'calories in-calories out' model might be flawed?
Replies
-
tmdalton849 wrote: »i am not interested in proving anything. i know how much i eat, i know how much i expend. it doesn't really vary. i am eating at a deficit, and i am losing weight. (i average approximately 3000 calories per day, am not particularly active and don't exercise much. if you can conceive of a way that i could be burning in excess of that in order to have lost the weight i have, i guess you'd have your answer according to the cico theory).
some people do eat at a deficit, and they do not lose weight. there has to be something more to it.
though as i said, i am not particularly concerned with figuring it out or proving why or what it is.
just wanted to put out there that there are a variety of experiences and possibilities. carry on!
(:
You don't KNOW how much you burn. No one does. The best we can do is make an educated guess and adjust according to our results. The reason no one believes you is not because we think you're lying. I think you believe what you're saying. But it's just as if someone told us the earth is flat. No matter how sincere and adamant they were in their belief, they'd still be wrong.
This. You're forming a belief without actually having the facts to support it. The fact remains, though, that even if you could point to a food log with weighed portions and an accurate exercise log, the only thing it would prove is that you have an abnormally high BMR. It still wouldn't disprove CICO.0 -
tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.0 -
strong_curves wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.
She doesn't track her food intake, which is how she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she isn't eating under 2000 calories a day.0 -
tmdalton849 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »i am not interested in proving anything. i know how much i eat, i know how much i expend. it doesn't really vary. i am eating at a deficit, and i am losing weight. (i average approximately 3000 calories per day, am not particularly active and don't exercise much. if you can conceive of a way that i could be burning in excess of that in order to have lost the weight i have, i guess you'd have your answer according to the cico theory).
some people do eat at a deficit, and they do not lose weight. there has to be something more to it.
though as i said, i am not particularly concerned with figuring it out or proving why or what it is.
just wanted to put out there that there are a variety of experiences and possibilities. carry on!
(:
So, what do you think is causing your weight loss? And what's your plan when you reach your goals and need to transition into maintenance? Because right now you sound like the Incredible Shrinking Person and I'd be a little concerned about long term plans if I were you.
i follow my body's natural hunger signals and trust its wisdom in finding homeostasis. i have not only lost fat, but gained muscle tone. my body is restructuring.
i believe the weight loss is happening because i am eating in such a way that my body is nourished, and my metabolism is balancing.
ymmv.
Maintaining waiting is allostatic, rather than homeostatic.
And it doesn't happen just because hormones are at a certain level.0 -
tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
OK, where exactly do you think the excess calories go? According to you, you're not burning them off but you're also not storing them as fat. Is it magic? What process is making you lose weight in a surplus?
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »strong_curves wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.
She doesn't track her food intake, which is how she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she isn't eating under 2000 calories a day.
i know what i eat, and what it comes in at. and i eat pretty much the same thing every day. sometimes it varies, but the average is over 2000.
@strong_curves you are welcome to add me and view my diary if you are truly interested. it's not terribly complete, as i eat ad libitum and only make entries periodically out of curiosity.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »strong_curves wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.
She doesn't track her food intake, which is how she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she isn't eating under 2000 calories a day.
Ok
0 -
tmdalton849 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »strong_curves wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.
She doesn't track her food intake, which is how she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she isn't eating under 2000 calories a day.
i know what i eat, and what it comes in at. and i eat pretty much the same thing every day. sometimes it varies, but the average is over 2000.
@strong_curves you are welcome to add me and view my diary if you are truly interested. it's not terribly complete, as i eat ad libitum and only make entries periodically out of curiosity.
Wait...is it over 2000 or an average of 3000 as you've previously stated in this thread?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »strong_curves wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.
She doesn't track her food intake, which is how she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she isn't eating under 2000 calories a day.
i know what i eat, and what it comes in at. and i eat pretty much the same thing every day. sometimes it varies, but the average is over 2000.
@strong_curves you are welcome to add me and view my diary if you are truly interested. it's not terribly complete, as i eat ad libitum and only make entries periodically out of curiosity.
Wait...is it over 2000 or an average of 3000 as you've previously stated in this thread?
i sm being generous in stating that it's over 2000. it's normally between 2500-3000. rarely if ever under 2500.0 -
Girl, you better run and hide, cos as soon as your government appreciates that you can create energy out of nothing you are so going to area 51
0 -
for example, two of the three days i entered this week came in at over 3000. the other was close to 2700. this is a relatively typical eating pattern for me, and has been over the course of the six months that i have been eating this way.
as i said, i exercised a bit at first, then stopped. recently added a bit back in.
not much has changed, to be honest, the entire time.0 -
It seems there is a bit of an individual energy balance discussion going on here, but back to the article....
The study was based on SELF-REPORTED data. It is entirely plausible to me that consumption was underreported 30 years ago and is underreported by a much greater amount now, given that portions have supersized in the intervening years. That was my primarily take, anyway.0 -
tmdalton849 wrote: »for example, two of the three days i entered this week came in at over 3000. the other was close to 2700. this is a relatively typical eating pattern for me, and has been over the course of the six months that i have been eating this way.
as i said, i exercised a bit at first, then stopped. recently added a bit back in.
not much has changed, to be honest, the entire time.
I really can't say this any other way. You are miscalculating somewhere. There is no physical way to eat above TDEE and lose weight. You would be the first person in the history of persons to do so and an evolutionary wonder.0 -
It seems there is a bit of an individual energy balance discussion going on here, but back to the article....
The study was based on SELF-REPORTED data. It is entirely plausible to me that consumption was underreported 30 years ago and is underreported by a much greater amount now, given that portions have supersized in the intervening years. That was my primarily take, anyway.
I think the individual energy balance discussion comes down to an issue of self-reporting as well.
Bear with me here...
You know how with body dysmorphia, most cases involve people viewing themselves in a more negative light than they actually appear? Well, it can go the other way too. Some body dysmorphics have an, um, overly optimistic view of their bodies.
Well, the same goes for calorie reporting/estimating/eyeballing.
Most errors are usually made by those underreporting/underestimating intake. However, it is not unknown for a subset of people to overreport/overestimate their intake and underreport their activity.
I am aware of three instances of proponents of special diets who promote this thinking among their adherents.
I'd also like to add one more thing not at all related to this:
Muscle is built in a caloric surplus with progressive overload. It is not built with minimal activity and a certain sort of food.0 -
*smile...nod*PeachyCarol wrote: »
I'd also like to add one more thing not at all related to this:
Muscle is built in a caloric surplus with progressive overload. It is not built with minimal activity and a certain sort of food.
And I'll re-iterate this as well.
0 -
I'm baffled as to how they did a control group of "30 years ago dieters"0
-
mhaskins08 wrote: »Interesting article. A little over a year ago I would have gobbled this up. I was looking for the reason I could not drop weight. Was it my thyroid? Eating white (processed) foods?
Dr confirmed no thyroid issue... I switched to mostly whole and healthy foods... Got back on my exercise game... Lost some weight then hit the wall.
I wasn't monitoring my caloric intake. I thought as long as I got rid of "bad foods" from my diet... My body would take care of the rest. Lol. Once I started monotoring both what I ate AND how much... I pushed past and lost 10 pounds (3.8 of Those since joining MFP).
I believe the root of most weight problems is not monitoring how much you eat
0 -
For the person with the hormonal problems and the very low maintenance cals: I have blood sugar/ insulin issues and can at least tell you what my doctor told me, while you pursue your own testing and diagnosis. She said never eat carbs alone. Always pair them with a protein. It has to do with trying to keep your blood sugar as level as possible. Also, don't do uber-low carb, but be very moderate in carb consumption and favor complex carbs over simple ones (once again, helps maintain blood sugar as stable as possible.) It also helps regulate feelings of hunger when your blood sugar levels are not bouncing all over the place. Give it a try and see if it helps.0
-
There seem to be a basic misunderstanding about what is TDEE here. Your TDEE is truly determined by what calorie level keeps you at maintenance. This will vary individually. So if you are maintaining, you are eating at maintenance (your TDEE). If you are losing, you are in a deficit. The best way for anyone to calculate their personal TDEE is to track their intake accurately over an extended period of time, and compare that to their weight loss/gain over that time frame. I have done this, and know my personal TDEE, and my numbers based on that continue to hold true.0
-
tmdalton849 wrote: »*not eating at s deficit. (:
Eating at a deficit simply means eating less than you need to maintain your weight. By definition, you are eating at a deficit. I get the feeling you are using some different meaning for it, so I'm curious what that is.0 -
It seems there is a bit of an individual energy balance discussion going on here, but back to the article....
The study was based on SELF-REPORTED data. It is entirely plausible to me that consumption was underreported 30 years ago and is underreported by a much greater amount now, given that portions have supersized in the intervening years. That was my primarily take, anyway.
That's my guess also.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »There seem to be a basic misunderstanding about what is TDEE here. Your TDEE is truly determined by what calorie level keeps you at maintenance. This will vary individually. So if you are maintaining, you are eating at maintenance (your TDEE). If you are losing, you are in a deficit. The best way for anyone to calculate their personal TDEE is to track their intake accurately over an extended period of time, and compare that to their weight loss/gain over that time frame. I have done this, and know my personal TDEE, and my numbers based on that continue to hold true.
I tried to explain this also. No response.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »There seem to be a basic misunderstanding about what is TDEE here. Your TDEE is truly determined by what calorie level keeps you at maintenance. This will vary individually. So if you are maintaining, you are eating at maintenance (your TDEE). If you are losing, you are in a deficit. The best way for anyone to calculate their personal TDEE is to track their intake accurately over an extended period of time, and compare that to their weight loss/gain over that time frame. I have done this, and know my personal TDEE, and my numbers based on that continue to hold true.
I tried to explain this also. No response.
Same here, she's been told repeatedly that a TDEE is at best a guesstimate and if she's positive about her intake then the alternative is that she's burning more than the calculator spits out. Why this is dismissed out of hand with an insistence that she defies the laws of physics is beyond me at this point.0 -
-
I would say that most people who argue that CICO doesn't work is mistaking the energy balance equation for online calculators. Some people may not have their calories out estimated well by the various calculators. They are estimates based on population averages (and healthy adults at that). The estimates by definition won't work well for the outliers on the bell curve.
That does not invalidate CICO.0 -
Just walk'n away.0
-
tmdalton849 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »strong_curves wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.
She doesn't track her food intake, which is how she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she isn't eating under 2000 calories a day.
i know what i eat, and what it comes in at. and i eat pretty much the same thing every day. sometimes it varies, but the average is over 2000.
@strong_curves you are welcome to add me and view my diary if you are truly interested. it's not terribly complete, as i eat ad libitum and only make entries periodically out of curiosity.
There are people who "know" that wind farms make them ill. There are people that "know" they saw a ghost. There are people that "know" homeopathy cured their cold.
This is in the same category.
0 -
tmdalton849 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »strong_curves wrote: »tmdalton849 wrote: »according to the calculations most of you seem to go by and trust, even overestimatimg my level of physical activity, i would have to have been eating less than 2000 calories per day over the past six months in order to lose the weight that i have. i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i have not.
make of it what you will. i believe there's more to it. you certainly don't have to.
I'd like to see your food diary if you have one.
She doesn't track her food intake, which is how she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she isn't eating under 2000 calories a day.
i know what i eat, and what it comes in at. and i eat pretty much the same thing every day. sometimes it varies, but the average is over 2000.
@strong_curves you are welcome to add me and view my diary if you are truly interested. it's not terribly complete, as i eat ad libitum and only make entries periodically out of curiosity.
There are people who "know" that wind farms make them ill. There are people that "know" they saw a ghost. There are people that "know" homeopathy cured their cold.
This is in the same category.
And believe in magic.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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