Science undecided of CICO?
Replies
-
The commenters allege that the Science of CICO is far from settled.
That’s disconcerting and threatens to unseat my conviction that CICO is the gospel of weight loss.
The article itself says no such thing. There are commenters here that also say CICO is far from settled -- and others that say apple cider vinegar will cure what ails yah. Why are you letting what some random strangers commenting on a NYT article derail your efforts?6 -
CarvedTones wrote: »Most of the articles I have read that purport to show there is more to it than that are really just accomplishing the same end some other way. They point out that is nearly impossible to get counts of calories consumed and calories burned completely accurate and then propose that some other inexact method is better because keto (or whatever term they choose to insert at the end).
I think it gets contentious when the different inexact method claims some other mechanism of action. I mean, fine. If calorie counting doesn't work for you, then reduce your calorie intake by whatever means works. Just don't try to tell me that the reason your way works is something other than CICO.
When you get into straight-up claims that a strategy like "eat less, move more" NEVER WORKS -- which I've gotten more than once -- you're into the universe of nonsense.2 -
Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:
If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.4 -
lacyphacelia wrote: »Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:
If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.
It would depend on how plentiful the game, fruit, nuts, and other foodstuffs were, and how skilled you were in hunting and gathering.2 -
Coconut oil, fresh from the coconut!lynn_glenmont wrote: »lacyphacelia wrote: »Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:
If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.
It would depend on how plentiful the game, fruit, nuts, and other foodstuffs were, and how skilled you were in hunting and gathering.
2 -
-
The MFP blog is like the Dr. Oz show and a bunch of FB posts. It's put together to draw clicks, not for scientific accuracy.16 -
"A meter isn't a meter because walking a meter barefoot on broken glass has a different effect than a meter on pillows."
Does that sound like a scientific argument to you?
12 -
The MFP blog is like the Dr. Oz show and a bunch of FB posts. It's put together to draw clicks, not for scientific accuracy.
Yep. We should be able to put it on Ignore, too, like you can certain posters. That would be nice.11 -
The MFP blogs are sometimes embarrassingly filled with derp and woo based on nothing but the science of click bait.
15 -
No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
There was a book written about this issue that goes through a lot of science.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
26 -
The MFP blog is like the Dr. Oz show and a bunch of FB posts. It's put together to draw clicks, not for scientific accuracy.
Sad, isn't it.8 -
The MFP blog is like the Dr. Oz show and a bunch of FB posts. It's put together to draw clicks, not for scientific accuracy.
Other than the headline (ugh), the article doesn't seem all that terrible to me.
Its treatment of adjustment based on results is unbalanced (first few paragraphs imply that they think we just cut calories and coast stupidly along without using feedback from results; quoted expert later wants us to adjust eating every freakin' week to stay at a 1 pound loss rate!). Anyone, but especially a typical pre-menopausal woman, who tries to do that will go nuts trying, I'd predict. The TEF thing is true, but doesn't put it in perspective of the impact of realistic impact on an overall diet of a low-adequate protein consumption, vs. a high one that's not so high it drives out other needed nutrition (answer: realistic impact not that huge within those constraints).
Overall, I think they're trying to say that calories are important, but that it isn't a fully deterministic precise calculation process, which is true.
Most articles are not very good at saying "Calories are the baseline determinant of weight loss, but in addition to calories, other factors will help you succeed, the formulas are only estimates, and your system is dynamic, so you have to watch results.
7 -
No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
That study has nothing to do with CICO. It only proves what we already knew which is that there are ways of eating that satiate you and there are ways of eating that can potentially create negative satiation. If you eat an unbalanced high GI meal it will cause an insulin spike and since insulin is one of the hunger hormones you will get hungry again and maybe hungrier in a short amount of time.
ETA: Also it was taken out of context for use in that blog. If you take that same high GI food and put it as part of a balanced meal it will not cause the insulin spike and the resulting hunger.14 -
No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
That study has nothing to do with CICO. It only proves what we already knew which is that there are ways of eating that satiate you and there are ways of eating that can potentially create negative satiation. If you eat an unbalanced high GI meal it will cause an insulin spike and since insulin is one of the hunger hormones you will get hungry again and maybe hungrier in a short amount of time.
ETA: Also it was taken out of context for use in that blog. If you take that same high GI food and put it as part of a balanced meal it will not cause the insulin spike and the resulting hunger.
Was about to say the same thing. That study says:
CONCLUSIONS:
The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation.
i.e. certain food can make you hungrier than others. If you give in, you increase your energy intake (CI).
How anyone interprets this as questioning the formula for energy balance is beyond me...11 -
No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
There was a book written about this issue that goes through a lot of science.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
Once again (broken record), you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Your body obeys the laws of energy balance, whether you choose to believe in them or not....8 -
No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
There was a book written about this issue that goes through a lot of science.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
Isn't Taubes the one who said that even if the science proved him wrong he would still believe his own theories over the science?9 -
No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
There was a book written about this issue that goes through a lot of science.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
Gary Taubes is the author, so, no. Midnight train to Wooville.16 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
There was a book written about this issue that goes through a lot of science.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
Gary Taubes is the author, so, no. Midnight train to Wooville.
I mean, I guess you could interpret "goes through a lot of science" in more than one way. Taubes goes through science kind of like how the Kool-Aid Man goes through walls.17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
There was a book written about this issue that goes through a lot of science.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
Gary Taubes is the author, so, no. Midnight train to Wooville.
I mean, I guess you could interpret "goes through a lot of science" in more than one way. Taubes goes through science kind of like how the Kool-Aid Man goes through walls.
...or Haribo sugarless gummy bear lovers go through toilet paper.
18 -
The MFP blog is like the Dr. Oz show and a bunch of FB posts. It's put together to draw clicks, not for scientific accuracy.
Other than the headline (ugh), the article doesn't seem all that terrible to me.
Its treatment of adjustment based on results is unbalanced (first few paragraphs imply that they think we just cut calories and coast stupidly along without using feedback from results; quoted expert later wants us to adjust eating every freakin' week to stay at a 1 pound loss rate!). Anyone, but especially a typical pre-menopausal woman, who tries to do that will go nuts trying, I'd predict. The TEF thing is true, but doesn't put it in perspective of the impact of realistic impact on an overall diet of a low-adequate protein consumption, vs. a high one that's not so high it drives out other needed nutrition (answer: realistic impact not that huge within those constraints).
Overall, I think they're trying to say that calories are important, but that it isn't a fully deterministic precise calculation process, which is true.
Most articles are not very good at saying "Calories are the baseline determinant of weight loss, but in addition to calories, other factors will help you succeed, the formulas are only estimates, and your system is dynamic, so you have to watch results.
TBH I didn't even click through to the blog, I just know reading the MFP blog is like flipping through the tabloids with stories about aliens on the cover while waiting to check out at the store
But yes I agree, most articles that purport to argue against CICO are just noting that how you eat can affect your ability to hit the necessary deficit. Then they major in the minors. And finally they cite studies that you have to look at sideways and in a mirror to draw the conclusion the blog title suggests.
5 -
No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
There was a book written about this issue that goes through a lot of science.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
That study isn't disputing CICO (energy equation) in the least...not sure where you're getting that it does.6 -
I'm going to read the article.. but i have never felt cico was gospel. If it were true no one would ever plateau. i've read on threads here where people stay the same weight for 8 months sometimes and don't lose as they eat at a deficit. i think CICO works for a lot of people.. but i also think they get stuck eating very low calories to maintain.
There are different paths to weight loss
\40 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I'm going to read the article.. but i have never felt cico was gospel. If it were true no one would ever plateau. i've read on threads here where people stay the same weight for 8 months sometimes and don't lose as they eat at a deficit. i think CICO works for a lot of people.. but i also think they get stuck eating very low calories to maintain.
There are different paths to weight loss
\
People plateau for a variety of reasons -- inconsistency with hitting calorie goal, inaccurate measuring of calories in, inaccurate estimation of calories out, unrealistic time expectations (I've seen so many threads from people thinking it's a plateau after six or seven days). But if someone is eating at a deficit for eight months, they'll lose weight. If they aren't, they simply aren't at a deficit.
There are different ways to create a calorie deficit, but there's only one path to weight loss and that is consuming less energy than your body is using.16 -
Actually, what generally happens with a plateau is that people don't adjust their calories downward as their weight drops. When I weighed 254lbs, I was losing more than 1lb/week on 1720. At 149lbs I lose 1/2lb/week on 1400 (that's without exercise; I do eat back half my exercise calories, so it's more like 1650-1750 now).
Or people aren't moving as much as they think or accurately measuring their intake. Or they have a temporary water-weight issue and think "plateau!" after a week or so.12 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I'm going to read the article.. but i have never felt cico was gospel. If it were true no one would ever plateau. i've read on threads here where people stay the same weight for 8 months sometimes and don't lose as they eat at a deficit. i think CICO works for a lot of people.. but i also think they get stuck eating very low calories to maintain.
There are different paths to weight loss
\
Some people fall down less than others, therefore gravity doesn't work for everyone30 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I'm going to read the article.. but i have never felt cico was gospel. If it were true no one would ever plateau. i've read on threads here where people stay the same weight for 8 months sometimes and don't lose as they eat at a deficit. i think CICO works for a lot of people.. but i also think they get stuck eating very low calories to maintain.
There are different paths to weight loss
\
When you diet for an extended period of time, your hormones get jacked up...your will also compensate in other ways to reduce your energy expenditure...ie grow hair slower, grow nails slower, induce fatigue so you chill out instead of move.
None of this negates the equation...it changes the numbers in the equation...namely the CO part.
Every diet works on the same premise...CICO isn't calorie counting, it's an energy equation. Any and all diets are CICO.
I'm certainly not stuck on very low calories to maintain...I'm a desk jockey and maintain on 3,000 calories per day and I don't do anything crazy exercise wise...3-4 rides per week of about 40-45 minutes and lifting 3x per week...other than that, I walk my dog for 20-30 minutes in the morning.
You're assuming your CO never changes...it can and will with extended dieting. If someone isn't losing, they're not actually in a deficit...their CO has decreased due to the things I noted above.13 -
stevencloser wrote: »
"A meter isn't a meter because walking a meter barefoot on broken glass has a different effect than a meter on pillows."
Does that sound like a scientific argument to you?
A meter is a meter because a meter doesn't say anything about comfort or even what is traversing the meter...it is just a measure of distance.
Similarly calories are calories because a calorie doesn't say anything about satiation or nutritional value of specific foods or even what is utilizing the calorie...it is just a measure of energy.12 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
"A meter isn't a meter because walking a meter barefoot on broken glass has a different effect than a meter on pillows."
Does that sound like a scientific argument to you?
A meter is a meter because a meter doesn't say anything about comfort or even what is traversing the meter...it is just a measure of distance.
Similarly calories are calories because a calorie doesn't say anything about satiation or nutritional value of specific foods or even what is utilizing the calorie...it is just a measure of energy.
But I heard that energy isn't even a thing... that it's just made up by people?!12 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
"A meter isn't a meter because walking a meter barefoot on broken glass has a different effect than a meter on pillows."
Does that sound like a scientific argument to you?
A meter is a meter because a meter doesn't say anything about comfort or even what is traversing the meter...it is just a measure of distance.
Similarly calories are calories because a calorie doesn't say anything about satiation or nutritional value of specific foods or even what is utilizing the calorie...it is just a measure of energy.
But I heard that energy isn't even a thing... that it's just made up by people?!
Energy's feelings are hurt by this. This causes much entropy.19
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions