Fun debate about CICO
Replies
-
So to clarify on original point, CICO always applies and where those calories come from is irrelevant unless you have a pre-existing medical conditional, like insulin resistance or a thyroid problem. All that aside, in a normal person with no discernible medical problems, a calorie is a calorie, whether it comes from fat, salt, carbs, protein, whatever.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.
The differences are far from huge in the vast majority of people of the same stats. That's the nice thing about averages, most people is somewhere close to it.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
None of those things are even in the same ballpark as eating too much when it comes to not losing weight.
0 -
@lindsey1979 '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.'
Who is the we and starting to scratch the surface of what?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.
There is nothing limiting applying the CICO to biological systems, other than expecting an unrealistic accuracy of outcome. Regardless of the number of metabolic pathways all living organisms follow the same pathways.
Of course hormones have impact, but not nearly to the degree you're suggesting. If you have objective evidence to the contrary please provide the source.
There is a great deal of evidence that insulin resistance is caused by obesity, the primary driver of which is eating more than your body needs. Insulin resistance is common in western society because obesity is common in western society. A comparison population study to the World shows no evidence to the nature of diet, but simply eating more that ones body needs to function.
CICO still applies regardless of disorders, only new variables are being introduced.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.
Yup. And those ratios vary for different people. I've seen people say they are sated best with low carb, high protein. I've seen people say they are sated best with low carb, high fat. I've seen people say they are sated best with high carb, low fat. I'm sated best with moderate carb, fat, and protein.
I don't think there's any ONE way that's best and this is probably the only area where I'd go for putting forth that silly "we're all different" argument. Macro balance satisfaction will vary by individual. What ultimately matters is what will work for any given individual for a long term dietary solution.
A separate, but I think also important, issue, is that of types of food to include in the diet for long-term compliance.
But that's a subject for another post
0 -
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.
It's ... not impractical to apply simply because the equation is sometimes complicated by other factors.
You're conflating things that shouldn't be conflated.
Your body will still work at an energy deficit and burn fat if you give it less calories than it needs to maintain your current weight, even if you can't suss out the numbers.
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.
Majoring in the minors, really. For all I'm for gathering data and for all I like logging exactly, all you really need to lose weight is a scale and your eyes to see how CICO works. Eat less than you've been eating. Weigh yourself. Losing weight? That's CICO. Losing too fast? Eat more. Losing too slow? Eat less. Don't like how you feel? Change what you're eating.
It's not that complicated.
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).
IR will not make you store "more" calories as fat, all things being the same unless you're eating more to begin with.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
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.
True, which is why I think it's a great starting guideline. But you've got to be aware of its limitations. If you're accurately tracking your intake (and this is probably the most common error) and not seeing results as would be expected by a basic CICO calculation, then it's probably time to look beyond the simple CICO guidelines to other contributory factors -- which may result in adjusting macros, looking for vitamin deficiencies, other conditions like air, thyroid, etc.0 -
A pound of fat -- triglycerides -- has about 4000 kcal per pound of energy. 9000 kcal per Kg.oyChihuahua wrote: »sheldonklein wrote: »3500 is a rule of thumb, not a law of nature. http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml
The 3500 calories is a measured value of energy content in a lb. of body fat.
The Law of Conservation of Energy (First Law of Thermodynamics) is a law of nature.
Application of the Law of Conservation of Energy to the body is theory called CICO.
Also, not all weight that is lost is fat. Other tissues and substances having weight might also change. And these do not have the same caloric energy value (3500 kcals/lb) as body fat.
See generally, http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/3500-calorie-rule.html/
A pound of adipose tissue has about 3500 kcal. The difference is mostly water and protein.
As for the metabolic traffic of fats Vs carbs or proteins being substantially changed by what we eat during a fairly normal, months long diet, I am still waiting for a convincing research paper.
Tour De France riders respectfully excluded, normal people are fine with CICO and should ignore the pet hormone of the day fads except to moderate sugars intake (one or two ring sugars e.g glucose, fructose, sucrose.)
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
None of those things are even in the same ballpark as eating too much when it comes to not losing weight.
If you understood how IR or thyroid worked, they are absolutely linked. When you have issues that result in fatigue (whether ineffective metabolism like IR or thyroid), it's not an uncommon response for your body to compensate by increasing appetite to compensate. Then you get people who overeat because those mechanisms in their body are operating correctly. It's also the reason unexplained weight gain are clinical symptoms of both (in addition to many others).0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »@lindsey1979 '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.'
Who is the we and starting to scratch the surface of what?
We as modern society are only starting to understand the various hormones and interactions involved with metabolism and weight issues. The research is in its infancy. Definitely good starts into leptin, grehlin, thyroid hormones, etc. but still a long way to go.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »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).
Once again, all factors that go into the CO part of the equation. Just because it can be difficult to figure out does not make it invalid.lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
Where exactly are people having trouble seeing the differences? Everyone agrees that metabolic disorders through another variable in the equation, you also agree to that. Everyone has been saying that regardless CICO still applies, you agreed to that as well. Where's the problem? Why the need to keep emphasizing metabolic disorders? What exactly are you looking for people acknowledge.
There seem to be two things that go on here. (1) theoretical discussions about the validity of CICO and (2) how CICO applies to weight loss. Folks like yourself tend to get stuck on the ivory tower principle of CICO -- I personally don't think anyone cares about on a weightliss website.
Confusion comes I when you try to equate the two as synonymous. When you're talking practical application to human body for weight loss/maintenance, there are other factors to consider -- some of which may be considerable depending on the individual circumstances. But many seem overwhelmed by that and want everything to be simple -- so they go back to oversimplified application of CICO which can lead to erroneous results.
Then these debates arise about the validity or not of CICO. And it's not really about that AT ALL. Just that there are limitations to simplifying CICO in that context and why people should look at the oversimplification as an absolute.
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.
There is nothing limiting applying the CICO to biological systems, other than expecting an unrealistic accuracy of outcome. Regardless of the number of metabolic pathways all living organisms follow the same pathways.
Of course hormones have impact, but not nearly to the degree you're suggesting. If you have objective evidence to the contrary please provide the source.
There is a great deal of evidence that insulin resistance is caused by obesity, the primary driver of which is eating more than your body needs. Insulin resistance is common in western society because obesity is common in western society. A comparison population study to the World shows no evidence to the nature of diet, but simply eating more that ones body needs to function.
CICO still applies regardless of disorders, only new variables are being introduced.
This simply isn't wholly accurate. There is some belief that obesity may be a cause for SOME. But not all obese people have IR. And some people who have IR are not obese at all (some folks with thyroid issues, PCOS, etc.). Losing weight often improves IR, but not always.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
None of those things are even in the same ballpark as eating too much when it comes to not losing weight.
If you understood how IR or thyroid worked, they are absolutely linked. When you have issues that result in fatigue (whether ineffective metabolism like IR or thyroid), it's not an uncommon response for your body to compensate by increasing appetite to compensate. Then you get people who overeat because those mechanisms in their body are operating correctly. It's also the reason unexplained weight gain are clinical symptoms of both (in addition to many others).
That's an issue of eating more despite knowing you shouldn't. And to my knowledge, if you're on medication, at least for thyroid, there's barely a difference to a healthy person, metabolism wise.lindsey1979 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
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.
True, which is why I think it's a great starting guideline. But you've got to be aware of its limitations. If you're accurately tracking your intake (and this is probably the most common error) and not seeing results as would be expected by a basic CICO calculation, then it's probably time to look beyond the simple CICO guidelines to other contributory factors -- which may result in adjusting macros, looking for vitamin deficiencies, other conditions like air, thyroid, etc.
The numbers you're getting in calculators are averages even for healthy individuals. As I said, on average you're going to be very close to the number named as long as you properly filled everything out, but it could be off a bit if you're especially jittery or your exercises aren't burning as much as the modificator in the calculation says (or you're counting stuff that's just not exercise as exercise, we've had all kinds of things already on here) and so on.
If you're not seeing results as expected even though you're honestly logging everything is when you adjust your intake or increase your expenditure. When that would mean an intake that's way off (like multiple hundreds below what it should be) the expected numbers is when you should go to your doctor to check if there's something else.
I know many people have IR or something else, but looking at the threads popping up on MFP with people asking why they haven't lost enough as a an example of the average dieter, the vast majority of those are easily found out to be overestimating what was burned by exercise or inaccurate logging. A few others just have a distorted expectation of how fast they should lose (someone who was expecting to lose 30+ pounds in less than a month comes to mind), and the small percentage that is left where you can't tell at first or second glance what the problem is may have a condition they don't know about that is making it harder on them.
Someone made a really nice flowchart on what to look for when weightloss isn't happening even though you think it should. Maybe someone could post it, I don't have it on hand.0 -
lindsey1979 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.
There is nothing limiting applying the CICO to biological systems, other than expecting an unrealistic accuracy of outcome. Regardless of the number of metabolic pathways all living organisms follow the same pathways.
Of course hormones have impact, but not nearly to the degree you're suggesting. If you have objective evidence to the contrary please provide the source.
There is a great deal of evidence that insulin resistance is caused by obesity, the primary driver of which is eating more than your body needs. Insulin resistance is common in western society because obesity is common in western society. A comparison population study to the World shows no evidence to the nature of diet, but simply eating more that ones body needs to function.
CICO still applies regardless of disorders, only new variables are being introduced.
This simply isn't wholly accurate. There is some belief that obesity may be a cause for SOME. But not all obese people have IR. And some people who have IR are not obese at all (some folks with thyroid issues, PCOS, etc.). Losing weight often improves IR, but not always.
Smoking and lung cancer. We're pretty sure smoking is a major contributor to lung cancer. Even if not everyone with lung cancer smokes and not every smoker gets lung cancer.
In the same way we know that if you're overweight/obese, there's a very significantly increased risk of all sorts of health problems.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
VintageFeline wrote: »So to clarify on original point, CICO always applies and where those calories come from is irrelevant unless you have a pre-existing medical conditional, like insulin resistance or a thyroid problem. All that aside, in a normal person with no discernible medical problems, a calorie is a calorie, whether it comes from fat, salt, carbs, protein, whatever.
Well, it a calorie always calorie, whether or not you have a medical condition. The caveat with medical conditions, including insulin resistance, hypothyroidism, and diabetes, is that they need to find their "sweet spot," if you will for CICO for weight management, as well as watch their carb intake because their bodies do not properly metabolize them.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
Yup. And those ratios vary for different people. I've seen people say they are sated best with low carb, high protein. I've seen people say they are sated best with low carb, high fat. I've seen people say they are sated best with high carb, low fat. I'm sated best with moderate carb, fat, and protein.
I don't think there's any ONE way that's best and this is probably the only area where I'd go for putting forth that silly "we're all different" argument. Macro balance satisfaction will vary by individual. What ultimately matters is what will work for any given individual for a long term dietary solution.
A separate, but I think also important, issue, is that of types of food to include in the diet for long-term compliance.
But that's a subject for another post
QFT.
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So to clarify on original point, CICO always applies and where those calories come from is irrelevant unless you have a pre-existing medical conditional, like insulin resistance or a thyroid problem. All that aside, in a normal person with no discernible medical problems, a calorie is a calorie, whether it comes from fat, salt, carbs, protein, whatever.
Not really. There are no calories in salt and 100 calories of protein has a different effect on the body to 100 calories of carbohydrate or fat. Hence all the studies looking at the benefit of higher protein diets for weight loss, etc.
Are obesity or overweight included as "pre-existing medical conditions" ? Genetics and other factors influence how individuals respond to macronutrients and for that matter calories in (which are just grams of macronutrients multiplied by constants). See twin studies.
So you can do an energy balance after feeding someone and observing what happens, but you're controlling only some of the variables and the energy balance is a consequence not a driver. If you were considering a tank of hot water with a heater and a cooling coil then the energy balance would be primary, but I don't see that as this case in living organisms.
0 -
I understand the difference. Also, I'm not the one trying to argue that the law of thermodynamics applies, but kinda doesn't. That's you.lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
What on your list changes CICO? Oh, nothing, right? At most, it makes it more difficult for people to find the right answer, it doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. The answer is burn more calories than you consume.
Do you disagree that, whatever confusing factors may be at play in a complex biological organism, CICO still holds? And if CICO holds, whatever else is going on, ultimately it is a question of balancing what's happening on the plate with what's happening on the scale, right?
We may not be able to tell in real time exactly how much we're burning, or even exactly how much we're eating. We may not be able to tell in real time what genetic, congenital, acquired, or other abnormality, if any, is pushing us away from the average. However, if we track food relatively precisely -- not even accurately -- and watch the scale, over time we will be able to determine whether our CO is higher than our CI or not, right? If so, we're good to go, regardless of the lack of metaphysical certainty about any particular aspect of the process. If not, exactly why can't we make that determination, in your view?
0 -
TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »@lindsey1979 '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.'
Who is the we and starting to scratch the surface of what?
We as modern society are only starting to understand the various hormones and interactions involved with metabolism and weight issues. The research is in its infancy. Definitely good starts into leptin, grehlin, thyroid hormones, etc. but still a long way to go.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »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).
Once again, all factors that go into the CO part of the equation. Just because it can be difficult to figure out does not make it invalid.lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
Where exactly are people having trouble seeing the differences? Everyone agrees that metabolic disorders through another variable in the equation, you also agree to that. Everyone has been saying that regardless CICO still applies, you agreed to that as well. Where's the problem? Why the need to keep emphasizing metabolic disorders? What exactly are you looking for people acknowledge.
There seem to be two things that go on here. (1) theoretical discussions about the validity of CICO and (2) how CICO applies to weight loss. Folks like yourself tend to get stuck on the ivory tower principle of CICO -- I personally don't think anyone cares about on a weightliss website.
Confusion comes I when you try to equate the two as synonymous. When you're talking practical application to human body for weight loss/maintenance, there are other factors to consider -- some of which may be considerable depending on the individual circumstances. But many seem overwhelmed by that and want everything to be simple -- so they go back to oversimplified application of CICO which can lead to erroneous results.
Then these debates arise about the validity or not of CICO. And it's not really about that AT ALL. Just that there are limitations to simplifying CICO in that context and why people should look at the oversimplification as an absolute.
Nothing that you have said is providing a valid argument against CICO being applicable to everyone. You now say that people want things to be simple and end up with erroneous results but that doesn't discredit CICO, instead it reinforces what many people say all the time, CICO works but many people just don't know what they are doing.
Im not trying to discredit CICO -- why do keep trying counter arguments that aren't actually made?
It's just that CICO as a simple weightloss tool has its limitations because of its many variables in biological systems. When those variables change, the simplicity of the application differs dramatically. That's all.
So if you're not falling into the parameters of the simple application, you should probably look at some of those variables to explain the results (and tweak accordingly to get better results). This really isn't that hard.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »@lindsey1979 '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.'
Who is the we and starting to scratch the surface of what?
We as modern society are only starting to understand the various hormones and interactions involved with metabolism and weight issues. The research is in its infancy. Definitely good starts into leptin, grehlin, thyroid hormones, etc. but still a long way to go.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »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).
Once again, all factors that go into the CO part of the equation. Just because it can be difficult to figure out does not make it invalid.lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
Where exactly are people having trouble seeing the differences? Everyone agrees that metabolic disorders through another variable in the equation, you also agree to that. Everyone has been saying that regardless CICO still applies, you agreed to that as well. Where's the problem? Why the need to keep emphasizing metabolic disorders? What exactly are you looking for people acknowledge.
There seem to be two things that go on here. (1) theoretical discussions about the validity of CICO and (2) how CICO applies to weight loss. Folks like yourself tend to get stuck on the ivory tower principle of CICO -- I personally don't think anyone cares about on a weightliss website.
Confusion comes I when you try to equate the two as synonymous. When you're talking practical application to human body for weight loss/maintenance, there are other factors to consider -- some of which may be considerable depending on the individual circumstances. But many seem overwhelmed by that and want everything to be simple -- so they go back to oversimplified application of CICO which can lead to erroneous results.
Then these debates arise about the validity or not of CICO. And it's not really about that AT ALL. Just that there are limitations to simplifying CICO in that context and why people should look at the oversimplification as an absolute.
Nothing that you have said is providing a valid argument against CICO being applicable to everyone. You now say that people want things to be simple and end up with erroneous results but that doesn't discredit CICO, instead it reinforces what many people say all the time, CICO works but many people just don't know what they are doing.
Im not trying to discredit CICO -- why do keep trying counter arguments that aren't actually made?
It's just that CICO as a simple weightloss tool has its limitations because of its many variables in biological systems. When those variables change, the simplicity of the application differs dramatically. That's all.
So if you're not falling into the parameters of the simple application, you should probably look at some of those variables to explain the results (and tweak accordingly to get better results). This really isn't that hard.
Lindsey, no matter what variables come into play, weight loss still comes down down eating less calories than you burn. It's just a matter of finding out what calorie balance works for you.0 -
That's inaPeachyCarol wrote: »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).
IR will not make you store "more" calories as fat, all things being the same unless you're eating more to begin with.
Inaccurate. If you understood how IR works, you'd understand why it lends itself to overeating. In broad strokes:
You have nutrients in your blood stream from eating, but your cells are resistant to insulin. So instead of the nutrients going into your cells like it would in an insulin sensitive person, they stay in the blood stream. Your body pumps more insulin to compensate to force the cells to take up the nutrients but that causes too swift of a change, dropping blood sugar, your signals for hunger get erroneously triggered (fatigue, light headed was, strong cravings), and you eat more because your hunger cues are triggered. Now you have more nutrients than necessary for the energy requirements and end up storing the surplus as fat. This can also contribute to imbalance in other pathways -- like cortisol in your adrenals. That's why IR folks have these big swings and can also end up with a level of adrenal insufficiency. And it's also why it can be very difficult to lose/maintain with IR -- because you either end up abnormally fatigued/hungry or you overeat to compensate for the fatigue/strong hunger cues.
There are things that can help with IR such as switching up macros (managing carbs is often helpful as that's what triggers the insulin response most strongly), medication like metformin, etc. Losing weight also helps for many -- but that's a nice little catch -22.0 -
I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.
What study, please? Do you have a link?
The only way you can lose weight by "simply adjusting fat/carb ratio" is if that "adjustment" puts you in a calorie deficit. 0 -
First off I want to say people reading this thread should go back and read what @ninerbuff and @vismal already said. Quite honestly you could do a lot worse than to spend your day just finding and reading their posts ... sense amongst the nonsense @ MFP.
But aside from agreeing with what's already been said your paragraph quoted here:VintageFeline wrote: »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.
triggered me to have to write another reply. You see, you're absolutely right: a calorie is a calorie. A certain deficit will burn mass to make up that deficit. It's as simple as that.
However, I can make him right too: a pound is not a pound. When you maintain your deficit, and lose your 5 pounds a month, you might not lose the same 5 pounds as someone with a good diet and fitness regimen. Do I think this matters? No, I don't.
But the fact is that if you lose 0.7lbs of fat and 0.3lbs of lean mass, eating crap and not exercising (this is more or less what I do for weight loss, personally), that's not "as good" as eating a solid diet with sufficient protein and exercising to maintain your muscle mass and lose 0.8 or 0.9lbs of fat to 0.1lb of lean. If you do exercise but eat crap, then the crap might not enable your muscles to recover.
Additionally, since 1lb of lean takes up less space than 1lb of fat, losing more fat means way more inches. This article sums it up nicely:
So, at the end of the day, it's better to be fit and slim than just slim. But if, like me, your goal is to lose a lot of weight (I have > 70lbs to go), it's fastest and easiest to focus on CICO and layer on the fitness later.
Many people who have successfully lost mainly lament that they didn't add exercise sooner. If I was good enough at this to make both changes at once, I would. Meanwhile I'm with you - a calorie is a calorie, even if burning lean mass makes much less difference to body shape than burning fat mass.
Osric
P.S. One other small problem is that one gram of fat contains 9 calories; while 1 gram of protein contains only 4 calories. So if you pretend muscle is pure protein, then you have to burn twice the volume of muscle to get the same caloric output; you have to double the size of the muscle lost in order to get the same caloric output as you'd get by burning fat, so the body shape difference isn't as dramatic as the picture implies. Still pretty big though.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I could make an argument the leaf is actually even worse in terms of predicting mathematically. I believe the leaf's landing spot would be a chaos function, and the only way to calculate it is to run through the set of raw calculations with any failure to have the right value of any variable leading to a very different result. The only way to have a correct prediction is to force the leaf to follow what you want - force it to the ground with outside pushes.
The human body on the other hand, operates on allostatic principles: it will actively push the system towards balancing points and parameters it wants. This makes it more predictable. In fact, allostatic principles are why we get things like insulin resistance - the body is actively trying to correct for what it thinks is faulty signaling by the pancreas with the insulin level it is sending.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.
This is more about expecting greater specificity with the CICO principle than is possible for an individual. It is neither wrong, nor incomplete, but a generalization based upon population statistics. The closer an individual lies to the median results, the greater the accuracy.
Specific adjustments such as these you are stating require intimate knowledge of far too many variables to apply to a large population.
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