Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Options
Replies
-
Eating more than others still equates to cico.
Here's another perspective. I know by now that I have a very fickle low blood pressure. Well, basically it's constantly low and doesn't recover unless I stop what I do and drops down as soon as I continue doing this, including walking. If I do a city trip or day hike and walk all day I have to eat every 60-90 minutes because I get hungry and weak very quickly. People always told me that they have a good breakfast in the morning and can go all day. I never could do that. I'd get hungry and weak again 60-90 minutes later. Just because every step literally feels like wading through custard. So I ate a ton of food since childhood, and was always normal weight while not being as active as other kids simply because I could not be as active.
But guess what? When I became even more inactive, studying, sitting in an office all day i did gain weight as I was still eating the same. Cito works.
Finally having found out why I'm constantly tired and hungry and having found a fix (more salt and compression) means I again need to eat lesss, otherwise I gain. Cito still works, and I really need to take care of how much I eat and relearn about my personal nutritional needs - with the great addition that I am now able to walk briskly for a few hours with just a breakfast without feeling miserable.
CITO is just an energy equation. Eat less and you lose, eat more and you gain. How much this less or more is somewhat individual for everyone within certain statistical boundaries.0 -
Your point is entirely moot because that doesn't happen. Ever. It didn't even happen in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
It occurs to me that its our fault Anvil. We weren't thinking about it clearly enough. nettiklive has been getting their information about metabolism from the people they see every day who have despite eating nothing for days, weeks and in some cases even a month at a time and haven't lost any fat.
They are a mortician.23 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »
Your point is entirely moot because that doesn't happen. Ever. It didn't even happen in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
It occurs to me that its our fault Anvil. We weren't thinking about it clearly enough. nettiklive has been getting their information about metabolism from the people they see every day who have despite eating nothing for days, weeks and in some cases even a month at a time and haven't lost any fat.
They are a mortician.
Maybe it all comes from reading this latest "research" (courtesy of The Onion): https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-it-is-impossible-to-lose-weight-no-one-181957510515 -
I think most of the CICO deniers seem to really be denying the ways people estimate CI and CO. The mathematical formula is clearly undeniable. Your body can't magically make an energy source out of nothing. Your body might be really good or really poor at breaking down the food you eat so your CI might be different than what you think it is (for example, you might think your meal has 500 calories but if you are not actually digesting things completely and absorbing everything then your CI might be lower than you think). Your CO might be higher or lower than what is estimated based on your age/weight/sex. Unless you believe in magic CICO still applies to you. The way we estimate your CI and CO can be off but that isn't CICO being wrong.6
-
Follow the $. Using CICO to loose weight is virtually free. Weight loss companies are good at selling the very same concept but re-branding it to make huge profits.
It's simple capitalism... lol6 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
You've yet to link any study that substantiates your beliefs and this is nothing more than confirmation bias.
That's the beauty of science and objective evidence. It does not care what you believe in.
...and 2 paragraphs regarding your inability to accept that reality does not fit your narrative...
When were you in?10 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Exactly.
Arguing for pages and pages that there are variations in metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, etc. do absolutely nothing to disprove or invalidate the principles of CICO. Congratulations, you've discovered what we already knew - that it's not an exact science.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the incontrovertible scientific fact that if you are in a caloric deficit, by whatever means that is accomplished, you WILL lose weight/fat. The only issue at hand is that it may take some trial and error to flesh out the exact numbers based upon your individual data/results.
The alternative is to give in to the multitude of excuses why it can't possibly work and Just Stay Fat.
My point is, what if some people are not able to create a deficit large enough to lose weight, because when they restrict their intake, their metabolism adapts to meet that intake level. Now, I'm sure that at SOME point, you can eat little enough to create a deficit, but what if for some, that level is, I don't know, 500 calories?
When someone comes on here stating they eat 1200-1500 calories and are not losing weight, everyone jumps on them assuming they're tracking improperly because if they were, it would be impossible for them not to lose. Even though they have no knowledge, aside from random online calculators, of what the person's RMR actually is.
Same as for some others, it may be nearly impossible to create a surplus, because while one person their weight may gain at 2,000 calories, they may need something like 4,000 calories because their metabolism adapts to anything less, burning faster.
Again, it is pretty well known that our metabolisms do shift up and down daily to adapt for small variations in diet - because the majority of people do not track their diets, may eat wildly varying amounts each day, yet tend to maintain the same weight unless they sustain a prolonged and drastic deficit or surplus. Pretty much everyone I know has stayed more or less the same weight for years and none of them track or even really watch their calories, aside from a couple of overweight people trying to lose. So all those people must be naturally eating at maintenance, but it's hard to believe they're naturally eating EXACTLY at maintenance every single day or even over the course of a week, without tracking whatsoever. I'm CERTAIN they aren't, but their bodies maintain a homeostasis by adjusting slightly to the caloric variations. So why is it a stretch to assume that for some, this process of metabolic adaptation can be a lot more pronounced and extend to higher or lower intakes?
I am just going to file this one under hopeless and move on. We tried MFP... we tried.
We are so close minded. Just time to accept that feelings > objective evidence.13 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
I think you're conflating several distinct things. (BTW, I did read and consider your subsequent replies; it's this one that is the clearest segue.)
1. CICO is not calorie counting, nor is it an endorsement of the accuracy of any calorie needs "calculator" that spits out what amounts to an estimated population average based on a tiny number of variables. If someone's "metabolism" is down-regulated, their CO is reduced. If their "metabolism" see-saws in response to changes in CI, their CO is see-sawing up and down.
Note to other readers, I know what a "counterfactual conditional" is, and I know how to use one.
2. I agree that there is variation in caloric needs among superficially similar people, possibly fairly wide variation, and (because science) I presume this variation centers itself in some kind of statistical distribution around something close to what the "calculators" estimate. The implication is that most people will come out fairly close to the estimates, but others further away in either direction. Actual accurately-tracked calorie needs very far from the estimates will be quite, quite rare (because statistics).
Rare things happen rarely. Common things happen commonly.
It's common to see "can't lose" threads where - assuming the OP is engaged and honest, and the peanut gallery doesn't get kneejerk insulting beyond reason - we eventually collectively help OP understand what's happening. Sometimes their time scale is too short so water weight is masking results; sometimes they feel like they're being "so good" on a super-aggressive deficit but an open diary reveals unlogged days that they acknowledge were binge days caused by despairing, reactive over-eating (that unnecessary, unhelpful feelings of shame were leading them to deny in their own minds, or underestimate the impact); sometimes machines or instructors were encouraging them to massively inflate exercise calories; sometimes they were using lots of questionable food database entries.
Very rarely, there's been someone who was seemingly doing everything right, and getting anomalous results. Ideally, they get suggestions for medical tests, structured diet breaks (if the circumstances are right), or referrals to a registered dietician for help.
3. Sometimes - way too often, IMO - a chorus of "you're not a special snowflake" from people who don't understand #1 or #2 drives a sensitive OP into retreat before anyone sensible can help them figure out what's going on, or an over-confident OP gets huffy because they just know they're doing everything perfectly and decamps prematurely. I find these cases - especially the "sensitive OP" one - very sad. Some people have come to obesity through emotional fragility. Negative group behavior worsens the wounds.
IMO, it's important to keep in mind that a very few people will have lower than expected calorie needs, so not rush too soon to "you're doing it wrong", even though other explanations are much more common and likely than statistical outlier-hood.
That said, as others have documented, there is zero evidence that there are medically normal or even close to normal people who cannot lose weight by truly lowering CI to some level that will allow them to lose weight but still sustain nutrition. (There may be no psychologically sustainable level, or satiating level, but that's a different question.)
Now, a couple of observations:
A. It's frankly insulting to assume that everyone who believes in CICO (the energy balance equation) is on a "high horse" or "closed minded". Speaking personally, because I'm a person who can eat many more calories than the "calculators" estimate, I understand that people exist who must eat many fewer, and that recognizing and dealing with that will be very hard.
Many of the CICO proponents on this thread are knowledgeable, experienced frequent posters who patiently help despairing "can't lose" people sort out what's going on, and eventually succeed. Some are a little more touchy-feely about it, some are more about tough love: Different approaches work with different OPs.
The bottom line is that believing in science, and acting generously with compassion, are not mutually exclusive as you've implied
B. On the internet, there's no way to know whom you're exchanging posts with. (As the old cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog."
). An important corollary: Sometimes you may be arguing with actual professionals in the biological sciences, and never even realize how hubristic some statements can look in that context. Apropos of nothing here, of course. 43 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
You know what the tell is that you're not as well versed in what you're talking about as you think you are?
You think of and speak of "metabolism" as if it's single entity or process within the human body, and anyone who knows anything about metabolism knows it's not.
Metabolism is simply a word used to describe the series of processes that make the human body work. It's not a thing unto itself.11 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
I think you're conflating several distinct things. (BTW, I did read and consider your subsequent replies; it's this one that is the clearest segue.)
1. CICO is not calorie counting, nor is it an endorsement of the accuracy of any calorie needs "calculator" that spits out what amounts to an estimated population average based on a tiny number of variables. If someone's "metabolism" is down-regulated, their CO is reduced. If their "metabolism" see-saws in response to changes in CI, their CO is see-sawing up and down.
Note to other readers, I know what a "counterfactual conditional" is, and I know how to use one.
2. I agree that there is variation in caloric needs among superficially similar people, possibly fairly wide variation, and (because science) I presume this variation centers itself in some kind of statistical distribution around something close to what the "calculators" estimate. The implication is that most people will come out fairly close to the estimates, but others further away in either direction. Actual accurately-tracked calorie needs very far from the estimates will be quite, quite rare (because statistics).
Rare things happen rarely. Common things happen commonly.
It's common to see "can't lose" threads where - assuming the OP is engaged and honest, and the peanut gallery doesn't get kneejerk insulting beyond reason - we eventually collectively help OP understand what's happening. Sometimes their time scale is too short so water weight is masking results; sometimes they feel like they're being "so good" on a super-aggressive deficit but an open diary reveals unlogged days that they acknowledge were binge days caused by despairing, reactive over-eating (that unnecessary, unhelpful feelings of shame were leading them to deny in their own minds, or underestimate the impact); sometimes machines or instructors were encouraging them to massively inflate exercise calories; sometimes they were using lots of questionable food database entries.
Very rarely, there's been someone who was seemingly doing everything right, and getting anomalous results. Ideally, they get suggestions for medical tests, structured diet breaks (if the circumstances are right), or referrals to a registered dietician for help.
3. Sometimes - way too often, IMO - a chorus of "you're not a special snowflake" from people who don't understand #1 or #2 drives a sensitive OP into retreat before anyone sensible can help them figure out what's going on, or an over-confident OP gets huffy because they just know they're doing everything perfectly and decamps prematurely. I find these cases - especially the "sensitive OP" one - very sad. Some people have come to obesity through emotional fragility. Negative group behavior worsens the wounds.
IMO, it's important to keep in mind that a very few people will have lower than expected calorie needs, so not rush too soon to "you're doing it wrong", even though other explanations are much more common and likely than statistical outlier-hood.
That said, as others have documented, there is zero evidence that there are medically normal or even close to normal people who cannot lose weight by truly lowering CI to some level that will allow them to lose weight but still sustain nutrition. (There may be no psychologically sustainable level, or satiating level, but that's a different question.)
Now, a couple of observations:
A. It's frankly insulting to assume that everyone who believes in CICO (the energy balance equation) is on a "high horse" or "closed minded". Speaking personally, because I'm a person who can eat many more calories than the "calculators" estimate, I understand that people exist who must eat many fewer, and that recognizing and dealing with that will be very hard.
Many of the CICO proponents on this thread are knowledgeable, experienced frequent posters who patiently help despairing "can't lose" people sort out what's going on, and eventually succeed. Some are a little more touchy-feely about it, some are more about tough love: Different approaches work with different OPs.
The bottom line is that believing in science, and acting generously with compassion, are not mutually exclusive as you've implied
B. On the internet, there's no way to know whom you're exchanging posts with. (As the old cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." ). An important corollary: Sometimes you may be arguing with actual professionals in the biological sciences, and never even realize how hubristic some statements can look in that context. Apropos of nothing here, of course.
Ann, if you reduce the whole forums to the 10 FAQs of Ann, and then get Dianne to link to them, I will end up with way too much time to eat on my hands!
21 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
I think you're conflating several distinct things. (BTW, I did read and consider your subsequent replies; it's this one that is the clearest segue.)
1. CICO is not calorie counting, nor is it an endorsement of the accuracy of any calorie needs "calculator" that spits out what amounts to an estimated population average based on a tiny number of variables. If someone's "metabolism" is down-regulated, their CO is reduced. If their "metabolism" see-saws in response to changes in CI, their CO is see-sawing up and down.
Note to other readers, I know what a "counterfactual conditional" is, and I know how to use one.
2. I agree that there is variation in caloric needs among superficially similar people, possibly fairly wide variation, and (because science) I presume this variation centers itself in some kind of statistical distribution around something close to what the "calculators" estimate. The implication is that most people will come out fairly close to the estimates, but others further away in either direction. Actual accurately-tracked calorie needs very far from the estimates will be quite, quite rare (because statistics).
Rare things happen rarely. Common things happen commonly.
It's common to see "can't lose" threads where - assuming the OP is engaged and honest, and the peanut gallery doesn't get kneejerk insulting beyond reason - we eventually collectively help OP understand what's happening. Sometimes their time scale is too short so water weight is masking results; sometimes they feel like they're being "so good" on a super-aggressive deficit but an open diary reveals unlogged days that they acknowledge were binge days caused by despairing, reactive over-eating (that unnecessary, unhelpful feelings of shame were leading them to deny in their own minds, or underestimate the impact); sometimes machines or instructors were encouraging them to massively inflate exercise calories; sometimes they were using lots of questionable food database entries.
Very rarely, there's been someone who was seemingly doing everything right, and getting anomalous results. Ideally, they get suggestions for medical tests, structured diet breaks (if the circumstances are right), or referrals to a registered dietician for help.
3. Sometimes - way too often, IMO - a chorus of "you're not a special snowflake" from people who don't understand #1 or #2 drives a sensitive OP into retreat before anyone sensible can help them figure out what's going on, or an over-confident OP gets huffy because they just know they're doing everything perfectly and decamps prematurely. I find these cases - especially the "sensitive OP" one - very sad. Some people have come to obesity through emotional fragility. Negative group behavior worsens the wounds.
IMO, it's important to keep in mind that a very few people will have lower than expected calorie needs, so not rush too soon to "you're doing it wrong", even though other explanations are much more common and likely than statistical outlier-hood.
That said, as others have documented, there is zero evidence that there are medically normal or even close to normal people who cannot lose weight by truly lowering CI to some level that will allow them to lose weight but still sustain nutrition. (There may be no psychologically sustainable level, or satiating level, but that's a different question.)
Now, a couple of observations:
A. It's frankly insulting to assume that everyone who believes in CICO (the energy balance equation) is on a "high horse" or "closed minded". Speaking personally, because I'm a person who can eat many more calories than the "calculators" estimate, I understand that people exist who must eat many fewer, and that recognizing and dealing with that will be very hard.
Many of the CICO proponents on this thread are knowledgeable, experienced frequent posters who patiently help despairing "can't lose" people sort out what's going on, and eventually succeed. Some are a little more touchy-feely about it, some are more about tough love: Different approaches work with different OPs.
The bottom line is that believing in science, and acting generously with compassion, are not mutually exclusive as you've implied
B. On the internet, there's no way to know whom you're exchanging posts with. (As the old cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." ). An important corollary: Sometimes you may be arguing with actual professionals in the biological sciences, and never even realize how hubristic some statements can look in that context. Apropos of nothing here, of course.
Ann, if you reduce the whole forums to the 10 FAQs of Ann, and then get Dianne to link to them, I will end up with way too much time to eat in my hands! :Anguished:
Just for the record: *I* woo-ed that.
But you're very kind nonethess. :flowerforyou: :drinker:@AnnPT77 Your post requires an awesome button for me to push. :drinker:
(Blush) :flowerforyou: :drinker:6 -
First of all I continue to not understand why people conflate their own inability to correctly determine their CI and CO levels with whether CICO works as a universal concept that applies to them just like it does to everyone else.
Whether you are able to establish the level of CI-CO balance you want to achieve and whether you are able to accurately measure and gauge the effects of whatever balance you have actually achieved, has nothing to do with whether CICO works underneath all that, or not.
Which is why people are usually advised to apply a reasonable deficit for 4 to 6 weeks and then adjust based on their own results as reflected by their trending weight changes and their logging.
Having said that,Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
I don't know that your above statement is true and would love to see some corraboration/sourcing as I believe that even intra-person variability can exceed 5%. Which means that interperson variability, even keeping age, height, and weight constant would, presumably, be even more.
However my google-foo is failing today and while I am finding stuff that sort of corraborates my belief (see below), I am not finding multitudes of conclusive studies.
Then again, on the face of it, I don't know why one would assume that there is no interpersonal variance. Even at the same age, weight, height people have different amounts of fat and fat free mass and, also, may be starting off from different degrees of over- or under- feeding, or may be starting from a position of illness or other differing circumstances.
Hence if you know something I don't about how little REE varies among same height/age/weight individuals... kindly direct me to it.
--
We calculated total error to be 8 %. Variance in body composition (CV(intra) FFM) explains 19 % of the variability in REE(adj), whereas the remaining 81 % is explained by the variability of the metabolic rate (CV(intra) REE). We conclude that CV(intra) of REE measurements was neither influenced by type of protocol for data analysis nor by the number of repeated measurements. About 20 % of the variance in REE(adj) is explained by variance in body composition. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16277790
{standard formula derived}BMR over- or underestimated REE by >10 kcal · kg · day in 15 of 28 (54%) patients. REE was not significantly correlated with severity of liver disease, nutritional status, total energy intake, or gestational age....with approximately 80% of our cohort exhibiting either hypo- or hypermetabolism. Standard estimation equations frequently do not correctly predict individual REE. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24361903
Different established equations can be used for estimating REE at the population level in both sexes. However, the accuracy was very low for all predictive equations used, particularly among females and when BMI was high, limiting their use in clinical practice. Our findings suggest that the validation of new predictive equations would improve the accuracy of REE prediction, especially for severely obese subjects (BMI>40 kg m−2). - https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo201734
Now THAT would obviously work! But **sometimes**... it is not trivial.Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit
I'm not sure if you're going to find a journal article expressly stating this. This is expressed in the Harris-Benedict equation (and subsequent evolution and revision) itself. Outcome observed at a 95% CI. I removed age intentionally as in adult population the variance is highly exaggerated. When you includ the degree of error in instrumentation (finding that it exceeds variance) it makes the suggestion of "It's my metabolism" all the more laughable.10 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
I think you're conflating several distinct things. (BTW, I did read and consider your subsequent replies; it's this one that is the clearest segue.)
1. CICO is not calorie counting, nor is it an endorsement of the accuracy of any calorie needs "calculator" that spits out what amounts to an estimated population average based on a tiny number of variables. If someone's "metabolism" is down-regulated, their CO is reduced. If their "metabolism" see-saws in response to changes in CI, their CO is see-sawing up and down.
Note to other readers, I know what a "counterfactual conditional" is, and I know how to use one.
2. I agree that there is variation in caloric needs among superficially similar people, possibly fairly wide variation, and (because science) I presume this variation centers itself in some kind of statistical distribution around something close to what the "calculators" estimate. The implication is that most people will come out fairly close to the estimates, but others further away in either direction. Actual accurately-tracked calorie needs very far from the estimates will be quite, quite rare (because statistics).
Rare things happen rarely. Common things happen commonly.
It's common to see "can't lose" threads where - assuming the OP is engaged and honest, and the peanut gallery doesn't get kneejerk insulting beyond reason - we eventually collectively help OP understand what's happening. Sometimes their time scale is too short so water weight is masking results; sometimes they feel like they're being "so good" on a super-aggressive deficit but an open diary reveals unlogged days that they acknowledge were binge days caused by despairing, reactive over-eating (that unnecessary, unhelpful feelings of shame were leading them to deny in their own minds, or underestimate the impact); sometimes machines or instructors were encouraging them to massively inflate exercise calories; sometimes they were using lots of questionable food database entries.
Very rarely, there's been someone who was seemingly doing everything right, and getting anomalous results. Ideally, they get suggestions for medical tests, structured diet breaks (if the circumstances are right), or referrals to a registered dietician for help.
3. Sometimes - way too often, IMO - a chorus of "you're not a special snowflake" from people who don't understand #1 or #2 drives a sensitive OP into retreat before anyone sensible can help them figure out what's going on, or an over-confident OP gets huffy because they just know they're doing everything perfectly and decamps prematurely. I find these cases - especially the "sensitive OP" one - very sad. Some people have come to obesity through emotional fragility. Negative group behavior worsens the wounds.
IMO, it's important to keep in mind that a very few people will have lower than expected calorie needs, so not rush too soon to "you're doing it wrong", even though other explanations are much more common and likely than statistical outlier-hood.
That said, as others have documented, there is zero evidence that there are medically normal or even close to normal people who cannot lose weight by truly lowering CI to some level that will allow them to lose weight but still sustain nutrition. (There may be no psychologically sustainable level, or satiating level, but that's a different question.)
Now, a couple of observations:
A. It's frankly insulting to assume that everyone who believes in CICO (the energy balance equation) is on a "high horse" or "closed minded". Speaking personally, because I'm a person who can eat many more calories than the "calculators" estimate, I understand that people exist who must eat many fewer, and that recognizing and dealing with that will be very hard.
Many of the CICO proponents on this thread are knowledgeable, experienced frequent posters who patiently help despairing "can't lose" people sort out what's going on, and eventually succeed. Some are a little more touchy-feely about it, some are more about tough love: Different approaches work with different OPs.
The bottom line is that believing in science, and acting generously with compassion, are not mutually exclusive as you've implied
B. On the internet, there's no way to know whom you're exchanging posts with. (As the old cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." ). An important corollary: Sometimes you may be arguing with actual professionals in the biological sciences, and never even realize how hubristic some statements can look in that context. Apropos of nothing here, of course.
Very well stated Ambassador @AnnPT77 !9 -
I agree with everything @AnnPT77 said and will add my own slight off average example. I have PCOS, borderline low thyroid (not low enough to warrant medications), and an injury that rendered me unable to sit for long periods of time so most my sedentary time is spent lying down. My "sedentary" is essentially lower than calculated sedentary, and I burn fewer calories through activity than average. I could say that I have a "slower metabolism" by about 150-180 calories. This is why I need to be more active than the average person to achieve the same kind of loss. Understanding how CICO works helped me put together a plan that works for my CICO.
While there exist cases where people are burning fewer calories (I'm a prime example), in most cases this isn't what's happening. And the overwhelmingly vast majority of these cases, being an outlier doesn't make it impossible to lose weight while getting adequate nutrition. You'll be extremely hard pressed to find someone who truly would gain on 1200 calories unless extremely small in stature (in which case their nutritional needs are different and can be fulfilled within a smaller calorie limit).
Psychological sustainability is a whole other can of worms and I believe I'll break a woo record if it ever gets discussed because I believe people who find a normal weight unsustainable are better off if they stick to the lowest sustainable weight for them even if it falls in the overweight (or even obese) range, but keep working on acquiring skills and strategies that can potentially lower the threshold for what is sustainable.
21 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I agree with everything @AnnPT77 said and will add my own slight off average example. I have PCOS, borderline low thyroid (not low enough to warrant medications), and an injury that rendered me unable to sit for long periods of time so most my sedentary time is spent lying down. My "sedentary" is essentially lower than calculated sedentary, and I burn fewer calories through activity than average. I could say that I have a "slower metabolism" by about 150-180 calories. This is why I need to be more active than the average person to achieve the same kind of loss. Understanding how CICO works helped me put together a plan that works for my CICO.
While there exist cases where people are burning fewer calories (I'm a prime example), in most cases this isn't what's happening. And the overwhelmingly vast majority of these cases, being an outlier doesn't make it impossible to lose weight while getting adequate nutrition. You'll be extremely hard pressed to find someone who truly would gain on 1200 calories unless extremely small in stature (in which case their nutritional needs are different and can be fulfilled within a smaller calorie limit).
Psychological sustainability is a whole other can of worms and I believe I'll break a woo record if it ever gets discussed because I believe people who find a normal weight unsustainable are better off if they stick to the lowest sustainable weight for them even if it falls in the overweight (or even obese) range, but keep working on acquiring skills and strategies that can potentially lower the threshold for what is sustainable.
I suspect you're mistaken on this point, as I've found a great deal of acceptance as a relatively fit and still obese(when I hit the bottom of my maintenance range I'll be just barely overweight) person. I still have to work to stay fit and healthy, but I've chosen to accept a higher maintenance range. I may someday(when I become much less active) get into the high "normal" range. But for now, I like to eat, and I like to train, and I know how to cut if and when I choose to, and I've got the skills to do so, it's just not that much of a priority.
3 -
But Harris-Benedict (and revisions including the ones used by mfp and Fitbit) are often found to not accurately enough predict individuals who are observed directly. Or at least not accurately enough so that researchers still try to tinker with the predictive formulas and delineate populations where "their" equation would work better, or be more precise
Now before anyone else misinterprets, this has nothing to do with CICO or an inability to succeed in losing weight based on starting from a starting point that could be derived from even worse than the available equations (or even be arbitrarily chosen) and correcting based on individual results over time.
I am just trying to understand (with my limited understanding of statistics) why interperson REE variability would not exceed 5%.
MFP uses Mifflin which I understand is a revision of Harris-Benedict.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21458373/
The Mifflin under-predicted RMR in both sexes, normal weight individuals, 40-60 year olds, and non-Hispanic White participants.
However, clinical judgment and caution should be used when applying these prediction equations to special populations **or small groups**
N=1 is a very small group. Individual forum threads deal with n=1s. The totality of forum threads behaves closer to the population.
... at an individual level, both equations have wide limits of agreement and clinically
important differences in REE would be obtained.
Our results are in agreement with other studies in this fi eld.[1,8,10] Boullata et al, in 2007 compared predictive equations of REE and indirect calorimetry in hospitalized patients and
found that even the most accurate equation (the Harris-Benedict 1.1) was inaccurate in 39% of patients and had an unacceptably high error
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/caf8/dca3049a274c3fa76b9a322a0b8e190b8a1b.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiExKXfnqHaAhXLasAKHacqDwQQFjAFegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw1GVOvFwAI97OZJ-Hw3JFkn
Of course in hospitalized patients something else is happening too and this would have implications as to whether the patient is hyper or hypo metabolic.
The point being though that without a complete history we don't know whether the somebody posting is hyper or hypo metabolic and people are not well known for disclosing every pertinent issue they have up front.
And while millions and millions of people are absolutely normal [just like the British actress in the clip we often link to, and as I found out for myself once I started using MFP and Fitbit and doing a dexa scan or two, myself] given how few people make it to MFP in the first place, and how few of them then post, I don't see why it is impossible to run into a-typical individuals more often than the full population statistics would indicate.
And yes, everything Ann said above is true, with the vast majority of perceived situations that CICO is not working stemming from an inability to correctly evaluate a combination of inputs and results.
So just to be clear. I believe that CICO applies 100% of the time but can be hard to pin down the exact numbers when it comes to a particular individual, and even at different points time, for a particular individual.
And that a (very few) times [but more often seen on MFP than elsewhere] the the answer may not be "eat less to lose", because eat less to lose sometimes is addressing the wrong part of CICO for the particular person and is doing so with the wrong tool.
You know, the break the wall by banging it with your head analogy.3 -
But Harris-Benedict (and revisions including the ones used by mfp and Fitbit) are often found to not accurately enough predict individuals who are observed directly. Or at least not accurately enough so that researchers still try to tinker with the predictive formulas and delineate populations where "their" equation would work better, or be more precise
Now before anyone else misinterprets, this has nothing to do with CICO or an inability to succeed in losing weight based on starting from a starting point that could be derived from even worse than the available equations (or even be arbitrarily chosen) and correcting based on individual results over time.
I am just trying to understand (with my limited understanding of statistics) why interperson REE variability would not exceed 5%.
MFP uses Mifflin which I understand is a revision of Harris-Benedict.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21458373/
The Mifflin under-predicted RMR in both sexes, normal weight individuals, 40-60 year olds, and non-Hispanic White participants.
However, clinical judgment and caution should be used when applying these prediction equations to special populations **or small groups**
N=1 is a very small group. Individual forum threads deal with n=1s. The totality of forum threads behaves closer to the population.
... at an individual level, both equations have wide limits of agreement and clinically
important differences in REE would be obtained.
Our results are in agreement with other studies in this fi eld.[1,8,10] Boullata et al, in 2007 compared predictive equations of REE and indirect calorimetry in hospitalized patients and
found that even the most accurate equation (the Harris-Benedict 1.1) was inaccurate in 39% of patients and had an unacceptably high error
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/caf8/dca3049a274c3fa76b9a322a0b8e190b8a1b.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiExKXfnqHaAhXLasAKHacqDwQQFjAFegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw1GVOvFwAI97OZJ-Hw3JFkn
Of course in hospitalized patients something else is happening too and this would have implications as to whether the patient is hyper or hypo metabolic.
The point being though that without a complete history we don't know whether the somebody posting is hyper or hypo metabolic and people are not well known for disclosing every pertinent issue they have up front.
And while millions and millions of people are absolutely normal [just like the British actress in the clip we often link to, and as I found out for myself once I started using MFP and Fitbit and doing a dexa scan or two, myself] given how few people make it to MFP in the first place, and how few of them then post, I don't see why it is impossible to run into a-typical individuals more often than the full population statistics would indicate.
And yes, everything Ann said above is true, with the vast majority of perceived situations that CICO is not working stemming from an inability to correctly evaluate a combination of inputs and results.
So just to be clear. I believe that CICO applies 100% of the time but can be hard to pin down the exact numbers when it comes to a particular individual, and even at different points time, for a particular individual.
And that a (very few) times [but more often seen on MFP than elsewhere] the the answer may not be "eat less to lose", because eat less to lose sometimes is addressing the wrong part of CICO for the particular person and is doing so with the wrong tool.
You know, the break the wall by banging it with your head analogy.
My views are based on the pharmacovigilance data in hypothyroid patients...something that shocked me as someone sans thyroid gland. For years I simply believed that my REE/BMR had decreased which resulted in inevitable weight gain. Reviewing the results of this patient population was very eye opening - no detectable shift in REE/BMR in over 20 years of data with over 20,000 patients involved.
The study cited is fundamentally flawed based upon the population. Indirect calorimetry is highly dubious to begin with and errors further decay in medically compromised patients. Additionally you need multiple readings over time to gather enough data points to establish a mean, otherwise you are incorporating adaptive thermogenesis into your data. A key point to evaluating the bias level in studies is whether or not the error is reported.
The Cosmed Fitmate device is not suited to purpose for this analysis. A device such as the GE Engstrom is adaptable enough to capture variations in HR, BP, MAP, arrythmias, bias flow, etc. in patient population.
Note that the majority of weight management professionals do not believe that calorie counting is an effective means of weight loss. Not because it won't work, but because the majority of people don't have the discipline to go through the practice of calorie budgeting long term. I disagree with this view and see this as bigotry of low expectations. Any successful management requires knowing debits, credits, and knowledge of the system. Understanding the metabolic rate is primarily driven by height and weight - not driven by hormones, toxins, macros, etc. Once you understand this you realize that you are in control of the process.
Weight is an output of behavior.12 -
See and this is where I will perhaps find the Crux of our slight disagreement, capturing adaptation capturing temporary compromise due to illness or whatever else is going on in a person's life is part (sometimes) of giving the correct answer to someone who is not able to lose weight even though they eat very little, specifically because both sides of the equation play off one another.
Considering some degree of REE variance from the expected mean, considering an even bigger variance from an expected tdee, neither of these negates the fact that with sufficient effort and attention weight loss can be achieved and maintained.
Now it may change slightly in terms of whether you try to feather a situation or sledgehammer it. It may change the way you go about doing it. Maybe even radically. But it doesn't change the fact that what you're trying to achieve is manipulate the effective CI versus the effective CO to tilt the way you want them to arrive at the results you want.
The weird part is because I I agree wholeheartedly with the main points of your last paragraph, including the bigotry of low expectations and understanding your debits and credits, is why I disagree with your excluding things such as age and hormones by considering them inconsequential.
I guess I do the same to a degree by not considering TEF or the exact calories of nuts or extra non digestion generated by OMAD to be part of the consequential debits and credits.
Or on second thought, I consider that whatever those effects may be, they are less important than ease of adherence.2 -
See and this is where I will perhaps find the Crux of our slight disagreement, capturing adaptation capturing temporary compromise due to illness or whatever else is going on in a person's life is part (sometimes) of giving the correct answer to someone who is not able to lose weight even though they eat very little, specifically because both sides of the equation play off one another.
Considering some degree of REE variance from the expected mean, considering an even bigger variance from an expected tdee, neither of these negates the fact that with sufficient effort and attention weight loss can be achieved and maintained.
Now it may change slightly in terms of whether you try to feather a situation or sledgehammer it. It may change the way you go about doing it. Maybe even radically. But it doesn't change the fact that what you're trying to achieve is manipulate the effective CI versus the effective CO to tilt the way you want them to arrive at the results you want.
The weird part is because I I agree wholeheartedly with the main points of your last paragraph, including the bigotry of low expectations and understanding your debits and credits, is why I disagree with your excluding things such as age and hormones by considering them inconsequential.
I guess I do the same to a degree by not considering TEF or the exact calories of nuts or extra non digestion generated by OMAD to be part of the consequential debits and credits.
Or on second thought, I consider that whatever those effects may be, they are less important than ease of adherence.
I don't invalidate variables such as age, hormones, etc. But I do minimize these as these are not variables we have control over for the most part. Far too many overestimate their influence and this becomes an excuse for failure - it is not...or at least not a very good one. There simply is not objective evidence to support that this has impact. TEF, digestive variation, adaptive thermogenesis will hurt your progress one day and benefit you another, but the variable is so small it is irrelevant. This would be akin to hiring a forensic accountant and paying them $250/hr to amend a balance that is less that $1 - it is not worth the effort. It may become worthwhile to an elite performer, but to the average person trying to go from 30% bodyfat to a healthy state? Meaningless.
When I was diagnosed with cancer I did a lot of research into the psychological impact and found an unusual number of elite level athletes, businessmen, entrepreneurs, etc. who had early diagnosis of cancer or other life threatening diseases, but used this as a wake up call that life is short and not to be wasted. PTSD gets all the attention, but there is also PTG - Post Traumatic Growth. The individual chooses what is a barrier and what is a challenge. It all boils down to perception.15
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions