Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If CO is all estimates is precision in measuring CO overkill?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm interested in the logic behind many posts I see on this forum, that's all.
You clearly made an argument in your OP. Not sure what you believe, but you made it.
Are you kidding me? You have no idea what my opinion on this is.
I posed a question (complete with typo) as a topic for discussion. I haven't even contributed an argument, or stance, or even response to other people's views on this.
I clearly said I didn't know your opinion, but your OP also clearly made an argument, you just asked us to support or challenge it.0 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
Estimate if understood as a guess, would be the wrong way to characterize CO numbers. They are based on extensive research, but due to variations from person to person even those who are the same sex, weight, age, height the numbers are not 100% precise. For some people they will be right on, for others they will be right on, and for others they will be low. In all those cases they will be pretty close though for the vast majority of people. Yes, there will be outliers who are far out of the standard deviation of those numbers; but they are outliers. The majority of people will not be outliers. So overall those CO numbers while not 100% precise, are reasonably close to what is actually burned
As to whether that means striving for precision in CI is overkill. First, realize something, calorie numbers for foods are "estimates" too. Again, not in the sense of wild guesses, but the calories for say a tomato will vary depending on when and where they grew. However, once again, these numbers will be close. Not 100% precise, but close.
Following your reasoning, because they are not 100% precise guessing at portions rather than measuring as precisely as possible should be our approach, but all that does is add another level in imprecision. If you measure your portions as precisely as possible that removes the imprecision that you can remove, give the most accurate numbers you can get in light of the lack of precision in other areas. That doesn't seem like overkill to me. That sounds like a smart way to get numbers as precise as you can in light of the variations that are part of the functioning of biological organisms functioning.2 -
As noted above by rileysowner, CO estimates are based on research and can usually be verified over time (assuming exercise/activity levels follow a somewhat consistent pattern) by scale performance) to some degree of reasonable certainty.
Saying that, zeroing in close enough with close enough tracking of calories in, and close enough tracking of calories out, while monitoring scale performance and balancing all of those with each other works for me and my personality type.
For someone else, this might not be the optimal way to go, and there are certainly other means by which to set one's course towards losing weight.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm interested in the logic behind many posts I see on this forum, that's all.
You clearly made an argument in your OP. Not sure what you believe, but you made it.
Are you kidding me? You have no idea what my opinion on this is.
I posed a question (complete with typo) as a topic for discussion. I haven't even contributed an argument, or stance, or even response to other people's views on this.
I clearly said I didn't know your opinion, but your OP also clearly made an argument, you just asked us to support or challenge it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
3 -
And, I saw this video yesterday concerning the accuracy of calories on menus in New York and how far out they can be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGunZpKLb5o 2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »And, I saw this video yesterday concerning the accuracy of calories on menus in New York and how far out they can be.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGunZpKLb5o
Just looking at the screen shot without watching the video, if you take out the on sandwich that was 320 calories high, likely a typo on the nutrition information that a serving is actually half a sandwich, the amount it is off is only 228 calories. If one weighed the serving, then recalculate the calorie to reflect the weight, it might be even closer.0 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
If losing weight is the goal you can measure what's measurable (weight of food & drink, some forms of exercise etc) and observe the result in terms of weight loss. If you don't see the result you expect then you can change one of the measured variables and look for an effect. A lack of response to the variable you change suggests either a) it isn't an important one or b) something else changed that you aren't measuring.
So personally I don't titrate to a perceived deficit number, but I eat what I eat which is typically well short of the TDEE that I estimate ranges from 2000 min up to 3000 max with a typical result around 2400-2600.
If weight or fasting blood glucose creeps up I know I have to reduce the measured inputs (food) or increase the voluntary activity (walking / running / cycling) to counter the trend. I can never see myself following MFP's "hamster wheel" algorithm where I'm expected to "reward" myself with more food if I exercise, in order to maintain a set estimate of my "calorie deficit".0 -
Mathematically, being as accurate as possible, when possible, puts the Law of Large Numbers into play, in your benefit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
Basically, although each individual measurement is inaccurate, to a degree, over time, average accuracy approaches what is expected.2 -
First and foremost I am no expert to this CICO thing...
I do not measure out every morsel that I put in my mouth, most of my measurements are "eyeballed" I don't add exercise calories to MFP, I simply let my fitbit do it for me. I do not eat back all of my exercise calories for the very reason that I do eyeball my portions so it leaves me a pretty good cushion for error. Been doing that for 4 months now and have managed to lose 43lbs in 16 weeks. For me, it works, for others I know they need to measure and weigh out everything. I also should probably disclaimer, I went from being a lazy, lazy, did I mention LAZY couch potato to moving my body 6 days a week and eating better so that may have a lot to do with the decline in weight as well. I don't know the science of CICO, I don't really even know if my macros are set to where they are suppose to be? All I do know is I log my foods every day, do my best to stay within my macros given by MFP and exercise. I find that a lot of you MFP users are very well educated on all these things and I am all over here "winging" it so I don't usually respond to these threads in fear of being chastised. But I do have to say that I learn a lot from these thread and appreciate all of the information, even when I am being chastised.. LOL Happy Tuesday!!! That video above... WOW eye opener! 2 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
I'd see it more an issue of using the available this in an appropriate, and thoughtful, way. The accuracy and precision of the estimate depends on how it's being instrumented, and whether the instrumentation is against a meaningful proxy for the estimate.
To use an analogy, is it better to estimate speed of a car based on an axle based pick up, a GPS, or counting telephone poles over a fixed period?0 -
First and foremost I am no expert to this CICO thing... I do not measure out every morsel that I put in my mouth, most of my measurements are "eyeballed" I don't add exercise calories to MFP, I simply let my fitbit do it for me. I do not eat back all of my exercise calories for the very reason that I do eyeball my portions so it leaves me a pretty good cushion for error. Been doing that for 4 months now and have managed to lose 43lbs in 16 weeks. For me, it works, for others I know they need to measure and weigh out everything. I also should probably disclaimer, I went from being a lazy, lazy, did I mention LAZY couch potato to moving my body 6 days a week and eating better so that may have a lot to do with the decline in weight as well. I don't know the science of CICO, I don't really even know if my macros are set to where they are suppose to be? All I do know is I log my foods every day, do my best to stay within my macros given by MFP and exercise. I find that a lot of you MFP users are very well educated on all these things and I am all over here "winging" it so I don't usually respond to these threads in fear of being chastised. But I do have to say that I learn a lot from these thread and appreciate all of the information, even when I am being chastised.. LOL Happy Tuesday!!! That video above... WOW eye opener!
I've eyeballed and winged it for the vast majority of things throughout my weight loss. It was working and I was losing pretty close to what was projected, so it was good enough for me (my calorie allowance, even in a deficit, is 2200/day though, so that gives me more wiggle room than somebody eating 1200-1400 calories). I fully realized, though, that if it quit working, I knew exactly what the first step was that I had to take - bust out the food scale and tighten up on my logging.
Some people do just fine eyeballing and flying by the seat of their pants. If it's working, don't fix it. But when you read the "HELP, I'M NOT LOSING!!!1!!1!" threads, it's obvious in the vast majority of them that lack of accuracy in their tracking/logging is the first thing that needs to be fixed. It's not going to work if you think you're eating 1200 calories a day but are actually eating closer to 1800. Your log doesn't know the difference, but your body certainly does.4 -
rileysowner wrote: »If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
Estimate if understood as a guess, would be the wrong way to characterize CO numbers. They are based on extensive research, but due to variations from person to person even those who are the same sex, weight, age, height the numbers are not 100% precise. For some people they will be right on, for others they will be right on, and for others they will be low. In all those cases they will be pretty close though for the vast majority of people. Yes, there will be outliers who are far out of the standard deviation of those numbers; but they are outliers. The majority of people will not be outliers. So overall those CO numbers while not 100% precise, are reasonably close to what is actually burned
As to whether that means striving for precision in CI is overkill. First, realize something, calorie numbers for foods are "estimates" too. Again, not in the sense of wild guesses, but the calories for say a tomato will vary depending on when and where they grew. However, once again, these numbers will be close. Not 100% precise, but close.
Following your reasoning, because they are not 100% precise guessing at portions rather than measuring as precisely as possible should be our approach, but all that does is add another level in imprecision. If you measure your portions as precisely as possible that removes the imprecision that you can remove, give the most accurate numbers you can get in light of the lack of precision in other areas. That doesn't seem like overkill to me. That sounds like a smart way to get numbers as precise as you can in light of the variations that are part of the functioning of biological organisms functioning.
+1 to your comments about CI variability, and the role of precision. I agree with others here that more precise measurement, even if imperfect, is a potential tool for those having trouble meeting their goals. More accurate data can provide useful insight.
And even speaking as someone who does seem to be an outlier (WRT the NEAT/TDEE estimating "calculators"), one can experientially develop a useful working estimate of one's CO. I think of the calculators as providing a data-based, research-based starting point, rather than just starting with a random guess about what to eat.
Back to OP's question, I'd like to pick at that word "overkill" in another sense.
In or out of that scenario, some people find numbers annoying and measuring obsessive. Others (like me) rather enjoy making it into a science-fair project. That's more of a personality variable.
I'm admittedly a data geek. I like data-based decision-making. Calorie estimation/measurement is not the only example. I've recording my weight daily for probably close to 10 years, even while not trying to lose (and I'm not obsessed or anxious about it). I track workouts in terms not only of calorie estimates, but HR (which I used to guide training when I'm actually training in a structured way, but enjoy knowing in other contexts as well).
I track speed & distance for cycling, walking, canoeing and especially rowing. For the latter, it gives me good feedback to help with technique and performance improvement, especially in conjunction with HR data. (Would do so for the others, too, but I'm only serious about rowing.) For a decade or more, to prepare for retirement, I updated a net worth statement once a month, and tracked the monthly history.
But now I'm rambling! Main point: Besides the precision issues, some people enjoy measuring/numbers/precision/data. For them, measuring things may not be overkill, but would be overkill for otherwise-similar folks who don't find it fun or insight-provoking.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions