Is CICO valid? Order of energy sources, storing fat, calorie deficit and surplus?

Nutrition Q&A [Moderated]
1

Hello BBM and thanks for making me feel ignorant about things,

To my understanding, the ease with which macronutrients are stored as bodyfat follows the order of 1) Fat 2) Carbs and Protein (I’m guessing it’s Carbs before Protein and that Protein shoudn’t even be on this list),

and the order in which the body prefers to consume energy from macros is 1) Carbs 2) Fat and Protein

…and Protein being last in line for sources of chemical energy that are stored as bodyfat, is, as I implied, a mere formality, since it’s virtually impossible for the body to store excess energy from protein as fat, since the energy cost of conversion outweighs that which is left after.

Is the Calories In Calories Out model therefore bunk?

Like, if Johnny’s calorie need for maintaining bodyweight is 3000kcal, and he eats that, I’m guessing that he’d maintain weight.
If he eats 3500kcal however, will he store ca 500kcal worth of fat, or will it depend entirely on his macros? If he eats 1000kcal worth of fat and 1000kcal worth of carbs, and the rest from protein, will his body use the fat and carbs as energy first, then 1000kcal from protein, and then just convert the excess 500kcal from protein to heat? What if he instead eats OVER 3000kcal worth of fat and/or carbs, is it only then that he will begin to store fat?

So, is it the case that:
Eating below / equal to maintenance calories from fat and carbs, while total calories are equal to / above maintenance (the rest from protein) … results in bodyweight maintenance?
Eating below maintenance calories from fat and carbs, while total calories also remain below equal … results in weight loss?

I mean, it seems as if the only way to gain bodyfat is to eat above one’s maintenance level of calories FROM fat (and maybe carbs), and as if the only way to burn fat is indeed to be in a calorie deficit … but that it’s, again, eating calories above maintenance from fat and or carbs that results in fat gain. Then again, it’s not like all of one’s daily calories are ingested at the same instant, so the fuel systems are working non-stop, and maybe it takes a while for the body to begin storing fat after a long period of calorie maintenance.

I just don’t get the math here. Is CICO bunk? Protein cannot be converted into bodyfat. Carbs are hard to convert into bodyfat. Someone said that if one eats excess calories, the fat calories are stored as body fat first (obvious, since no conversion is required), BUT, does that mean that the body prefers to use calories from protein before calories from fat as fuel? Because if not, there’d be no fat calories to store after the hypothetical 3000kcal had been used, there’d only be protein calories to store, and they ofc can’t be stored, and in that case one wouldn’t gain weight even in a calorie surplus… I don’t get it.

Thank you!

2

Protein can be stored as fat when it is converted to glucose or ketone bodies. Additionally, when consumed in the context of a calorie surplus, fat gain will accumulate regardless without any difference based on macronutrient composition.

Nope.

He will store fat- the same amount in fact- regardless of macro composition.

Nope.

3

Thank You for the response, Jordan!

I’ve been binging on BBM videos since creating this thread. Is this something new:
“Protein can be stored as fat when it is converted to glucose or ketone bodies.”
or have You always held that view? I saw You state, that protein virtually cannot be stored as bodyfat, in a number of videos… or am I misunderstanding what You said in those videos/podcasts?

In binging Your content, I also had it confirmed that “He will store fat- the same amount in fact- regardless of macro composition.”. So thanks for that!

To clarify my question; the math got weird for me by the point at which calories exceeded maintenance requirements. So, my logic went as follows:

Calorie deficit = weight loss. Calorie maintenance = weight maintenance. Calorie surplus … this is where it got weird for me:
If indeed the body cannot store protein or carbs as fat (effectively, at least, as the energy cost of conversion > what is converted), I was thinking that if Johnny’s maintenance calories were 3000kcal, and he eats at a 1000kcal surplus, yet only 500 of those came from fat, that he would store merely 500kcal worth of fat, because the body cannot store protein as fat. Whereas if he consumed 1000kcal or above worth of fat, that he would store 1000kcal. So essentially I reasoned that, when in a caloric surplus, the energy that is stored as bodyfat = the calories from consumed FAT, meaning that a 1000 and a 3000 Calorie surplus might result in equal fat gain.

Now this is obviously wrong, as You said (we store the excess energy regardless of macro composition). Is the reason for this simply that protein and carbs can indeed be stored as fat (thus logically, macro composition is irrelevant)? Or am I missing something further? How does this work? And I mean, EVEN IF all macronutrients can be stored, but the process of doing so carries a different cost for each macronutrient (like greater cost for protein than for fat, for instance), I just see no logical way around the idea that calorie surpluses are unequal and that calorie surplus X might result in the same weight gain as calorie surplus X+n. I’m not doubting that this is wrong! You know Your shit, I don’t, but I just don’t see how macro composition can be irrelevant UNLESS all macros can be and are stored - at the same energy cost(!). How is this possible?

Regards

4

I don’t think it’s new. I know I’ve talked about gluconeogenesis and conversion of protein to energy stores. That being said, I have definitely said (and still say) it’s harder to convert protein directly to energy stores than it is to store excess energy from fat and carbs.

To clarify my question; the math got weird for me by the point at which calories exceeded maintenance requirements. So, my logic went as follows:
Calorie deficit = weight loss. Calorie maintenance = weight maintenance. Calorie surplus … this is where it got weird for me:
If indeed the body cannot store protein or carbs as fat (effectively, at least, as the energy cost of conversion > what is converted), [/quote]
I wouldn’t think about it like this. Rather, when there’s “excess” protein, the energy intake from all macronutrients (including carbohydrates and fats) will contribute to weight gain. The body does not discriminate.
> Whereas if he consumed 1000kcal or above worth of fat,
How would your body know that you’re eating 1000kCal excess of fat in isolation vs just 1000 extra calories?

5

when there’s “excess” protein, the energy intake from all macronutrients (including carbohydrates and fats) will contribute to weight gain. The body does not discriminate.

What I mean is that, if fat is stored as bodyfat at a lesser energy cost than carbs and protein are stored as bodyfat, how can extra calories be stored regardless of macro composition?

If one eats at maintenance for a time, then adds 1000kcal worth of fat a day to their diet, I’m guessing that those 1000kcal of fat are just stored, while the oxidation of the nutrients before that new addition remains the same. If one instead added 1000kcal worth of carbs to the diet, I’m guessing that what happens is that the oxidation of carbs increases while the oxidation of fat decreases, and that it then results in the storing of 1000kcal worth of consumed fat - CICO.

Where CICO seems to become a problem is when one for example eats an excess of 2000kcal a day, HOWEVER, only 1500kcal of fat is consumed during the day. How then can 2000kcal worth of weight gain happen? How can CICO hold? Perhaps this is a practical impossibility (as in it’s impossible in practice to be at a 2000kcal surplus while only consuming 1500kcal worth of fat), OR, what happens is that one starts to store carbs and/or protein. But if the latter alternative explains the situation, what happens to the higher energy cost of storing carbs and protein as compared to fat? It would seem to mess CICO up.

6

… so would it in theory (although perhaps not in real life) be possible to be, for example, at a 2000kcal surplus while only storing 1500kcal? I’m trying to get a grip of the math.

7

I understand perfectly what you mean. I’m asking you to look at it differently, as it may help you understand.

If you eat 1000 additional calories from protein, what do you think will happen with the dietary carbohydrate and fats you’re consuming?

There’s really nothing more to this story. Macronutrients do not influence weight loss or gain outcomes provided protein and fiber are sufficient.

I think you’re confusing yourself. Calories represent energy, not tissue.

CICO is a good way to think about how people gain and lose weight.

8

By definition, no.

9

… I’ll try to sum up that long multicomment ramble to make it easier to read …

I understand that tissue =/= energy. (“EXCESS”) energy is stored in the molecular bonds of (NEW) tissue. Excess energy → new tissue being generated, in the bonds of which that excess energy is stored → new tissue obviously means that weight is gained.

“If you eat 1000 additional calories from protein, what do you think will happen with the dietary carbohydrate and fats you’re consuming?” … I’m thinking that the oxidation of protein increases and that the fat in one’s diet is stored as bodyfat, 1000kcal worth. CICO holds. Macro composition irrelevant.

You said “He will store fat- the same amount in fact- regardless of macro composition.” … So CICO holds, and also the type of the new tissue that is generated is independent of macro comp. Same amount of new bodyfat, no matter what the macro composition is.

But, theoretically; if Johnny needs 2000kcal per day to maintain weight, and he eats a total of 3000kcal per day. But only, let’s say, 600kcal of his total 3000kcal daily energy intake, is from fats. Does he still gain the same amount of bodyfat as he would have, had he consumed, let’s say, 1200kcal from fats instead? If not, then ok. If yes, where does that new bodyfat material come from? From carbs/proteins that are converted? Then what about the higher energy cost of that conversion as opposed to storing butter?
… I understand that eating 3000kcal per day while only 600kcal from fat, is very difficult. But theoretically?

10

Likely, yes.

Yes.

It does not matter at all.

11

But where do the building blocks for enough new fat tissue come from, to store the same amount of energy as one would in the case of consuming >=1000kcal of fat per day, if only 600kcal worth of fat is consumed? And if they come from protein/carbs, how can the same amount of new bodyfat be built as in the case of consuming more fat, given the higher cost of converting CHO and PRO to bodyfat?

… or did You mean that the answer is irrelevant because it will never happen in real life? Or that the answer to the question is unknown?

12

If they are in the same amount of calorie surplus for an extended amount of time, they will fix the same amount of fatty acids in the adipose tissue that are sources from fat, carbohydrates, or protein.

Because it’s a wash overall. The “extra” cost is absorbed by reducing fat flux (fat being liberated for fuel during other periods of the day. I feel that I have sufficiently answered your question at this point.

13

Thank You!