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 ?
Replies
-
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 -
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.
I've been following the conversation you two have been having with interest, and what you've said here in the last paragraph really resonated with me, so I thought I'd interject.
There are many success stories on these boards from people who have dealt with what other people perceive to be impediments - chronic disease, age, hormones, disability. The main difference between those who succeed and those who don't is attitude, and that and my personal experience has led me to conclude that the impediments aren't really as big a deal as people would have you believe they are because it really is a head game.
This is not to say that I don't have empathy for outliers. I do. I fit into some of the categories I listed, and I don't feel particularly special for putting my head down and just doing what I need to do to improve the quality of my life. I just wish there was a way to inspire other people to feel that they were worth being stubborn and determined on their own behalf.17 -
First off, I'd like to say how wonderful it is to have a community that can discuss a topic such as this at a high level and use evidenced-based argument.
I do have issues with CICO and how it is applied to people's weight loss regimens. It also ignores metabolism physiology and is a simplified "tag line" that can be easily explained to the masses but when applied in this simplified format is, in my opinion, not very helpful.
I don't think anyone is arguing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Calories in equals calories out. I 100% agree with this statement.
The issue I have is where the calories in and calories out actually come from. Let's do some simple derivation to better understand the physiology of what energy compartments the body utilizes.
Calories In = Calories Out
Makes sense so far right?
Energy Reserves + Dietary Intake = Calories Out
Here we breakdown calories in - they can come from the food they eat, or energy the body has already stored
Energy Reserves + Dietary Intake = Metabolism (BMR) + Excretion + Physical Activity
Here we breakdown calories out - We burn energy via cellular metabolism (BMR, which likes others have said does alter according to caloric intake), excretion (wasted/excreted/peed/pooped nutrients not utilized by the body), and physical activity
(Glycogen + Adipose + Protein) + (Carbs + Fat + Protein) = (Thermogenesis + Cellular Demands) + Excretion + Physical Activity
So here I breakdown energy reserves by categories and try to define storage compartments of energy that the body can actively target
Almost all people losing weight want to optimize adipose tissue targetting for energy.
My issue with CICO is that it COMPLETELY DISREGARDS how to optimize adipose breakdown (lipolysis) or the physiologic regulatory mechanisms surrounding how to crack this energy compartment within the body.
Yes, simple caloric restriction will make you lose weight over the long term. But chronic caloric restriction, as we already know, also decreases basal metabolic rate THAT DOES NOT RECOVER. There was a study looking at long-term caloric restriction and daily exercise, and at 7 YEAR follow up, these human subjects still had decreased BMR (I don't have a link right now but if people want to pick it apart I'll go find it). Other issues are symptomatic, people feel cold, are tired, and hungry all the time. In addition, chronic caloric restriction decreases sex hormones and decreases BDNF, and GH. These are important hormones required to maintain lean body mass during weight loss.
Another issue is that chronic caloric restriction is extremely difficult to maintain. There was a large clinical trial (n=1000 or something big) I think in the 90s that used CR and exercise to have people lose weight, and at 6 month follow up at a 95% failure rate, and after a year the majority of subjects gained most of the weight back.
CICO does not take into consideration nutrient timing, the influence of sleep, nutrition, the hormonal theory of obesity, and in vivo energy balance physiology. This is why I don't recommend the CICO weight loss concept to other people.26 -
ericjaton5 wrote: »Yes, simple caloric restriction will make you lose weight over the long term. But chronic caloric restriction, as we already know, also decreases basal metabolic rate THAT DOES NOT RECOVER..
Know how we know you didn't read the entire thread?
Metabolic adaptation has already been discussed ad nauseum. The succinct answer is "No." The longer answer is "Not nearly to the extent that some think".19 -
ericjaton5 wrote: »My issue with CICO is that it COMPLETELY DISREGARDS how to optimize adipose breakdown (lipolysis) or the physiologic regulatory mechanisms surrounding how to crack this energy compartment within the body.
Eh, why is that?
Most people here, who say CICO is what matters for fat loss, also recommend such things as keeping protein at a particular level, not having an overly aggressive deficit (and a smaller deficit as you get lean), and doing some progressive strength training, which is what really matter for optimizing fat (vs. muscle) loss.
So don't see how that's inconsistent with a focus on CICO.
The problem is when people assume (or pretend) that you must need to do complicated things exactly right to lose fat. I think that's one thing that causes people to jump from fad diet to fad diet, hot new plan to hot new plan, vs. giving a plan old deficit enough time to work or giving it enough time to figure out how to adjust it (lowering calories, changing calories or eating times to make the deficit sustainable for YOU, so on).
Basically, if you have a lot to lose -- which is most of the people just starting out and feeling really desperate and clueless, probably -- you really DON'T have to worry about anything other than a deficit. Yes, strength training is a good thing, adequate protein is a good thing, focusing on eating foods that leave you satisfied and not hungry is just common sense -- but someone obese will mostly lose fat no matter what. (Everyone should eat a nutritious diet, however, for other reasons, IMO. It may not be #1 priority if for some reason it's hard for the person, though.)But chronic caloric restriction, as we already know, also decreases basal metabolic rate THAT DOES NOT RECOVER.
This has not been established -- the study discussed dealt with (1) people who had had an extreme diet plan and probably lost muscle mass, and (2) did not have a planned approach to the after-diet period, and (3) did not do a good job (at least the reports on it) of distinguishing between the loss of BMR due to lower body weight (normal) vs. pre weight loss. It also, if memory serves, compared to people never overweight, and we don't know if the people who had gotten huge had perhaps had lower BMRs naturally to some extent.
Anyway, although this is an interesting subject and I think metabolic adaptation happens to some degree (and can be minimized), I don't believe it has anything to do with basic CICO.CICO does not take into consideration nutrient timing, the influence of sleep, nutrition, the hormonal theory of obesity, and in vivo energy balance physiology. This is why I don't recommend the CICO weight loss concept to other people.
This makes me think you have an inaccurate understanding of what CICO is, but please elaborate on what this "CICO weight loss concept" is that you don't recommend and what you recommend instead, that doesn't involve a calorie deficit for weight loss.15 -
ericjaton5 wrote: »First off, I'd like to say how wonderful it is to have a community that can discuss a topic such as this at a high level and use evidenced-based argument.
I do have issues with CICO and how it is applied to people's weight loss regimens. It also ignores metabolism physiology and is a simplified "tag line" that can be easily explained to the masses but when applied in this simplified format is, in my opinion, not very helpful.
I don't think anyone is arguing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Calories in equals calories out. I 100% agree with this statement.
The issue I have is where the calories in and calories out actually come from. Let's do some simple derivation to better understand the physiology of what energy compartments the body utilizes.
Calories In = Calories Out
Makes sense so far right?
Energy Reserves + Dietary Intake = Calories Out
Here we breakdown calories in - they can come from the food they eat, or energy the body has already stored
Energy Reserves + Dietary Intake = Metabolism (BMR) + Excretion + Physical Activity
Here we breakdown calories out - We burn energy via cellular metabolism (BMR, which likes others have said does alter according to caloric intake), excretion (wasted/excreted/peed/pooped nutrients not utilized by the body), and physical activity
(Glycogen + Adipose + Protein) + (Carbs + Fat + Protein) = (Thermogenesis + Cellular Demands) + Excretion + Physical Activity
So here I breakdown energy reserves by categories and try to define storage compartments of energy that the body can actively target
Almost all people losing weight want to optimize adipose tissue targetting for energy.
My issue with CICO is that it COMPLETELY DISREGARDS how to optimize adipose breakdown (lipolysis) or the physiologic regulatory mechanisms surrounding how to crack this energy compartment within the body.
Yes, simple caloric restriction will make you lose weight over the long term. But chronic caloric restriction, as we already know, also decreases basal metabolic rate THAT DOES NOT RECOVER. There was a study looking at long-term caloric restriction and daily exercise, and at 7 YEAR follow up, these human subjects still had decreased BMR (I don't have a link right now but if people want to pick it apart I'll go find it). Other issues are symptomatic, people feel cold, are tired, and hungry all the time. In addition, chronic caloric restriction decreases sex hormones and decreases BDNF, and GH. These are important hormones required to maintain lean body mass during weight loss.
Another issue is that chronic caloric restriction is extremely difficult to maintain. There was a large clinical trial (n=1000 or something big) I think in the 90s that used CR and exercise to have people lose weight, and at 6 month follow up at a 95% failure rate, and after a year the majority of subjects gained most of the weight back.
CICO does not take into consideration nutrient timing, the influence of sleep, nutrition, the hormonal theory of obesity, and in vivo energy balance physiology. This is why I don't recommend the CICO weight loss concept to other people.
I am on my phone so formatting may be screwed up.
1st, CO takes into account hormones, exercise, lack of sleep, cortisol, thyroid, thermoelectric of food etc.
2nd, there was a study from the National Weight Control Registery comparing the BMR of obese individuals who lost weight to lean individuals of similiar weights who never lost weight. No significant difference between BMRs. Will sure later when I have my computer.
3. What do you consider restrictive?Based on dietary recalls with obese individuals I have seen, dating an obese individual, and my obese friends I estimate some of them are eating 3,000+ calories a day, everyday. If they ate 2,000 calories a day they would lose weight and I do not find 2,000 restrictive. So I guess it depends on what people find restrictive.
4 -
So this is fascinating, I just stumbled onto another thread on the other board, "BMR and TDEE explained", where for 30+ pages people are talking about suppressed TDEE's due to undereating and eating more to lose.
While I understand this again does not invalidate CICO as a principle, doesn't this go against the cry on these boards that starvation mode is a myth?
I'm utterly confused.
This is coming from believing I'm one of those people, as someone who has maintained a fairly small weight for years by eating somewhere around 1200-1300 calories on average (some days dipping to as low as 900 simply due to not having an appetite or forgetting to eat). However I'm really confused on whether this is my 'real' maintenance as a short, small, sedentary woman, or whether I have artificially suppressed it to this level by undereating and coudl in fact eat more. I'm way too terrified to gain weight to try eating more, as every extra pound plays havoc on my mood and self esteem. For reference I'm 5'4, 34 years old and was 110 lbs for years, until after the birth of my second child which left me with 115-117 that won't budge. Before anyone calls me crazy, I have a very small frame, and 110 is aesthetically the weight I look best at; anything over 120 and I look downright chubby, especially in my face and legs.13 -
nettiklive wrote: »So this is fascinating, I just stumbled onto another thread on the other board, "BMR and TDEE explained", where for 30+ pages people are talking about suppressed TDEE's due to undereating and eating more to lose.
While I understand this again does not invalidate CICO as a principle, doesn't this go against the cry on these boards that starvation mode is a myth?
I'm utterly confused.
This is coming from believing I'm one of those people, as someone who has maintained a fairly small weight for years by eating somewhere around 1200-1300 calories on average (some days dipping to as low as 900 simply due to not having an appetite or forgetting to eat). However I'm really confused on whether this is my 'real' maintenance as a short, small, sedentary woman, or whether I have artificially suppressed it to this level by undereating and coudl in fact eat more. I'm way too terrified to gain weight to try eating more, as every extra pound plays havoc on my mood and self esteem. For reference I'm 5'4, 34 years old and was 110 lbs for years, until after the birth of my second child which left me with 115-117 that won't budge. Before anyone calls me crazy, I have a very small frame, and 110 is aesthetically the weight I look best at; anything over 120 and I look downright chubby, especially in my face and legs.
Starvation mode is a myth. Your own disordered thoughts (the second bolded part) just keep you from realizing/acknowledging it. But at least they put your frame of mind on the topic into context.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
And again, from earlier in the thread: https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
8 -
Also I just stumbled on this post in the 'refeeds and diet breaks' thread, which everyone conveniently ignored. While I become absolutely terrified reading things like that, because the body screwing up in this way is one of my worst fears. Where does this fit in with the forum's "you're not a special unicorn" mantra?So. Thanks to a new GP who actually listened, we figured out what the problem was with Me and My Thyroid. It was similar to what I was suspecting, but more complex, in that apparently after years of calorie restriction, my body got *pissed*. The suspicion is that it started making reverse T3 instead of T3, and everything got screwed up from there. This is typically seen in individuals who are *actually* anorexic, instead of my atypical diagnosis, but is not unheard of. (Cue my being pissed, because my stupid body gained weight when it put into place a safety net that typically doesn't activate until you're actually starving, as opposed to my "I'm gonna just burn everything off" slimmer-side-of-normal weight status.)
In response, for a while, I'd been dropping to <1000 calories a day, with <900 the past few weeks. Because to my little head, still, the response to "I can't lose weight" is still "I can't trust calories and you can't make me eat. But I'm going to go run 5 miles anyway."
But today, after my GP was all "I think we need to evaluate whether it's time to go inpatient, and that's my preference" I ran some trendline and r-squared analyses ... and saw that much to my surprise, I actually lost more weight when my deficit was smaller.9 -
nettiklive wrote: »So this is fascinating, I just stumbled onto another thread on the other board, "BMR and TDEE explained", where for 30+ pages people are talking about suppressed TDEE's due to undereating and eating more to lose.
While I understand this again does not invalidate CICO as a principle, doesn't this go against the cry on these boards that starvation mode is a myth?
I'm utterly confused.
This is coming from believing I'm one of those people, as someone who has maintained a fairly small weight for years by eating somewhere around 1200-1300 calories on average (some days dipping to as low as 900 simply due to not having an appetite or forgetting to eat). However I'm really confused on whether this is my 'real' maintenance as a short, small, sedentary woman, or whether I have artificially suppressed it to this level by undereating and coudl in fact eat more. I'm way too terrified to gain weight to try eating more, as every extra pound plays havoc on my mood and self esteem. For reference I'm 5'4, 34 years old and was 110 lbs for years, until after the birth of my second child which left me with 115-117 that won't budge. Before anyone calls me crazy, I have a very small frame, and 110 is aesthetically the weight I look best at; anything over 120 and I look downright chubby, especially in my face and legs.
"Starvation mode" is usually taken to mean that if someone eats too little, they'll stop losing weight entirely, or their body will somehow "hold onto fat". There's no evidence for that: People can and do starve to death, which would not happen if "starvation mode" existed in that sense.
What can happen is that at an extreme of undereating, weight loss can slow. Probably the main mechanism is down-regulated daily activity (i.e. reduced NEAT), perhaps in subtle ways. There also seems to be the potential for more water weight weirdness at severe calorie restriction, causing an appearance of weight loss stalls.
Even if weight loss slows beyond what one might expect, or fat loss is masked by water weight gain, fat loss is not going to stop when there's a calorie deficit.
There are also other potential effects (like reduced lean mass through repeated cycles of VLCD and regain) that may play a role in a lower than estimated TDEE.
Add this sort of thing to people logging food/exercise imperfectly; not understanding the impact of non-logged cheat days or meals; denial (even to oneself) about binges encouraged by over-restriction; believing that "calculators" and fitness devices are 100% accurate; and more . . . you end up with a very, very murky picture of what's going on in any particular case.
14 -
This content has been removed.
-
nettiklive wrote: »Also I just stumbled on this post in the 'refeeds and diet breaks' thread, which everyone conveniently ignored. While I become absolutely terrified reading things like that, because the body screwing up in this way is one of my worst fears. Where does this fit in with the forum's "you're not a special unicorn" mantra?..
Nobody "conveniently ignored" it. If you bothered to read instead of just posting, you'd see that metabolic adaptation has been addressed over and over, in response to many of your posts. Metabolic adaptation exists. "Starvation mode", in the sense that you'll downregulate so far as to completely stop weight loss, doesn't.
Since you probably didn't read the original source regarding diet breaks, which explains it further, here it is:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
And once again, linked for the third time in this thread: https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
If you'd take the time to read and digest the information provided in these links rather than wasting time blindly arguing why you're right and everybody else is wrong, you'd have a better understanding of the subject and maybe wouldn't be so terrified.18 -
nettiklive wrote: »Also I just stumbled on this post in the 'refeeds and diet breaks' thread, which everyone conveniently ignored. While I become absolutely terrified reading things like that, because the body screwing up in this way is one of my worst fears. Where does this fit in with the forum's "you're not a special unicorn" mantra?So. Thanks to a new GP who actually listened, we figured out what the problem was with Me and My Thyroid. It was similar to what I was suspecting, but more complex, in that apparently after years of calorie restriction, my body got *pissed*. The suspicion is that it started making reverse T3 instead of T3, and everything got screwed up from there. This is typically seen in individuals who are *actually* anorexic, instead of my atypical diagnosis, but is not unheard of. (Cue my being pissed, because my stupid body gained weight when it put into place a safety net that typically doesn't activate until you're actually starving, as opposed to my "I'm gonna just burn everything off" slimmer-side-of-normal weight status.)
In response, for a while, I'd been dropping to <1000 calories a day, with <900 the past few weeks. Because to my little head, still, the response to "I can't lose weight" is still "I can't trust calories and you can't make me eat. But I'm going to go run 5 miles anyway."
But today, after my GP was all "I think we need to evaluate whether it's time to go inpatient, and that's my preference" I ran some trendline and r-squared analyses ... and saw that much to my surprise, I actually lost more weight when my deficit was smaller.
If things you're reading online are causing you fear and anxiety, it's okay to take a break. It's probably even a good thing! Being terrified is not a normal response to reading posts here and it's okay to take care of yourself and your emotional wellbeing.20 -
nettiklive wrote: »Also I just stumbled on this post in the 'refeeds and diet breaks' thread, which everyone conveniently ignored. While I become absolutely terrified reading things like that, because the body screwing up in this way is one of my worst fears. Where does this fit in with the forum's "you're not a special unicorn" mantra?So. Thanks to a new GP who actually listened, we figured out what the problem was with Me and My Thyroid. It was similar to what I was suspecting, but more complex, in that apparently after years of calorie restriction, my body got *pissed*. The suspicion is that it started making reverse T3 instead of T3, and everything got screwed up from there. This is typically seen in individuals who are *actually* anorexic, instead of my atypical diagnosis, but is not unheard of. (Cue my being pissed, because my stupid body gained weight when it put into place a safety net that typically doesn't activate until you're actually starving, as opposed to my "I'm gonna just burn everything off" slimmer-side-of-normal weight status.)
In response, for a while, I'd been dropping to <1000 calories a day, with <900 the past few weeks. Because to my little head, still, the response to "I can't lose weight" is still "I can't trust calories and you can't make me eat. But I'm going to go run 5 miles anyway."
But today, after my GP was all "I think we need to evaluate whether it's time to go inpatient, and that's my preference" I ran some trendline and r-squared analyses ... and saw that much to my surprise, I actually lost more weight when my deficit was smaller.
This is a medical condition . . . and aggravated by disordered thinking, besides. Most of the time in this thread, most people have been clear that they're talking about my medically normal cases.
Please note, though, that the post you quote says "I actually lost more weight when my deficit was smaller." which is not synonymous with losing no weight when deficit is higher.
Allow me to exaggerate for clarity: Suppose I cut my calorie intake drastically. I get fatigued, I get weak. I drag through my workouts. I microwave frozen food instead of cooking from scratch. I do the minimum of housework. I put off errands involving lots of walking. I sit down whenever I can. Maybe I even take naps or sleep longer. I'm listless, passive, not vivacious let alone fidgety. What is happening to my actual TDEE? It's declining, probably by hundreds of calories a day. Weight loss slows.
Then I get religion about sensible weight loss, and eat more, just enough that my workouts are energized and my daily life energy perks up so I catch up on all my deferred chores and resume normal life. TDEE increases, weight loss picks up.
Somewhere in there is an optimal point, where I get the best weight loss rate while staying strong, healthy and energetic.
And this is without even talking about water weight weirdness.
Absent medical conditions, this is fairly common-sensical, I think, not magical or mysterious.
23 -
SuperOrganism2 wrote: »I think if people go through the exercise of logging their calories, and trying to log their exercise...they will probably feel like CICO has a whole lot of credit.
It may not be perfect, but the ways in which it isn't perfect in regards to specific timing and digestion and stuff...aren't going to be ones we can easily monitor and track as they are so individual and perhaps idiosyncratic within an individual!.
Exactly, and I think this is one of the biggest points that people who try to invalidate CICO or even calorie counting fail to understand: Of course there may be all these individual differences in how our bodies process things, but you can figure out your individual number to a pretty precise degree with accurate and consistent logging. You might not be able to say "why" your TDEE is 1725 when the calculator says it should be 1770, but you can arrive at that number and either eat a little less or move a little more to get your weight management on point.
Unfortunately, people who are insistent that they "know" how much they eat or burn without tracking and then insist their real world results are too unpredictable to bear out the principle of CICO spread this idea that there are too many unknown variables. But backing your way into the right number works whether you can name the variables or not, and as Anne put so eloquently earlier, most people will find their number isn't actually so far off the norm that they can't make it work.14 -
SuperOrganism2 wrote: »I think if people go through the exercise of logging their calories, and trying to log their exercise...they will probably feel like CICO has a whole lot of credit.
It may not be perfect, but the ways in which it isn't perfect in regards to specific timing and digestion and stuff...aren't going to be ones we can easily monitor and track as they are so individual and perhaps idiosyncratic within an individual!.
Exactly, and I think this is one of the biggest points that people who try to invalidate CICO or even calorie counting fail to understand: Of course there may be all these individual differences in how our bodies process things, but you can figure out your individual number to a pretty precise degree with accurate and consistent logging. You might not be able to say "why" your TDEE is 1725 when the calculator says it should be 1770, but you can arrive at that number and either eat a little less or move a little more to get your weight management on point.
Unfortunately, people who are insistent that they "know" how much they eat or burn without tracking and then insist their real world results are too unpredictable to bear out the principle of CICO spread this idea that there are too many unknown variables. But backing your way into the right number works whether you can name the variables or not, and as Anne put so eloquently earlier, most people will find their number isn't actually so far off the norm that they can't make it work.
It's the difference between a bit of properly conducted trial and error vs. going willy-nilly and being forever scared and frustrated about it. This isn't rocket science.
I could stumble around my house in the dark trying to find a sock on the floor, running into walls and banging my shins into furniture, and maybe I'd eventually find it. Or I could just turn on a light. One of those two methods is going to be a lot quicker, easier and much less aggravating.17 -
Allow me to exaggerate for clarity: Suppose I cut my calorie intake drastically. I get fatigued, I get weak. I drag through my workouts. I microwave frozen food instead of cooking from scratch. I do the minimum of housework. I put off errands involving lots of walking. I sit down whenever I can. Maybe I even take naps or sleep longer. I'm listless, passive, not vivacious let alone fidgety. What is happening to my actual TDEE? It's declining, probably by hundreds of calories a day. Weight loss slows.
Hmm. Perhaps the reason I've always felt my metabolism was on the low side is because you've literally just described me, pretty much all day every day. Not just when I'm cutting calories but since I remember myself, since childhood (my parents always joked that even as a baby I was too lazy to crawl, never got into things, and they had to hang a red cloth in front of me to get me to walk, lol). I've been very sedentary, low energy, and hated physical activity for as long as I can remember - and this despite the fact that I've been working out more or less regularly for fifteen years now. My appetite is also low, which is why my intake tends to be low - I'm not starving myself on purpose, I simply eat to hunger and get full with very small portions. My food choices could be better, as I have trouble eating protein and other nutrient-dense foods, I also have digestive issues which make it difficult to eat fiber and other things. But what you describe here is pretty much my normal. Every couple of years I'll get fed up with it and head to a doctor for labs, and everything always comes back normal (in fact when I had severe anemia in pregnancy, the doctor said, you must've been feeling extremely fatigued and I said not more than usual, lol); so I've just accepted it as the way I am, unless maybe I have some weird autoimmune thing they haven't discovered ( I had mono as a kid, which some sources suggest can cause chronic fatigue throughout life).
Anyways, given the fact that I've always felt my metabolism was sluggish, because sluggish is how I feel on a daily basis, I've always been afraid to eat more, which may be creating a vicious cycle...
6 -
nettiklive wrote: »Allow me to exaggerate for clarity: Suppose I cut my calorie intake drastically. I get fatigued, I get weak. I drag through my workouts. I microwave frozen food instead of cooking from scratch. I do the minimum of housework. I put off errands involving lots of walking. I sit down whenever I can. Maybe I even take naps or sleep longer. I'm listless, passive, not vivacious let alone fidgety. What is happening to my actual TDEE? It's declining, probably by hundreds of calories a day. Weight loss slows.
Hmm. Perhaps the reason I've always felt my metabolism was on the low side is because you've literally just described me, pretty much all day every day. Not just when I'm cutting calories but since I remember myself, since childhood (my parents always joked that even as a baby I was too lazy to crawl, never got into things, and they had to hang a red cloth in front of me to get me to walk, lol). I've been very sedentary, low energy, and hated physical activity for as long as I can remember - and this despite the fact that I've been working out more or less regularly for fifteen years now. My appetite is also low, which is why my intake tends to be low - I'm not starving myself on purpose, I simply eat to hunger and get full with very small portions. My food choices could be better, as I have trouble eating protein and other nutrient-dense foods, I also have digestive issues which make it difficult to eat fiber and other things. But what you describe here is pretty much my normal. Every couple of years I'll get fed up with it and head to a doctor for labs, and everything always comes back normal (in fact when I had severe anemia in pregnancy, the doctor said, you must've been feeling extremely fatigued and I said not more than usual, lol); so I've just accepted it as the way I am, unless maybe I have some weird autoimmune thing they haven't discovered ( I had mono as a kid, which some sources suggest can cause chronic fatigue throughout life).
Anyways, given the fact that I've always felt my metabolism was sluggish, because sluggish is how I feel on a daily basis, I've always been afraid to eat more, which may be creating a vicious cycle...
I'm in no position to judge whether your feeling of sluggishness is genetic, medical, physical, psychological, or some combination. But it's possible that in one way or another, you're starting to find some strands of insight.
There are people around here who make an effort of will to increase their non-exercise activity. I don't know whether that's in the realm of possible or desirable for you, but there have been threads about it, including this one:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
I have reservations about it, but there are people who report increasing TDEE by slowly increasing daily calories with solid nutrition (especially protein) and a consistent exercise program (especially strength). This is more a strategy to run in weight maintenance mode, though.
And certainly there's a relationship between good nutrition and energy level. (Has your B12 been tested? Sounds like iron has.)
But all of this is now off topic for the current thread.
Keep thinking. And good luck!
10 -
People deny it because they are bad at math and/or patterns.
I suspect there are short term time periods where people can be on a caloric deficit (or think they are) and they are not losing weight because fat is replaced by muscle or water.
Therefore, by looking at the short term trend, they conclude that CICO doesn't work.
Long term it works every time. Short term it works every time 60% of the time, (LOL, I hope someone gets the reference.)
But seriously, I think there is a variety of human factors that lead people to believe what they believe. It could be a sample space that is too short. It could be that simply measuring weight isn't giving one the full picture of what is happening with their body. It could be they are simply bad at measuring CICO.
Anecdotal for sure, but it MAY explain why people may not believe CICO. I gained 5 pounds during spring break. Two trips and eating on the road and not going to the gym for 7 out of 10 days just might do that to you.
I entered my food and don't let MFP add calories to my daily allowance from my Fitbit steps.
So was I really off by 17500 calories over the course of those 6 travel days, three nights San Antonio TX and two nights in Memphis, TN? Since we were staying in an Air BnB, we cooked breakfast, and I had the same breakfast I have at home. So it was just lunch and dinner out. Used my diabetic eating rules, for the most part. I did have a burger at Rum Boogie in Memphis and a bottle of Bud. (I like bottles as I can control the portion size.) I even logged the 390 calories in the 3 Krystal burgers I ate when the others (drunk) wanted me to stop there after we left Beale St.
Bottom line, even if I was off, I wasn't off by 3500 calories/day. My strategy to deal with inaccuracies is to try to stay below my targets and never use my exercise calories. At 242-247# my 2250 calorie diet puts me into a caloric deficit each day. I try to stay at 1800-2000 just in case I'm not accurate. (And I use a food scale at home to be as accurate as possible.)
Or was it I changed my macros. More alcohol (and other carbs) and less fat and protein, so I kept a bit more water to go with the glucose? Probably saltier food too.
I monitor my Blood Glucose as being suspected of Type 2 diabetes, so I can tell you my BG readings went up 10-15 mg/dL over the week.
Now that I'm back, I'm down two of the five pounds. I don't think I've put myself into a 7k caloric deficit since Sunday afternoon. Morning fasting BG levels coming down as well.
But I've had fewer carbs and sodium. So I've probably let go of some water that I don't need to go with that glycogen in my body.
Am I saying I don't believe in CICO? No.
What I'm saying is people can look at a very short sample and wrongly deduce that it doesn't work.
CICO accurately describes what is going on with your energy stores. CO > CI means stored glycogen and fat must drop in your body. CI > CO means stored glycogen and fat must rise in your body. But you may pick up other things as well, such as water, in the short term.
I think many confuse short term events with long term results.11 -
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/69/6/1189/4714941
In response to those who lose weight have screwed up metabolisms:
RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35).
CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions