Fun debate about CICO
Options
Replies
-
I'd be interested in seeing a study that shows a supposed difference in insulin sensitivity and calorie burn.0
-
I'd be interested in seeing a study that shows a supposed difference in insulin sensitivity and calorie burn.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479 found that insulin resistant women lost more weight on lower carb (40%C) and insulin sensitive lost more on low fat (60%C). "These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."0 -
16 week dietary intervention. Wish I had access to the whole study, but it sounds like they gave a diet plan and found different levels of compliance.I'd be interested in seeing a study that shows a supposed difference in insulin sensitivity and calorie burn.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479 found that insulin resistant women lost more weight on lower carb (40%C) and insulin sensitive lost more on low fat (60%C). "These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
0 -
Similar finding in http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/28/12/2939.full "A Low-Glycemic Load Diet Facilitates Greater Weight Loss in Overweight Adults With High Insulin Secretion but Not in Overweight Adults With Low Insulin Secretion in the CALERIE Trial"
and https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/343507
"Insulin Resistance Predicts the Effectiveness of Different Glycemic Index Diets on Weight Loss in Non-Obese Women"0 -
I'd be interested in seeing a study that shows a supposed difference in insulin sensitivity and calorie burn.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479 found that insulin resistant women lost more weight on lower carb (40%C) and insulin sensitive lost more on low fat (60%C). "These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
Well, if they were truly taking in the same amount of calories and losing more on one macro composition than the other, the only explanation that would not necessitate us having to throw out everything we know about energy, would be that somewhere along the line one of the diets created a bigger deficit than the other, or the other created a smaller deficit, or a bit of both, in some way they didn't think of checking.
While the thought of an observation of overweight women dieting leading to shattering the very foundations of what we thought physics was is amusing, I don't think that's the case, so I'm going with "something changed their deficit on one of the diets".0 -
It's virtually impossible to calculate where a leaf falling to the ground is going to land. That doesn't mean the leaf is violating the laws of physics.lindsey1979 wrote: »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.
Even talking complexity into account, you're arguing edge cases in which the absolute numbers might not always line up, but they don't always line up in any approach.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »While the thought of an observation of overweight women dieting leading to shattering the very foundations of what we thought physics was is amusing, I don't think that's the case, so I'm going with "something changed their deficit on one of the diets".
as per the italics, they weren't able to explain it either. I did once read the full paper and it came over as pretty methodical. It's not like it's the only study coming up with that conclusion. Errors in body composition analysis would be my favourite as a bit more or less fat here and there can swing the numbers a lot, but as I said further up there aren't many studies that pop out with the magical 3500 = 1 lb either.
Here's another showing measured RMR variations with diabetes that comes up with +110 kcal/day in diabetics, possibly due to increased energy cost of excess glucose production in the liver - http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/6/3820 -
For weight loss it is definitely CICO, for health it's a whole different ball game.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »I argue that dietary compliance trumps everything when it comes to long term weight management.
Agreed. For some people, compliance is supported by often choosing foods and ratios etc. that promote satiety.0 -
A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
0 -
TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »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.
None of that meals CICO not a valid formula. Everything you mentioned factors into CO but just because we can't fully determine what the numbers really are doesn't mean it's now invalid.
I didn't say it was invalid, but had limitations as far as applying it to the human body (especially for weight loss). Difficulty or impossibility in practical application is a pretty big limitation when you're talking about weight loss or other similar things.0 -
TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.0 -
It's not difficult or impossible. If you're losing too quickly, eat more. Too slowly, eat less. At the pace you want, keep doing it.lindsey1979 wrote: »TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »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.
None of that meals CICO not a valid formula. Everything you mentioned factors into CO but just because we can't fully determine what the numbers really are doesn't mean it's now invalid.
I didn't say it was invalid, but had limitations as far as applying it to the human body (especially for weight loss). Difficulty or impossibility in practical application is a pretty big limitation when you're talking about weight loss or other similar things.
0 -
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.0 -
Yeah, not a huge one. If those factors are preventing you from losing weight, you're probably eating too much, regardless.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
The fact that we can't account for each and every tenth of a calorie in real time seems more like a distraction than a help. It doesn't make a real world difference in almost any conceivable case.
0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »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.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »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.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
The bolded was very true for me. I have IR and some autoimmune issues which contributed to fatigue. Eating the way my body seems to need alleviates that fatigue and the behaviour of looking for foods for energy.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yeah, not a huge one. If those factors are preventing you from losing weight, you're probably eating too much, regardless.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
The fact that we can't account for each and every tenth of a calorie in real time seems more like a distraction than a help. It doesn't make a real world difference in almost any conceivable case.
It's not a huge difference but it contributes. I had a year where I had to take steroids, had high IGF-1 to the point of worrying about acromegaly, and I developed IR. I felt pretty poorly and I gained 20lbs that year. Yes, I did over eat, and eat some poor food choices, but those other factors played a role too. How much, I don't know and never will.0 -
You don't have to be accurate down to the kilocalorie for it to be practical.lindsey1979 wrote: »TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »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.
None of that meals CICO not a valid formula. Everything you mentioned factors into CO but just because we can't fully determine what the numbers really are doesn't mean it's now invalid.
I didn't say it was invalid, but had limitations as far as applying it to the human body (especially for weight loss). Difficulty or impossibility in practical application is a pretty big limitation when you're talking about weight loss or other similar things.
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