I'm a fairly big believer in the CICO (calories in calories out) philosophy. It has worked for me. However, I believe that it's more complicated than that. I am not into science (my worst subject), but I do know what works for me.
I was explaining this to my friends the other day, while at Apple Bees, enjoying my Spike Day. Think of it like this... In simple terms that even a 7 year old can comprehend.
Compare how your body deals with 2000 calories of pastries vs 2000 calories of lean poultry. If you were able to somehow calibrate your weight from one day of each, you will lose weight with the poultry, but you could very well gain weight with the pastries. Of course, with the poultry most of the weight loss will be water, but not all of it.
The healthier the food, the better your body utilizes the calories. This is an extreme case, but you get the idea.
I have done quite a bit of experimentation on macronutrients, comparing the effects of fat, protein, and carbs on my craving levels. That is my main concern. Satiety can make or break my plans. Truth be told, if I could eat only cream filled donuts for my daily calories, I would do it, but that would be neither good for my body NOR for my nerves.
There are differences of opinions on either side of this debate. I won't go there. I really, mainly know how this affects me. I'm the one that must live in my skin. This is not my livelihood. Glean what you can from my ramblings, toss the rest. We are all so different.
And then there are are people like my hubby. He loses weight so easily (24 hour flu) and it takes him a week or two to gain back his weight. It frustrates him.
Science does NOT have this all figured out. I hope that more diet researchers would delve into this. Why is that there are so many diets out in the media, while maintenance is sorely, sickeningly, lacking? Maybe the bottom line is that maintenance does NOT bring in money. What would Weight Watchers or Zeal zealots do if their plans truly worked? Good question.
