cream every day vs gorging yourself in one sitting, or drinking sugar water vs celery, in the same way. Plus, everyone shits and everyone shits differently. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 2:37 PM Author: Gold Church Building i debunked the fuck out of this when I pointed out that you shit out corn kernels. That shit was NOT metabolized at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45656807) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 3:13 PM Author: trip soggy heaven incel Sounds like it was never "in." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45657021) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 3:18 PM Author: crusty ivory market private investor Calories in should be treated as an upper bound. So if your total intake is under your maintenance you will necessarily lose weight. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45657057) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 3:48 PM Author: Gold Church Building seems right. i genuinely dont believe that if i sat and ate a 10,000 calorie cake right now that my body would digest and metabolize the whole thing. I think it would be like lol bro that was a lot of sugar and pass it through and id poop it out |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 4:20 PM Author: crusty ivory market private investor cr
100 calories of celery vs 100 calories of cane sugar will obviously be digested differently and have different net caloric effects, but either way you can absorb at most 100 calories from each. So if you eat say 1500 calories per day you will lose weight, even though you can lose more depending on the foods that make up that 1500 |
|
Date: December 21st, 2022 4:27 PM Author: Thirsty Goyim This is because corn is highly bio-unavailable, due to how dense the cellulose is.
"100 calories" of corn will not be metabolized the same as 100 calories of sweet potatoes, despite both being complex carbs, due to bioavailability. Moreover, 100 calories of simple carbs will not be digested the same as 100 calories of fats; depending on insulin levels at time of consuming either, you will have radically different rates of metabolism (or fat storage).
Running a caloric deficit is a necessary but insufficient condition for optimal fat loss. |
|
Date: December 21st, 2022 4:29 PM Author: Red Kitchen I've read nuts like almonds aren't very calorically bio-available or whatever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45670268) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2022 4:38 PM Author: crusty ivory market private investor See above. If fatties would treat CI as an upper bound then they would lose weight. Instead they hand wave about how foods are digested and "hormones". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45670305) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 2:41 PM Author: Nighttime talented nursing home immigrant Yeah just make sure to avoid going into starvation mode too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45656834) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2022 3:14 PM Author: Impertinent stag film associate thermodynamics has been debunked!
of course it's not so simple as "calories in, calories out" as different calories are processed differently by different people. but it is physically impossible to run at a caloric deficit and gain weight. |
|
Date: December 21st, 2022 5:17 PM Author: blue supple cumskin digit ratio "Caloric deficit" isnt a thermodynamic concept. All that matters is conservation of mass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45670525) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2022 5:09 PM Author: blue supple cumskin digit ratio Technically, all that matters is mass in and mass out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45670473) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2022 5:29 PM Author: Rough-skinned son of senegal ape disco fries strangely absent from this thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#45670576) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2025 12:19 PM Author: toll job (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2Reputation#49073942) |