Trust in CICO
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
But it is a math equation, with ONE variable that changes person to person.
Person's maintenance - 500 calories a day = 1 lb lost a week
The only variable is that person's maintenance, which is NOT that hard to figure out.
One variable?
Not really. Again, the prinicpals are easy but the details and adherence for the individual not so much.
All these equations are estimators. They are not cold hard facts. The amount of calories in a pound of fat? We guess is to be around 3500 based on an article published in the 1930's which we know to be fairly inaccurate and open to a large variety. It works ok, but it isn't exact.
People can lose weight by doing short term carbohydrates restrictions and PSLC diets.
Someone losing and gaining weight will have a hysteresis effect - the history of weight loss does affect your TDEE.
Stress and sleep affect hormones and weight loss. Exercise and resulting inflammatory response. Depression. Etc...
The principles of weight loss are relatively easy, the details aren't as black and white as people keep on selling. The current accepted detailed model of metabolism is actually quite complex.
0 -
OMG... the dress... the heels.... the mop butt.... just dying.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
There are many reasons people overeat. I'm tired of seeing a lack of self control with certain foods being blamed on hormonal responses your body has when eating them. There are deeper reasons we eat past our hunger signals usually. THOSE need to be dealt with.
TRUTH!
Are your cravings really something your body wants or is it just poor impulse control? Most of mine are poor impulse control which is why I don't have certain foods in the house.
I won't pretend that this is necessarily true for all the people who low carb. Not at all. For some people it's a great fit that lines up nicely with their food preferences and needs. But... for a lot of the zealots, particularly those who are so vehemently anti-sugar and the like?
They are hiding from the truth. They are seeking answers to a problem. The problem of their weight. It couldn't possibly be them, right?
It's a shame, too. Because they're not learning anything about themselves and their reasons for overeating. They're patching a gaping wound with a bandaid.
For once we agree. Not so much about the gaping wounds and all of that
but low carb isn't magic. And I certainly don't know that low carb by itself is the answer or would be enough for everyone. (And I would never presume to tell anyone it was.) Even for someone like me who describes low carb as miraculous... if I was at a different point in my life or had a different food background would the results have been the same? I don't know.
I was fortunate that when I knew my eating had spiraled out of control that when I resolved to fix it I had good eating and exercise habits that I could return to. And the luxury to cook and prepare my own meals.
If I was one of the people asking how do you drink water, eat vegetables or how to cook? Or still working 50 - 70 hour work weeks? I don't know that I could sustain eating a low carb diet. But I do know it was the final piece of the puzzle for me. Having a normal appetite again is an absolute gift I'll never willingly give up; if it takes eating a low carb diet to have that then so be it.0 -
This thread has been cleaned up a bit. Please stay on topic and discuss the topic respectfully. If you feel another user is in violation of the guidelines, please report them to the moderators via the Report feature.
Also, the flag feature is for Spam (as in spam bots) or Abuse (hate speech, graphic images) only. Someone saying something you don't like or being a big meanie (in your opinion) is neither Spam nor Abuse, so please Report instances where you feel someone has violated guidelines. Hitting the flag button for posts which do not meet the criteria only gets the person flagging in trouble, not the person being flagged.
FTW-gif!0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The equation isn't like 2+2=4 because weight loss isn't linear & everyone is different. But the basic concept is still a basic math equation... It's like one of those "if this, then that" type of equations. If CI < CO, then weight loss occurs. If you think about it that way, That equation is consistent. Every time.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
We're not talking about water weight though. By that you could say that since your weight now is not necessarily the same as it is at midnight tonight, all that calorie stuff is nonsense.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Nope, but still close enough to lose those 20 lbs again at the same calorie amount and maybe take a few days longer. I went ahead and calculated the worst possible situation, the loss being entirely lbm and the gain entirely fat (which would probably never happen to anyone). I'd have 250 calories less TDEE if that happened.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
I'd say all the numbers are close enough to work for the vast majority of the population even without adjusting the numbers at all, and saying things like these is just going to make people even more in denial than many already are.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
So we agree, a simplification.
As to the bold - not my problem. I try to not dumb down or slant the science - if people choose to support their own confirmation bias, it's their issue.
Btw, the 250cal number you calculated is accurate only with regard to LBM changes. It seems that there are/may be other hormonal effects going on which can account for 10-15% - these adaptive thermogenic effects may result in a TDEE that makes it appear that CICO doesn't work to a person experiencing them. In fact, their TDEE dropped lower.
For some individuals maintenance may be 800-1000 cals off from the estimators or require significant time to readjust metabolic changes. (See the paper quoted or, in my profile the whole thread on AT)
Using dumbed down formulas is a major part of teaching someone. Like the things in maths and in physics we learned back in school, if they started out with throwing the completely accurate, no detail left out stuff at you, you'd probably have thrown your hands in the air and surrendered to your fate. For people starting out, talking simplified helps. And if they're following the simplified things and it doesn't work, THEN you can come and say "well there's a few things that can *kitten* over your numbers without your fault, you should go see a doctor or whatever to make sure." which you can then explain in detail if you want. But for most people those details are completely irrelevant because they account for less than the inaccuracies from the calories in side of logging.
Using simplified models works best when we learn to recognize the limits of the model. It's unnecessary to teach a model as an aboslute truth. I prefer to state up front that it's a simplified model and generally works than have someone assume it's the absolute truth and then lose trust when it doesn't work - given that metabolic related issues occur in 20-30% of the population and likely higher in the MFP crowd.
I taught in high school and college (remedial math and then biosensors, adhesion molecules) and anytihng related to biology needs to be understood as an estimated equation. Yet we see daily on the board - "black and white maths", "it's physics", "laws of thermo". BS.
We aren't having a discussion just with newbies. In that case, my general advice is always to focus on majors do the three (track, create a deficit while meeting macros, exercise) and assure adhesion. I do also expect to have a conversation that sometimes goes beyond that. We aren't talking about the Thermogenic Effect of Food or leucine factor of gut flora.
I'll tend to place the cursor a little more on explaining the basics and then going a little further for an (imaginary) reader that might want a little more than the basics. The stickies already cover those rather well.
Also, when arguing with people that criticize CICO and use arguments like "it's a simplification" so "it's wrong" I'm going to agree with the first but refute the second.
Eta: Also, I find that it's not intellectually rigorous to say "for most people" factor x doesn't matter. I'd rather understand what does factors might be and be able to understand them. Things like large changes in diet (fiber uptake, going "clean") etc... Do they matter signifcantly? Maybe... When they affect up to 20% or more of Calories In from prior diet ...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
Not so black and white....
I would want to be in the group of subjects that got to eat mince pie hehe. Thanks for the article post
0 -
MelWick524 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The equation isn't like 2+2=4 because weight loss isn't linear & everyone is different. But the basic concept is still a basic math equation... It's like one of those "if this, then that" type of equations. If CI < CO, then weight loss occurs. If you think about it that way, That equation is consistent. Every time.
That's the beauty of tautologies.
And, btw, if it's consistent every time, then no, every(one) case isn't different.
Logic 101.
(Judging from MFP in general, Formal Logic is so poorly taught.)
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
After observing your "research" methods in the IF thread I think I'll pass...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
After observing your "research" methods in the IF thread I think I'll pass...
I only found it after it got locked. It was hilarious.
2+2 is something different than 2+5 but the underlying equation is still the same, x+y = z. The underlying thing, the tautology if you want to call it that, is always the same. The variables aren't necessarily, just because there's lots of them and we aren't even sure if we know all of them, which makes it basically impossible to get two people who have exactly the same in everything.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MelWick524 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The equation isn't like 2+2=4 because weight loss isn't linear & everyone is different. But the basic concept is still a basic math equation... It's like one of those "if this, then that" type of equations. If CI < CO, then weight loss occurs. If you think about it that way, That equation is consistent. Every time.
That's the beauty of tautologies.
And, btw, if it's consistent every time, then no, every(one) case isn't different.
Logic 101.
(Judging from MFP in general, Formal Logic is so poorly taught.)
I stand by my assertion however, that the results are close enough together for two people with equals for the obvious variables, age, height, weight, sex, bf%, and that the other variables, hormones, TEF, gut microbes apparently, the moon phases or whatever else we don't know of yet have only small impacts on healthy individuals.
That calorie calculator equations are a thing and accurate enough to not be randomly off by 1000 calories in a healthy person in most cases is proof of that.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
After observing your "research" methods in the IF thread I think I'll pass...
I only found it after it got locked. It was hilarious.
2+2 is something different than 2+5 but the underlying equation is still the same, x+y = z. The underlying thing, the tautology if you want to call it that, is always the same. The variables aren't necessarily, just because there's lots of them and we aren't even sure if we know all of them, which makes it basically impossible to get two people who have exactly the same in everything.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MelWick524 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The equation isn't like 2+2=4 because weight loss isn't linear & everyone is different. But the basic concept is still a basic math equation... It's like one of those "if this, then that" type of equations. If CI < CO, then weight loss occurs. If you think about it that way, That equation is consistent. Every time.
That's the beauty of tautologies.
And, btw, if it's consistent every time, then no, every(one) case isn't different.
Logic 101.
(Judging from MFP in general, Formal Logic is so poorly taught.)
I stand by my assertion however, that the results are close enough together for two people with equals for the obvious variables, age, height, weight, sex, bf%, and that the other variables, hormones, TEF, gut microbes apparently, the moon phases or whatever else we don't know of yet have only small impacts on healthy individuals.
That calorie calculator equations are a thing and accurate enough to not be randomly off by 1000 calories in a healthy person in most cases is proof of that.
Except it isn't even a linear equation. And your assertion is wrong.
Let's spell it out.
For arguments sake, let's even assume that I won't even bring up the issues with measurement, errors in Atwater constants, etc. Just the basics:
Energy equation:
If CI = CO we have equilibrium and no net energy is leaving or entering the body. No weight change.
And if CI > CO we have an increase in energy into the body. Seems simple. Does this increase in energy translate to weight gain? Not always. We have an effect called homeostasis and the so called "set points" (personally dislike the term).
What happens when someone is at an observed TDEE (not gaining weight) and you add 100 cals per day. If CICO was simple you'd see weight increase, right? What really happens is that CO is a function of CI - simple things like body temp, liver function, adrenal function up regulate with increase energy availability. NEAT increases. TEF increases. That hundred calorie increase isn't translated to 100 cals available for fat storage.
The estimator equations standard deviations are actually quite large and with normal individuals can vary 15-20% without going to extremes - every single published article on TDEE estimators gives you that. Add dietary variability due to macro paritioning (see the article I posted upstream) or history of weight loss effects and for those two individuals it may very well vary by another 10-15%. That's a reasonable 200-600 possible calorie difference without even considering disease states or secondary factors among the obese.
This is simply why a small change isn't sufficent to create weight change, one needs to override that homeostasis effect. CICO isn't a linear equation as the terms are interdependent.
And those obvious variables we think are important? They aren't.
The early equations use age and sex as a major factor to estimate variability in TDEE between subjects. Well, back then we couldn't do refined analysis of body composition so weight was used. Things like leptin hadn't even been discovered. Those simple equations we use? Poor estimators.
More recent research shows that TDEE variance is more due to LBM (lean body mass) and FM (fat mass)
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280423
So even what you think is important doesn't matter.
Height - doesn't matter.
Sex - doesn't matter.
Age - matters very little.
It's all about LBM and FM. And other stuff we haven't figured out ...
We can go on and discuss the variance of Harris or Katch McArdle equation ...
And caveat - I know this sounds surprising and someone will come along and say but I trust the estimator equations and if the use height sex and age, they must be right. These are just variables that are interdependent with LBM/FM (which themselves are just substitutes for mitochondrial availability which we can't reasonably measure...).
In real terms - this is also one of the reasons that a very lean individual will generally see much more difficulty in losing additional weight. Not only has TDEE gone down due to weight (LBM/FM) but aditional adaptive effects take place (neuro, hormonal) that may results in more difficult loss, these aren't in the TDEE estimators or the usual thinking about "simple" CICO.0 -
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
After observing your "research" methods in the IF thread I think I'll pass...
I only found it after it got locked. It was hilarious.
2+2 is something different than 2+5 but the underlying equation is still the same, x+y = z. The underlying thing, the tautology if you want to call it that, is always the same. The variables aren't necessarily, just because there's lots of them and we aren't even sure if we know all of them, which makes it basically impossible to get two people who have exactly the same in everything.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MelWick524 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The equation isn't like 2+2=4 because weight loss isn't linear & everyone is different. But the basic concept is still a basic math equation... It's like one of those "if this, then that" type of equations. If CI < CO, then weight loss occurs. If you think about it that way, That equation is consistent. Every time.
That's the beauty of tautologies.
And, btw, if it's consistent every time, then no, every(one) case isn't different.
Logic 101.
(Judging from MFP in general, Formal Logic is so poorly taught.)
I stand by my assertion however, that the results are close enough together for two people with equals for the obvious variables, age, height, weight, sex, bf%, and that the other variables, hormones, TEF, gut microbes apparently, the moon phases or whatever else we don't know of yet have only small impacts on healthy individuals.
That calorie calculator equations are a thing and accurate enough to not be randomly off by 1000 calories in a healthy person in most cases is proof of that.
Except it isn't even a linear equation. And your assertion is wrong.
Let's spell it out.
For arguments sake, let's even assume that I won't even bring up the issues with measurement, errors in Atwater constants, etc. Just the basics:
Energy equation:
If CI = CO we have equilibrium and no net energy is leaving or entering the body. No weight change.
And if CI > CO we have an increase in energy into the body. Seems simple. Does this increase in energy translate to weight gain? Not always. We have an effect called homeostasis and the so called "set points" (personally dislike the term).
What happens when someone is at an observed TDEE (not gaining weight) and you add 100 cals per day. If CICO was simple you'd see weight increase, right? What really happens is that CO is a function of CI - simple things like body temp, liver function, adrenal function up regulate with increase energy availability. NEAT increases. TEF increases. That hundred calorie increase isn't translated to 100 cals available for fat storage.
The estimator equations standard deviations are actually quite large and with normal individuals can vary 15-20% without going to extremes - every single published article on TDEE estimators gives you that. Add dietary variability due to macro paritioning (see the article I posted upstream) or history of weight loss effects and for those two individuals it may very well vary by another 10-15%. That's a reasonable 200-600 possible calorie difference without even considering disease states or secondary factors among the obese.
This is simply why a small change isn't sufficent to create weight change, one needs to override that homeostasis effect. CICO isn't a linear equation as the terms are interdependent.
And those obvious variables we think are important? They aren't.
The early equations use age and sex as a major factor to estimate variability in TDEE between subjects. Well, back then we couldn't do refined analysis of body composition so weight was used. Things like leptin hadn't even been discovered. Those simple equations we use? Poor estimators.
More recent research shows that TDEE variance is more due to LBM (lean body mass) and FM (fat mass)
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280423
So even what you think is important doesn't matter.
Height - doesn't matter.
Sex - doesn't matter.
Age - matters very little.
It's all about LBM and FM. And other stuff we haven't figured out ...
We can go on and discuss the variance of Harris or Katch McArdle equation ...
And caveat - I know this sounds surprising and someone will come along and say but I trust the estimator equations and if the use height sex and age, they must be right. These are just variables that are interdependent with LBM/FM (which themselves are just substitutes for mitochondrial availability which we can't reasonably measure...).
In real terms - this is also one of the reasons that a very lean individual will generally see much more difficulty in losing additional weight. Not only has TDEE gone down due to weight (LBM/FM) but aditional adaptive effects take place (neuro, hormonal) that may results in more difficult loss, these aren't in the TDEE estimators or the usual thinking about "simple" CICO.
Height, sex and age matter in the sense that LBM of the average person correlates with them, as you said too. And I mentioned bodyfat for that reason.
And call me stupid, but doesn't what you posted partially agree with my assertion? That the most important factor in difference between energy expenditure is the fat free mass where only a quarter of the difference is due to unknown reasons?
Or am I reading the graphic and link wrong?.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
After observing your "research" methods in the IF thread I think I'll pass...
I only found it after it got locked. It was hilarious.
2+2 is something different than 2+5 but the underlying equation is still the same, x+y = z. The underlying thing, the tautology if you want to call it that, is always the same. The variables aren't necessarily, just because there's lots of them and we aren't even sure if we know all of them, which makes it basically impossible to get two people who have exactly the same in everything.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MelWick524 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The equation isn't like 2+2=4 because weight loss isn't linear & everyone is different. But the basic concept is still a basic math equation... It's like one of those "if this, then that" type of equations. If CI < CO, then weight loss occurs. If you think about it that way, That equation is consistent. Every time.
That's the beauty of tautologies.
And, btw, if it's consistent every time, then no, every(one) case isn't different.
Logic 101.
(Judging from MFP in general, Formal Logic is so poorly taught.)
I stand by my assertion however, that the results are close enough together for two people with equals for the obvious variables, age, height, weight, sex, bf%, and that the other variables, hormones, TEF, gut microbes apparently, the moon phases or whatever else we don't know of yet have only small impacts on healthy individuals.
That calorie calculator equations are a thing and accurate enough to not be randomly off by 1000 calories in a healthy person in most cases is proof of that.
Except it isn't even a linear equation. And your assertion is wrong.
Let's spell it out.
For arguments sake, let's even assume that I won't even bring up the issues with measurement, errors in Atwater constants, etc. Just the basics:
Energy equation:
If CI = CO we have equilibrium and no net energy is leaving or entering the body. No weight change.
And if CI > CO we have an increase in energy into the body. Seems simple. Does this increase in energy translate to weight gain? Not always. We have an effect called homeostasis and the so called "set points" (personally dislike the term).
What happens when someone is at an observed TDEE (not gaining weight) and you add 100 cals per day. If CICO was simple you'd see weight increase, right? What really happens is that CO is a function of CI - simple things like body temp, liver function, adrenal function up regulate with increase energy availability. NEAT increases. TEF increases. That hundred calorie increase isn't translated to 100 cals available for fat storage.
The estimator equations standard deviations are actually quite large and with normal individuals can vary 15-20% without going to extremes - every single published article on TDEE estimators gives you that. Add dietary variability due to macro paritioning (see the article I posted upstream) or history of weight loss effects and for those two individuals it may very well vary by another 10-15%. That's a reasonable 200-600 possible calorie difference without even considering disease states or secondary factors among the obese.
This is simply why a small change isn't sufficent to create weight change, one needs to override that homeostasis effect. CICO isn't a linear equation as the terms are interdependent.
And those obvious variables we think are important? They aren't.
The early equations use age and sex as a major factor to estimate variability in TDEE between subjects. Well, back then we couldn't do refined analysis of body composition so weight was used. Things like leptin hadn't even been discovered. Those simple equations we use? Poor estimators.
More recent research shows that TDEE variance is more due to LBM (lean body mass) and FM (fat mass)
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280423
So even what you think is important doesn't matter.
Height - doesn't matter.
Sex - doesn't matter.
Age - matters very little.
It's all about LBM and FM. And other stuff we haven't figured out ...
We can go on and discuss the variance of Harris or Katch McArdle equation ...
And caveat - I know this sounds surprising and someone will come along and say but I trust the estimator equations and if the use height sex and age, they must be right. These are just variables that are interdependent with LBM/FM (which themselves are just substitutes for mitochondrial availability which we can't reasonably measure...).
In real terms - this is also one of the reasons that a very lean individual will generally see much more difficulty in losing additional weight. Not only has TDEE gone down due to weight (LBM/FM) but aditional adaptive effects take place (neuro, hormonal) that may results in more difficult loss, these aren't in the TDEE estimators or the usual thinking about "simple" CICO.
Height, sex and age matter in the sense that LBM of the average person correlates with them, as you said too. And I mentioned bodyfat for that reason.
And call me stupid, but doesn't what you posted partially agree with my assertion? That the most important factor in difference between energy expenditure is the fat free mass where only a quarter of the difference is due to unknown reasons?
Or am I reading the graphic and link wrong?.
They correlate very weakly and provide much error in the estimation equations. The point being that "those unknown" factors you disdain can be important. I don't see where you asserted FFM is the most important factor.
Your assertion was that unknown factors only have "small impacts" and you listed height, age and sex as some of the "obvious" important factors. Clearly they aren't. And those "small impacts" are 25% of variance. Not so small.
And a diffenrence of 200-600 or more between two individuals at the same estimated TDEE from the estimation equations isn't small change.
Here is the issue with simplification again - those early estimations simplified what was thought to be the key factors. Which results in variables one really can't modify such as height, age or sex and we end up with a certain fatalism. From those, a short, older overweight woman can't change anything but her weight.
But what does that do? Oh yeah, lower estimated TDEE.
It's wrong for people to only focus on that. Lots of strength work over time may result in maintaining or increasing LBM. And an increase in LMB will *likely* result in an increased BMR (small direct increase, plus possible hormonal changes, but the real plus is when it's multiplied by activity level) and TDEE. It's a message that still hasn't really gotten through to a lot of people.
It's important to focus on the majors, we agree on that. Hopefully I've also shown that the minors may be signifcant even in the absence of illness that influence metabolism and that CICO isn't really as simple as it seems.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
After observing your "research" methods in the IF thread I think I'll pass...
I only found it after it got locked. It was hilarious.
2+2 is something different than 2+5 but the underlying equation is still the same, x+y = z. The underlying thing, the tautology if you want to call it that, is always the same. The variables aren't necessarily, just because there's lots of them and we aren't even sure if we know all of them, which makes it basically impossible to get two people who have exactly the same in everything.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MelWick524 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The equation isn't like 2+2=4 because weight loss isn't linear & everyone is different. But the basic concept is still a basic math equation... It's like one of those "if this, then that" type of equations. If CI < CO, then weight loss occurs. If you think about it that way, That equation is consistent. Every time.
That's the beauty of tautologies.
And, btw, if it's consistent every time, then no, every(one) case isn't different.
Logic 101.
(Judging from MFP in general, Formal Logic is so poorly taught.)
I stand by my assertion however, that the results are close enough together for two people with equals for the obvious variables, age, height, weight, sex, bf%, and that the other variables, hormones, TEF, gut microbes apparently, the moon phases or whatever else we don't know of yet have only small impacts on healthy individuals.
That calorie calculator equations are a thing and accurate enough to not be randomly off by 1000 calories in a healthy person in most cases is proof of that.
Except it isn't even a linear equation. And your assertion is wrong.
Let's spell it out.
For arguments sake, let's even assume that I won't even bring up the issues with measurement, errors in Atwater constants, etc. Just the basics:
Energy equation:
If CI = CO we have equilibrium and no net energy is leaving or entering the body. No weight change.
And if CI > CO we have an increase in energy into the body. Seems simple. Does this increase in energy translate to weight gain? Not always. We have an effect called homeostasis and the so called "set points" (personally dislike the term).
What happens when someone is at an observed TDEE (not gaining weight) and you add 100 cals per day. If CICO was simple you'd see weight increase, right? What really happens is that CO is a function of CI - simple things like body temp, liver function, adrenal function up regulate with increase energy availability. NEAT increases. TEF increases. That hundred calorie increase isn't translated to 100 cals available for fat storage.
The estimator equations standard deviations are actually quite large and with normal individuals can vary 15-20% without going to extremes - every single published article on TDEE estimators gives you that. Add dietary variability due to macro paritioning (see the article I posted upstream) or history of weight loss effects and for those two individuals it may very well vary by another 10-15%. That's a reasonable 200-600 possible calorie difference without even considering disease states or secondary factors among the obese.
This is simply why a small change isn't sufficent to create weight change, one needs to override that homeostasis effect. CICO isn't a linear equation as the terms are interdependent.
And those obvious variables we think are important? They aren't.
The early equations use age and sex as a major factor to estimate variability in TDEE between subjects. Well, back then we couldn't do refined analysis of body composition so weight was used. Things like leptin hadn't even been discovered. Those simple equations we use? Poor estimators.
More recent research shows that TDEE variance is more due to LBM (lean body mass) and FM (fat mass)
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280423
So even what you think is important doesn't matter.
Height - doesn't matter.
Sex - doesn't matter.
Age - matters very little.
It's all about LBM and FM. And other stuff we haven't figured out ...
We can go on and discuss the variance of Harris or Katch McArdle equation ...
And caveat - I know this sounds surprising and someone will come along and say but I trust the estimator equations and if the use height sex and age, they must be right. These are just variables that are interdependent with LBM/FM (which themselves are just substitutes for mitochondrial availability which we can't reasonably measure...).
In real terms - this is also one of the reasons that a very lean individual will generally see much more difficulty in losing additional weight. Not only has TDEE gone down due to weight (LBM/FM) but aditional adaptive effects take place (neuro, hormonal) that may results in more difficult loss, these aren't in the TDEE estimators or the usual thinking about "simple" CICO.
Height, sex and age matter in the sense that LBM of the average person correlates with them, as you said too. And I mentioned bodyfat for that reason.
And call me stupid, but doesn't what you posted partially agree with my assertion? That the most important factor in difference between energy expenditure is the fat free mass where only a quarter of the difference is due to unknown reasons?
Or am I reading the graphic and link wrong?.
They correlate very weakly and provide much error in the estimation equations. The point being that "those unknown" factors you disdain can be important. I don't see where you asserted FFM is the most important factor.
Your assertion was that unknown factors only have "small impacts" and you listed height, age and sex as some of the "obvious" important factors. Clearly they aren't. And those "small impacts" are 25% of variance. Not so small.
And a diffenrence of 200-600 or more between two individuals at the same estimated TDEE from the estimation equations isn't small change.
Here is the issue with simplification again - those early estimations simplified what was thought to be the key factors. Which results in variables one really can't modify such as height, age or sex and we end up with a certain fatalism. From those, a short, older overweight woman can't change anything but her weight.
But what does that do? Oh yeah, lower estimated TDEE.
It's wrong for people to only focus on that. Lots of strength work over time may result in maintaining or increasing LBM. And an increase in LMB will *likely* result in an increased BMR (small direct increase, plus possible hormonal changes, but the real plus is when it's multiplied by activity level) and TDEE. It's a message that still hasn't really gotten through to a lot of people.
It's important to focus on the majors, we agree on that. Hopefully I've also shown that the minors may be signifcant even in the absence of illness that influence metabolism and that CICO isn't really as simple as it seems.
I never really thought about that bolded part. It usually gets mentioned whenever someone asks about TDEE etc. but I guess you're probably right that a lot of people don't know that.0 -
So, gentlemen, I've been following your discussion as best as I can, but it's a bit above my ability to comprehend. Not to mention that my ability to comprehend things right now is severely compromised by having the flu.
So, what's the takeaway for that short, older, overweight woman for the long term? Not that I resemble any such hypothetical example or anything like that...0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »So, gentlemen, I've been following your discussion as best as I can, but it's a bit above my ability to comprehend.
Me too! I gave up following it, and its my thread!
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »We can go on and discuss the variance of Harris or Katch McArdle equation ...
And caveat - I know this sounds surprising and someone will come along and say but I trust the estimator equations and if the use height sex and age, they must be right. These are just variables that are interdependent with LBM/FM (which themselves are just substitutes for mitochondrial availability which we can't reasonably measure...).
In real terms - this is also one of the reasons that a very lean individual will generally see much more difficulty in losing additional weight. Not only has TDEE gone down due to weight (LBM/FM) but aditional adaptive effects take place (neuro, hormonal) that may results in more difficult loss, these aren't in the TDEE estimators or the usual thinking about "simple" CICO.
I think there are a few different issues that come up with CICO and how simple it is.
One is that it's not always simple to estimate CO--it's of course true that people assume the formulas will be right and they aren't. I actually think the discussions on MFP tend to do a decent job at acknowledging that and informing people of that, although many seem not to want to listen (lots of people claim CICO doesn't work for them, because they aren't losing at a level that some calculator said should work, and that's just a reasonable conclusion).
For what it's worth, although there are other reasons why leaner people have trouble losing, this is one reason why obese people may end up frustrated, as the calculators tend to overestimate their calorie needs (because their LBM isn't as high as their weight might suggest). The reason it often doesn't is simply because at that level of overweight a high deficit is common, and daily activity calories may well be underestimated (the sedentary option on MFP). But certainly this is why I think telling someone who is significantly obese that she should aim for, say, a less than 500 cut off a presumed TDEE or not eat below a presumed BMR (that is almost certainly wrong) is not great advice in many cases.
Another issue is whether macro ratio affects CI. Sure, it does, but in light of real world macro breakdowns, does it make a significant difference? I suspect not, but am open to discussion. One reason it doesn't is because there are other reasons why super high protein diets aren't a great idea, and that's where the real TEF difference is--low carb diets that increase fat a lot don't thereby increase TEF at all, typically the opposite, based on at least one analysis I've seen.
Third is the fact that CO varies all the time because your body is not a closed system but is capable of responding to changes. So, as you said, increase calories and metabolism may well increase, but by how much depends on the person and varies. And same with things like what percentage of fat vs. muscle gets used for fuel.
Those are all really interesting issues, but I think rather beyond the point that was being made in the initial thread, which is that for most people (absent a health issue or an effort to get super lean), calories are the key thing to determine loss and if you aren't losing over time it's because you aren't at a deficit (for whatever reason), whereas if you have good reason (such as past experience) to believe you are at a deficit, fluctuations likely aren't fat gain and people shouldn't overreact to them and change strategies drastically.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »We can go on and discuss the variance of Harris or Katch McArdle equation ...
And caveat - I know this sounds surprising and someone will come along and say but I trust the estimator equations and if the use height sex and age, they must be right. These are just variables that are interdependent with LBM/FM (which themselves are just substitutes for mitochondrial availability which we can't reasonably measure...).
In real terms - this is also one of the reasons that a very lean individual will generally see much more difficulty in losing additional weight. Not only has TDEE gone down due to weight (LBM/FM) but aditional adaptive effects take place (neuro, hormonal) that may results in more difficult loss, these aren't in the TDEE estimators or the usual thinking about "simple" CICO.
I think there are a few different issues that come up with CICO and how simple it is.
One is that it's not always simple to estimate CO--it's of course true that people assume the formulas will be right and they aren't. I actually think the discussions on MFP tend to do a decent job at acknowledging that and informing people of that, although many seem not to want to listen (lots of people claim CICO doesn't work for them, because they aren't losing at a level that some calculator said should work, and that's just a reasonable conclusion).
For what it's worth, although there are other reasons why leaner people have trouble losing, this is one reason why obese people may end up frustrated, as the calculators tend to overestimate their calorie needs (because their LBM isn't as high as their weight might suggest). The reason it often doesn't is simply because at that level of overweight a high deficit is common, and daily activity calories may well be underestimated (the sedentary option on MFP). But certainly this is why I think telling someone who is significantly obese that she should aim for, say, a less than 500 cut off a presumed TDEE or not eat below a presumed BMR (that is almost certainly wrong) is not great advice in many cases.
Another issue is whether macro ratio affects CI. Sure, it does, but in light of real world macro breakdowns, does it make a significant difference? I suspect not, but am open to discussion. One reason it doesn't is because there are other reasons why super high protein diets aren't a great idea, and that's where the real TEF difference is--low carb diets that increase fat a lot don't thereby increase TEF at all, typically the opposite, based on at least one analysis I've seen.
Third is the fact that CO varies all the time because your body is not a closed system but is capable of responding to changes. So, as you said, increase calories and metabolism may well increase, but by how much depends on the person and varies. And same with things like what percentage of fat vs. muscle gets used for fuel.
Those are all really interesting issues, but I think rather beyond the point that was being made in the initial thread, which is that for most people (absent a health issue or an effort to get super lean), calories are the key thing to determine loss and if you aren't losing over time it's because you aren't at a deficit (for whatever reason), whereas if you have good reason (such as past experience) to believe you are at a deficit, fluctuations likely aren't fat gain and people shouldn't overreact to them and change strategies drastically.
Coming back to this, missed your post, sorry.
I agree with the major points. My position was that it gets over simplified from "CICO is sufficient" to something else and that oversimplification is worth thinking about.
Here is something to consider - for the bolded part. It relates to a study I stumbled upon (I was doing research on hypothyroidism). Imagine you two groups of people. You increase the calories of each group equivalently but with one group it's a low carb increase and with the other it's a normal carb diet. Pure CICO would us what? Well, they should see the same weight gain right? Or perhaps they should see a slight different one due to carb loading glycogen storage ... Maybe carbs result in a little initial gain.
Well, when that study was done there were a few surprises - 50% more calories were needed to maintain the weight gain in the carb group. Huh? What was going on? Was this a sheathing artifact? They were also measuring thyroid hormone metabolite and saw changes in these.
So - diet composition can have a significant influence in the lab. Sometimes. 50% higher increase to maintain a gain seems like a lot.
CICO remains the motor of weight loss, but the throttle, air mixture, tire pressure all influence gas consumption and efficiency. You don't have to worry much about tire pressure when you drive, but sometimes it's critical.
The articles related to this are:
http://www.iub.edu/~k662/articles/obesity/genetics Sims 1971.pdf a review of the Vermont study on induced obesity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC371281/pdf/jcinvest00683-0196.pdf - the thyroid study that raised my curiosity.
When you think about diet break, refeeds, the metabolic utility of cheat days, it's all about how CICO needs tweaking and adjustments.0 -
CICO definitely works! I took a month off because I was having a lot of stress in my life and I just ate like I used to eat without paying attention to calories and I ended up gaining 4lbs. Now that I've been back on CICO for a week I've lost a pound. It works!0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »So, gentlemen, I've been following your discussion as best as I can, but it's a bit above my ability to comprehend. Not to mention that my ability to comprehend things right now is severely compromised by having the flu.
So, what's the takeaway for that short, older, overweight woman for the long term? Not that I resemble any such hypothetical example or anything like that...
1) Follow cico. A calorie deficit induces weight loss. (Eat less)
ii ) Exercise to your ability and desire. It has metabolic utility both for calorie burn and health. (Move more)
c) Try to stay consistent with your macros in that, while they may have effects, getting enough protein and fats is essential. You'll see less stressful variance with consistency. But go ahead and vary, if adherence is improved. (Watch your macros)
Vier)Take breaks. Either via refeeds, cheat days or outright maintenance weeks for mental sanity and hormones. (Stay sane)
5) enjoy (eat your veggies too)
f) profit
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, gentlemen, I've been following your discussion as best as I can, but it's a bit above my ability to comprehend. Not to mention that my ability to comprehend things right now is severely compromised by having the flu.
So, what's the takeaway for that short, older, overweight woman for the long term? Not that I resemble any such hypothetical example or anything like that...
1) Follow cico. A calorie deficit induces weight loss. (Eat less)
ii ) Exercise to your ability and desire. It has metabolic utility both for calorie burn and health. (Move more)
c) Try to stay consistent with your macros in that, while they may have effects, getting enough protein and fats is essential. You'll see less stressful variance with consistency. But go ahead and vary, if adherence is improved. (Watch your macros)
Vier)Take breaks. Either via refeeds, cheat days or outright maintenance weeks for mental sanity and hormones. (Stay sane)
5) enjoy (eat your veggies too)
f) profit
With the exception of having done a refeed, that's what I've been doing... so YAY me! I have a cheat day coming up on vacation in a few weeks, though.
Thanks.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »We can go on and discuss the variance of Harris or Katch McArdle equation ...
And caveat - I know this sounds surprising and someone will come along and say but I trust the estimator equations and if the use height sex and age, they must be right. These are just variables that are interdependent with LBM/FM (which themselves are just substitutes for mitochondrial availability which we can't reasonably measure...).
In real terms - this is also one of the reasons that a very lean individual will generally see much more difficulty in losing additional weight. Not only has TDEE gone down due to weight (LBM/FM) but aditional adaptive effects take place (neuro, hormonal) that may results in more difficult loss, these aren't in the TDEE estimators or the usual thinking about "simple" CICO.
I think there are a few different issues that come up with CICO and how simple it is.
One is that it's not always simple to estimate CO--it's of course true that people assume the formulas will be right and they aren't. I actually think the discussions on MFP tend to do a decent job at acknowledging that and informing people of that, although many seem not to want to listen (lots of people claim CICO doesn't work for them, because they aren't losing at a level that some calculator said should work, and that's just a reasonable conclusion).
For what it's worth, although there are other reasons why leaner people have trouble losing, this is one reason why obese people may end up frustrated, as the calculators tend to overestimate their calorie needs (because their LBM isn't as high as their weight might suggest). The reason it often doesn't is simply because at that level of overweight a high deficit is common, and daily activity calories may well be underestimated (the sedentary option on MFP). But certainly this is why I think telling someone who is significantly obese that she should aim for, say, a less than 500 cut off a presumed TDEE or not eat below a presumed BMR (that is almost certainly wrong) is not great advice in many cases.
Another issue is whether macro ratio affects CI. Sure, it does, but in light of real world macro breakdowns, does it make a significant difference? I suspect not, but am open to discussion. One reason it doesn't is because there are other reasons why super high protein diets aren't a great idea, and that's where the real TEF difference is--low carb diets that increase fat a lot don't thereby increase TEF at all, typically the opposite, based on at least one analysis I've seen.
Third is the fact that CO varies all the time because your body is not a closed system but is capable of responding to changes. So, as you said, increase calories and metabolism may well increase, but by how much depends on the person and varies. And same with things like what percentage of fat vs. muscle gets used for fuel.
Those are all really interesting issues, but I think rather beyond the point that was being made in the initial thread, which is that for most people (absent a health issue or an effort to get super lean), calories are the key thing to determine loss and if you aren't losing over time it's because you aren't at a deficit (for whatever reason), whereas if you have good reason (such as past experience) to believe you are at a deficit, fluctuations likely aren't fat gain and people shouldn't overreact to them and change strategies drastically.
Coming back to this, missed your post, sorry.
I agree with the major points. My position was that it gets over simplified from "CICO is sufficient" to something else and that oversimplification is worth thinking about.
Here is something to consider - for the bolded part. It relates to a study I stumbled upon (I was doing research on hypothyroidism). Imagine you two groups of people. You increase the calories of each group equivalently but with one group it's a low carb increase and with the other it's a normal carb diet. Pure CICO would us what? Well, they should see the same weight gain right? Or perhaps they should see a slight different one due to carb loading glycogen storage ... Maybe carbs result in a little initial gain.
Well, when that study was done there were a few surprises - 50% more calories were needed to maintain the weight gain in the carb group. Huh? What was going on? Was this a sheathing artifact? They were also measuring thyroid hormone metabolite and saw changes in these.
So - diet composition can have a significant influence in the lab. Sometimes. 50% higher increase to maintain a gain seems like a lot.
CICO remains the motor of weight loss, but the throttle, air mixture, tire pressure all influence gas consumption and efficiency. You don't have to worry much about tire pressure when you drive, but sometimes it's critical.
The articles related to this are:
http://www.iub.edu/~k662/articles/obesity/genetics Sims 1971.pdf a review of the Vermont study on induced obesity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC371281/pdf/jcinvest00683-0196.pdf - the thyroid study that raised my curiosity.
When you think about diet break, refeeds, the metabolic utility of cheat days, it's all about how CICO needs tweaking and adjustments.
My focus on the composition point was more narrow, I think--the usual exchange of fat for carbs on a low carb diet, since typically protein is pretty constant (I do think someone low on protein who is not a vegan or vegetarian who finds it too challenging to do is probably better off getting protein to a reasonable level--say 80% of LBM, as measured in lbs, at minimum). What bothers me about the TEF-based arguments is that the only real way to benefit from those (other than cutting highly processed for less processed carbs, which I do think is a good idea for other reasons more than that it will make a big difference to CICO) is going high protein. But there's only so high protein one can reasonably go and I think enough evidence that it might not be the best idea overall.
I am very interested in the studies you linked, however, so thanks, and I will read them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions