Fun debate about CICO
Options
Replies
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »My n=1 would show that one must eat CI<CO to lose weight, but that what I eat can affect the rate of loss. I don't know if it is a calorie for calorie difference between some foods or what, but when I eat in a way that is healthier for my body, I tend to lose more weight than expected. Maybe my body processes certain macros differently. Maybe because I feel so much better, I am moving more than I realize so my CO is increased without realizing it. I don't really know.
I do know that for weight loss for me, it isn't just CI<CO, although that is the major factor.
You haven't been dieting that long. Most long term studies with people with larger amounts to lose show that rate of loss with different macro balances evens out over time.
That is true. I have only been eating CI<CO for about 10 weeks. I lost about 5 lbs the first week (I'm sure it was water), and I lost 10lbs in both July and August. 25lbs in 10weeks and I am now at a normal BMI.
.... I am guessing it will balance out at a year like those long term studies show. Hopefully I will have been in maintenance for 6 months at that point.0 -
No debate about CICO is fun! Arguing about CICO is like arguing about gravity. People can believe whatever they want, but just like someone who doesn't believe in gravity won't all of a sudden float away, someone who doesn't believe in CICO still won't lose weight if they aren't in a calorie deficit. Any diet ever must have a calorie deficit present in order to see a reduction of weight in the long run. While optimal weight reduction or body recomposition diets require much more thought than simply "create a calorie deficit", they won't work at all if that isn't part of the diet.
Various factors may act on the calories out side of the equation, but there isn't much evidence that eating certain types of foods and banning others has a significant effect. Touching on what @PeachyCarol said about compliance, any effect that restricting of certain foods might have pales in comparison to compliance. If banning all foods containing X or not eating after Y o'clock has any effect at all (not conceding that it does), that effect is certainly not dramatic enough to be more important than compliance. For example, if tomorrow a perfectly designed study proves that eating 50 grams of carbs or less a day yields 15% better weight loss than a calorically equivalent balanced diet, you cannot say eating low carb is the best way for everyone to lose weight. I personally could not remain complaint with a low carb diet, so despite the 15% quicker fat loss, my non-compliance will cause the diet to not work at all.
TLDR If your diet doesn't create a calorie deficit, it won't work. If you diet is so restrictive you can't stick to it, it won't work. The key to success is finding a method of eating that allows you to both create a deficit and be compliant.0 -
KittensMaster wrote: »Food is fuel
Certain fuels are better for certain for certain activities
I'm training for my first sprint triathlon.
So what I eat matters.... A lot.
If you are doing body recomposition what you eat matters.
If you are dieting only and don't eat enough protein you lose muscle and fat. Then it becomes a disaster.
CICO is such a dumbed down saying when tossed about it does the concept injustice.
Of course calories matter and what they are for matters as well.
Well said. Certain calories are used in different ways by the body and held onto for different length of time by the body.0 -
I guess the question is, when these hormones affect fat storage, where does the fat go?VintageFeline wrote: »The perennial debate has come up with a friend today about the only thing mattering being CICO.
He argues food affects how many calories are stored as fat due hormone interruption. So what you eat matters. As someone who does the moderation thing I refute this.
I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.
Good sources and opinion to back me up or discredit me please!
I've seen this argued for insulin as the hormone a lot, and it is a misunderstanding of what it means to say insulin causes fat cells to store fat. The problem with this explanation is, the only way your fat cells have access to fat to store is that they're already in the blood, in circulation. So basically, the mechanism they're discussing is really what keeps your body from having excessively high triglycerides, a good thing. It isn't like a normal person's stomach just ignores fat and other available calories 'cause hormones. The body's goal is always to absorb as much as possible from the foods you eat.0 -
I suppose another problem is, people just don't want to believe in differential equations.
Sure, getting a certain amount of protein is long term required to keep muscle mass, which slightly effects BMR. This just means that CI and CO are in flux and they're altering each other.
Think of a rocket ship: the more fuel it has, the more fuel it takes to rise. Conversely, the more fuel the rocket has burned, the less it needs to keep burning to keep going higher. This doesn't mean rockets violate thermodynamic laws, it just means if you want to calculate the loss, you need a differential equation.
A human body is more complex, but it would be possible to model inputs and outputs affecting each other, and it would still mean that calories in and calories out are what happens.0 -
I guess the question is, when these hormones affect fat storage, where does the fat go?VintageFeline wrote: »The perennial debate has come up with a friend today about the only thing mattering being CICO.
He argues food affects how many calories are stored as fat due hormone interruption. So what you eat matters. As someone who does the moderation thing I refute this.
I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.
Good sources and opinion to back me up or discredit me please!
I've seen this argued for insulin as the hormone a lot, and it is a misunderstanding of what it means to say insulin causes fat cells to store fat. The problem with this explanation is, the only way your fat cells have access to fat to store is that they're already in the blood, in circulation. So basically, the mechanism they're discussing is really what keeps your body from having excessively high triglycerides, a good thing. It isn't like a normal person's stomach just ignores fat and other available calories 'cause hormones. The body's goal is always to absorb as much as possible from the foods you eat.
x10000000 -
This was good to read, I had to go do some work and have just come back.
I guess the discussion, where I kept saying "but science" is that he firmly believes a calorie is not a calorie. I know 3500 isn't an absolute but it's a near enough measure for most people right? His argument is if your diet is crappy then you will lose less weight eating the same calories as someone with a healthier diet. Same everything but calories.
My argument was that I couldn't see how that is true and haven't seen anything that convinces me of this. Aside from pre-existing medical conditions lowering someone's BMR laws of thermodynamics stand.
Anecdotally, my own diet goes through peaks and troughs is so called "healthy" but I maintain my deficit throughout and have consistently lost 5lbs per month on average over 140 days of logging. I appreciate anecdotes aren't to be trusted but my experience and what I have gleaned from reading these forums.0 -
CICO is an absolute for weight management. None of us gets to be special snowflakes.
The type of food you eat is for nutritional purposes. This is where preference comes in.
I feel better when I eat a well balanced diet where my macros are reasonably met. I have my macros set to levels that help me to have enough energy to do my weight lifting, to run, to workout on the elliptical, and to go through my day without feeling drained by the afternoon.
When it comes to CICO, it works the same for everyone, but I would say nutritional needs are very different depending on what you are trying to accomplish.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
I guess the question is, when these hormones affect fat storage, where does the fat go?VintageFeline wrote: »The perennial debate has come up with a friend today about the only thing mattering being CICO.
He argues food affects how many calories are stored as fat due hormone interruption. So what you eat matters. As someone who does the moderation thing I refute this.
I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.
Good sources and opinion to back me up or discredit me please!
I've seen this argued for insulin as the hormone a lot, and it is a misunderstanding of what it means to say insulin causes fat cells to store fat. The problem with this explanation is, the only way your fat cells have access to fat to store is that they're already in the blood, in circulation. So basically, the mechanism they're discussing is really what keeps your body from having excessively high triglycerides, a good thing. It isn't like a normal person's stomach just ignores fat and other available calories 'cause hormones. The body's goal is always to absorb as much as possible from the foods you eat.
x1000000
Double that.0 -
CICO just is, there is no debate. People arguing it, aren't doing it correctly.0
-
No debate about CICO is fun! Arguing about CICO is like arguing about gravity. People can believe whatever they want, but just like someone who doesn't believe in gravity won't all of a sudden float away, someone who doesn't believe in CICO still won't lose weight if they aren't in a calorie deficit. Any diet ever must have a calorie deficit present in order to see a reduction of weight in the long run. While optimal weight reduction or body recomposition diets require much more thought than simply "create a calorie deficit", they won't work at all if that isn't part of the diet.
Various factors may act on the calories out side of the equation, but there isn't much evidence that eating certain types of foods and banning others has a significant effect. Touching on what @PeachyCarol said about compliance, any effect that restricting of certain foods might have pales in comparison to compliance. If banning all foods containing X or not eating after Y o'clock has any effect at all (not conceding that it does), that effect is certainly not dramatic enough to be more important than compliance. For example, if tomorrow a perfectly designed study proves that eating 50 grams of carbs or less a day yields 15% better weight loss than a calorically equivalent balanced diet, you cannot say eating low carb is the best way for everyone to lose weight. I personally could not remain complaint with a low carb diet, so despite the 15% quicker fat loss, my non-compliance will cause the diet to not work at all.
TLDR If your diet doesn't create a calorie deficit, it won't work. If you diet is so restrictive you can't stick to it, it won't work. The key to success is finding a method of eating that allows you to both create a deficit and be compliant.
And this.0 -
I guess the question is, when these hormones affect fat storage, where does the fat go?VintageFeline wrote: »The perennial debate has come up with a friend today about the only thing mattering being CICO.
He argues food affects how many calories are stored as fat due hormone interruption. So what you eat matters. As someone who does the moderation thing I refute this.
I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.
Good sources and opinion to back me up or discredit me please!
I've seen this argued for insulin as the hormone a lot, and it is a misunderstanding of what it means to say insulin causes fat cells to store fat. The problem with this explanation is, the only way your fat cells have access to fat to store is that they're already in the blood, in circulation. So basically, the mechanism they're discussing is really what keeps your body from having excessively high triglycerides, a good thing. It isn't like a normal person's stomach just ignores fat and other available calories 'cause hormones. The body's goal is always to absorb as much as possible from the foods you eat.
:::applause gif::::
0 -
I suppose another problem is, people just don't want to believe in differential equations.
Sure, getting a certain amount of protein is long term required to keep muscle mass, which slightly effects BMR. This just means that CI and CO are in flux and they're altering each other.
Think of a rocket ship: the more fuel it has, the more fuel it takes to rise. Conversely, the more fuel the rocket has burned, the less it needs to keep burning to keep going higher. This doesn't mean rockets violate thermodynamic laws, it just means if you want to calculate the loss, you need a differential equation.
A human body is more complex, but it would be possible to model inputs and outputs affecting each other, and it would still mean that calories in and calories out are what happens.
Ah ha! I see where he may be coming from now. I don't know enough about hormones/insulin to debunk so this is helpful!
0 -
CICO is what matters for weight loss/gain/maintenance.
HOW someone prefers to make up those calories will depend on their own fitness/health goals. There really is no wrong way as long as they are meeting their essentials and being consistent with their own personal program.
I don't have any client adhere to any eating style. I let them figure it out for themselves.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Does meeting your essentials mean your macros...especially protein? Thanks!0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.
Good sources and opinion to back me up or discredit me please!
It's fairly rare for clinical studies to create 1lb of weight loss and measure 3500 calorie deficit.
Example - Hall's recent 6 day thing. Women on reduced fat, calorie deficit -634 kcal/day * 6 days = 3804 kcal deficit. Weight loss 1.5 kg = 3.3 lbs by scales. Fat loss by calorimetry 392g ie < 1 lb. OK it was short term and glycogen got in the way.
So a challenge for you would be to come up with say at least 3 clinical studies that deliver 1 lb of loss per 3500 calories ;-)
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »My argument was that I couldn't see how that is true and haven't seen anything that convinces me of this. Aside from pre-existing medical conditions lowering someone's BMR laws of thermodynamics stand.
The laws of thermodynamics always stand. If you change the food into a human the digestive and hormonal processes do their thing and you can come along afterwards and do an energy balance. If the processes resulted in depletion of fat reserves etc you'll see a corresponding energy discrepancy.
It's a bit like a chemical reactor, the rate of reaction and so forth is influenced by concentration, temperature, pressure, catalysts, mixing etc but you don't have a direct handle on the rate of reaction. I can eat less food or do more activity, but I can't "control my deficit" only seek to influence it. If doing those things gives me a weight loss then there was a net energy deficit and my stores were depleted. If I do very similar things and there isn't a weight loss then one of countless things I can't measure has presumably changed.
I'm more FIFO than CICO - I seek to oxidise more Fat than I eat (or make) in order to reduce my stores.
0 -
CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.0 -
lowriderjim wrote: »I agree with the OP. I have lost around 90 lbs eating less of most foods and counting calories. The food choices I make are if the calories in a certain food is worth the calories. I would also add that seniors can loose weight and although exercise is important to health, weight can still be lost. I have lost 50 lbs in the last five months am 68 years old and this amount of weight was lost with no exercise.
These are only facts that have worked for me. Do what works for you but as the OP says CICO still is the important point.
Totally agree. I have lost 29lbs by cutting my calories down. I have continued to eat what I always have, but less of it.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
No hormonal imbalance or disease can break a law of physics.
If you have something like that, all it does is change your body's ability to absorb (CI) or expend (CO) energy.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
The laws of thermodynamics do not require a closed system. They are commonly stated as closed systems, but there are ways of stating them that are not closed.
The same physics applies regardless of the complexity of the system. It just becomes harder mathematically to calculate with higher degrees of accuracy.
The simple fact is that while calculating energy out from principles may be hard, it is very possible in practice if calories in are accurately tracked. Simply lower calories until weight loss resumes.
In truth, humans don't tend to stray to far from each other in BMR, even without taking mass into account. A vastly more efficient metabolism would have generally propagated into the population if it existed.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions