Science undecided of CICO?
Options
Replies
-
This thread started because someone said they were surprised that there are people who dispute the CICO model.
Myfitnesspal is a direct application of the CICO model. You can go into the settings and update your fitness profile and it will ask you the questions to estimate your BMR. It will ask you your weight loss goal and it will give you a target number of calories to eat each day to average whatever calorie deficit your need to lose a pound or two a week. it assumes that a pound of weightloss requires a deficit of 3500 calories. It assumes that a calories is a calories is a calorie (regardless of what you set your macros at, it treats protein, fat, and carbs as metabolically equivalent). You track your food and your exercise and it spits out a number for your daily energy balance.
The CICO model (or myfitnesspal tool) doesn't care if your are diabetic or not, it doesn't care if you ate twinkies or sweet potatoes or steak - as far as the model is concerned you could eat twinkies for the rest of your life, it doesn't care if you slept well or not at all, it doesn't care what your thyroid is doing - none of those things should matter for weightloss according to the CICO model. We know that metabolism slows down on sustained calorie restriction, that is not predicted or accounted for in tbe CICO model (see the biggest loser study where people regain weight even though the CICO model says they should be losing or maintaining weight).
I think having an accurate model of weightloss is important because then people will pay attention to the variables in the model and have the best chance of maximizing or sustaining weightloss. to use the more complicated model that AnvilHead referenced - I agree that a person;s level of satiety and degree of appetite control are critical factors in long term success on a diet. I think macro proportions affect those factors. I agree with his model's inclusion of a variable that says the body has a tendency to preserve energy - i think you can affect that by keeping insulin levels low through adjusting your macros and also getting adequate sleep. I think the increasing prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes in healthy weight people (not just overweight and obese people) is a concern and something that people should factor in as they are planning their weigh of eating = this could be a sugar/carbs issue or it could also be a higher level of processed foods. All of which is to say, i think the human body is a lot more complicated and interconnected than CICO model and leads people to ignore important factors in weighloss/health.
16 -
Does gravity affect how hard ones head hits the desk?
Asking for a friend...20 -
Has anybody else wondered if we’re dealing with a bot here? Just curious.
You know, before my last reply, I noticed the repetition and seemingly willful ignoring of the answers being provided, and I thought "If I just got duped into another conversation with a *kitten* bot I'm going to punch the internet". But I'm a sucker for hopeless causes so carried on.
Regardless, I'm going to calmly back away from this thread now because every time I start typing a reply I realize it may get me banned and I delete it.
8 -
This thread started because someone said they were surprised that there are people who dispute the CICO model.
Myfitnesspal is a direct application of the CICO model. You can go into the settings and update your fitness profile and it will ask you the questions to estimate your BMR. It will ask you your weight loss goal and it will give you a target number of calories to eat each day to average whatever calorie deficit your need to lose a pound or two a week. it assumes that a pound of weightloss requires a deficit of 3500 calories. It assumes that a calories is a calories is a calorie (regardless of what you set your macros at, it treats protein, fat, and carbs as metabolically equivalent). You track your food and your exercise and it spits out a number for your daily energy balance.
The CICO model (or myfitnesspal tool) doesn't care if your are diabetic or not, it doesn't care if you ate twinkies or sweet potatoes or steak - as far as the model is concerned you could eat twinkies for the rest of your life, it doesn't care if you slept well or not at all, it doesn't care what your thyroid is doing - none of those things should matter for weightloss according to the CICO model. We know that metabolism slows down on sustained calorie restriction, that is not predicted or accounted for in tbe CICO model (see the biggest loser study where people regain weight even though the CICO model says they should be losing or maintaining weight).
I think having an accurate model of weightloss is important because then people will pay attention to the variables in the model and have the best chance of maximizing or sustaining weightloss. to use the more complicated model that AnvilHead referenced - I agree that a person;s level of satiety and degree of appetite control are critical factors in long term success on a diet. I think macro proportions affect those factors. I agree with his model's inclusion of a variable that says the body has a tendency to preserve energy - i think you can affect that by keeping insulin levels low through adjusting your macros and also getting adequate sleep. I think the increasing prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes in healthy weight people (not just overweight and obese people) is a concern and something that people should factor in as they are planning their weigh of eating = this could be a sugar/carbs issue or it could also be a higher level of processed foods. All of which is to say, i think the human body is a lot more complicated and interconnected than CICO model and leads people to ignore important factors in weighloss/health.
CICO is not a model. It's just the energy balance equation.
You continue to conflate CICO, which is the energy balance equation, with calorie counting, which is an estimation/approximation method for accomplishing weight loss.
Many factors affect success in weight loss.
Did you read the article linked in the OP? Did you read the OP?7 -
johnslater461 wrote: »The problem lies not in the model, but in your understanding of it.
It has been explained several times, you just keep ignoring it
I have not seen anybody explain to me how the CICO model accounts for metabolic adaptation - if you;ve got an answer I'd love to hear it. If i missed it in somebody's response - please show me where in this thread it is.
Probably because there is no such thing as "the CICO model". You just made that up so it is difficult to know what you even mean by that. CICO is just the 1st law of thermodynamics and the question "how does the 1st law of thermodynamics account for metabolic adaptation" isnt even a sensical question.
Do you mean to be asking how calorie counting accounts for metabolic adaptation because then the question makes sense.
CICO and calorie counting aren't the same thing.10 -
This is what I meant about this just coming down to semantics. You are talking about calorie counting and methods used to calorie count but you are calling it CICO, which is the 1st law of thermodynamics. It would be like a weight lifter complaining about the inaccuracy of gravity when he was trying to talk about problems with weight training programs and yet when people pointed out he probably didn't mean gravity he just kept insisting on calling it gravity.
Calorie counting is a bunch of methods based on formulas based on population studies that don't take into account everything or what may be true of a specific individual. It is not 100% accurate and people should not be under the delusion that it is 100% accurate. CICO on the other hand is literally the 1st law of thermodynamics and is a fundamental concept true of our universe. They aren't the same thing. I'd agree with you on several of your points if you just used the term I think you actually mean which is calorie counting.3 -
I have not seen anybody explain to me how the CICO model accounts for metabolic adaptation - if you;ve got an answer I'd love to hear it. If i missed it in somebody's response - please show me where in this thread it is.
There is no CICO model but for what you are really talking about you shouldn't need an explanation for something that is so obvious. Hypothetically if you CO were to actually lower for whatever reason what should you do with your CI? I will give you a hint raising it will not be the answer.
3 -
This thread started because someone said they were surprised that there are people who dispute the CICO model.
Myfitnesspal is a direct application of the CICO model. You can go into the settings and update your fitness profile and it will ask you the questions to estimate your BMR. It will ask you your weight loss goal and it will give you a target number of calories to eat each day to average whatever calorie deficit your need to lose a pound or two a week. it assumes that a pound of weightloss requires a deficit of 3500 calories. It assumes that a calories is a calories is a calorie (regardless of what you set your macros at, it treats protein, fat, and carbs as metabolically equivalent). You track your food and your exercise and it spits out a number for your daily energy balance.
The CICO model (or myfitnesspal tool) doesn't care if your are diabetic or not, it doesn't care if you ate twinkies or sweet potatoes or steak - as far as the model is concerned you could eat twinkies for the rest of your life, it doesn't care if you slept well or not at all, it doesn't care what your thyroid is doing - none of those things should matter for weightloss according to the CICO model. We know that metabolism slows down on sustained calorie restriction, that is not predicted or accounted for in tbe CICO model (see the biggest loser study where people regain weight even though the CICO model says they should be losing or maintaining weight).
I think having an accurate model of weightloss is important because then people will pay attention to the variables in the model and have the best chance of maximizing or sustaining weightloss. to use the more complicated model that AnvilHead referenced - I agree that a person;s level of satiety and degree of appetite control are critical factors in long term success on a diet. I think macro proportions affect those factors. I agree with his model's inclusion of a variable that says the body has a tendency to preserve energy - i think you can affect that by keeping insulin levels low through adjusting your macros and also getting adequate sleep. I think the increasing prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes in healthy weight people (not just overweight and obese people) is a concern and something that people should factor in as they are planning their weigh of eating = this could be a sugar/carbs issue or it could also be a higher level of processed foods. All of which is to say, i think the human body is a lot more complicated and interconnected than CICO model and leads people to ignore important factors in weighloss/health.
There is no such thing as a CICO Model
There is no such thing as a CICO Model
There is no such thing as a CICO Model
There is no such thing as a CICO Model
There is no such thing as a CICO Model
There is no such thing as a CICO Model
There is no such thing as a CICO Model
There is no such thing as a CICO Model19 -
Calorie counting depends on CICO, CICO doesn't depend on calorie counting. Formulas used to calculate things like BMR are specific to humans and based on studies of populations and are therefore statistical in nature....they certainly can be inaccurate for any given individual. CICO, on, the otherhand, applies to everything in our universe be it a human, the sun, a car engine or a bouncing ball.
If you dropped a bouncy ball from a certain height and wanted to determine how high it would bounce then you couldn't do that with a BMR formula but you could do that with CICO. Just want to make really clear that you are using CICO like it means calorie counting as in a strategy for tracking calories in humans for the purpose of predicting weight loss or gain. It doesn't mean that. It is such a bigger more fundamental concept than just that.
When you refer to the "CICO model" I literally have to guess what you mean because that isn't actually a thing. I assume you just mean calorie counting for the purpose of tracking weight in humans but that is just a guess.6 -
pismodiver wrote: »OK, one more try.
CICO is not a model. It is merely a shorthand restatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created or destroyed.
Do you dispute that?
Metabolic Adaptation is a description of something that has been documented to occur in some people who have had large amounts of weight loss in the past. As a result, they expend less energy than would be predicted by models of human energy expenditure.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that whether they gain, lose, or maintain weight is determined by the relationship between their energy input and energy output.
Exactly and succinctly put.3 -
I am truly failing to comprehend how someone capable of constructing such literate sentences can not grasp a simple concept taught in middle school.7
-
This is totally a bot.4
-
You're all over complicating things diets should be simple....for simple people
https://youtu.be/fae8gvRiiCM
BTW is there a way to embed youtube clips into posts rather than just the link?0 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »You're all over complicating things diets should be simple....for simple people
https://youtu.be/fae8gvRiiCM
BTW is there a way to embed youtube clips into posts rather than just the link?
Yup, just post the URL directly in the dialogue box.
As for the rest of this hot mess... reading with amusement and horror, but not touching it with a 10 foot pole.3 -
annaskiski wrote: »This is totally a bot.
I hope so.
Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.5 -
mburgess458 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »This is totally a bot.
I hope so.
Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.
The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.
TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.2 -
annaskiski wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »This is totally a bot.
I hope so.
Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.
The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.
TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.
The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.
1 -
mburgess458 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »This is totally a bot.
I hope so.
Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.
I had noticed the same. It indicates a total failure to understand planning and budgeting(of which dieting is a subset). The plan/budget simply provides a safe space/baseline to deviate from so that one doesn't act entirely at random and has a baseline to adjust fire from. It's the starting point of a solution, not the end point.
AKA
We think we're here and want to get there, so we'll head thisaway.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »This is totally a bot.
I hope so.
Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.
The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.
TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.
The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.
Hate to nitpick but standard deviation doesn't mean maximum and minimum. Stdev represents the deviation from average that captures the majority of the population...something like 70% in a normal distribution. So in a normal distribution a stdev of 10% and a mean of 100 would mean 70% fell between 90 and 110 but 30% were outside that range. There are certainly members within that sample that have values considerably higher or lower than the standard deviation.
So if the standard deviation was 10% on BMR you could expect within a normal distribution some 0.1% of the population would have BMRs more than 30% off the average for that weight.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »This is totally a bot.
I hope so.
Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.
The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.
TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.
The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.
Hate to nitpick but standard deviation doesn't mean maximum and minimum. Stdev represents the deviation from average that captures the majority of the population...something like 70% in a normal distribution. So in a normal distribution a stdev of 10% and a mean of 100 would mean 70% fell between 90 and 110 but 30% were outside that range. There are certainly members within that sample that have values considerably higher or lower than the standard deviation.
So if the standard deviation was 10% on BMR you could expect within a normal distribution some 0.1% of the population would have BMRs more than 30% off the average for that weight.
Thanks. I figured you'd clarify for us.
I was primarily interested in correcting the claim that the variation was 100 calories vs 5-15%(depending on study parameters). But I sort of knew I hadn't used stdev exactly correctly.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions