Science undecided of CICO?
Replies
-
The model that AnvilHead posted in his response to me had a variable (tendency to preserve energy) that, based on my understanding of the CICO model, should not be there if you believe the CICO model is correct and accurate. Thats why I keep asking for somebody who believes in the CICO model to explain to me how to reconcile this inconsistency.
This is easy enough to answer. You don't understand the inner workings of human energy usage well enough to know what fits and doesn't in the model. Don't feel bad, I don't either.
My first thought when I saw the model was that it meant the human body is not in the habit of pouring a gallon of water into a thimble. A tendency to preserve seemed to just mean a tendency not to waste. I saw the other explanation and that made sense too. If you were not properly prepared and you were running a marathon would you want your body to expend all available energy on the activity and leave you nothing for basic function? Nope. That is a good way to end up dead.
3 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,
On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)
I think you misunderstand CICO to be honest. CICO is simply the concept that if you knew the amount of energy in calories your body was able to functionalize through your intake (CI) and you knew the amount of energy in calories your body required CO then the net value between those two would tell you if your body had surplus net energy (which would lead to storage in the form of triglycerides orglycogen and therefore weight gain or if your body had a deficit net energy (which would lead to metabolism of triglycerides or glycogen and therefore weight loss. Period. The end.
It says absolutely nothing of what methods might be imployed to predict CI or CO or which ones are accurate if any or which ones should be added up to estimate or how accurate any of those estimates are. That is outside of CICO...that is just assumptions, methods, studies, strategies, calculations etc. CICO is just the underlying concept, not the methodology or strategies or assumptions.
What you seem to be disagreeing with or questioning isn't CICO...it is various methods and strategies commonly imployed for weight loss that are based on attempting to estimate calorie intake and usage. That isn't the same thing man and if you use one term to mean the other you are going to get misunderstood. All CICO is is a rephrasing of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of calories....it doesn't even necessarily specifically apply to humans and dieting....it is just a fundamental physical law.
Understand that if you simply stated "I don't think BMR + activity is all there is to CI and even if it was I don't think our methods are fully accurate for tracking them" or "I don't think simply going off the calories listed on the side of a box for what your CI is is 100% accurate" then I would agree with you. If you instead say "I don't think CICO is accurate" then I would disagree with you. So a lot of the disagreement you are experiencing might be a semantic disagreement of terms and not because what you actually believe is being disagreed with.18 -
diannethegeek wrote: »CICO doesn't mean that you grab a random number from a calculator and follow it dogmatically, though. You're using poor application of a rule to invalidate the rule itself.
But that's exactly what the CICO model says - track your caloric intake, track/estimate your energy expenditure and as long as calories in are less than calories out you will lose weight. While that works for some period of time, once the body begins to adapt it becomes more complicated.
If you think the model says something other than what i've said, please tell me where I'm wrong.
I know this took 4-5 pages to get to, and has already been explained, but it's clear you do not understand what CICO even is, let alone how to apply it.
And this is the problem. It's also what has led to others frustration. Please take the time to read the above responses, and understand you are not arguing against what you think you are.
If you have an issue with calorie counting, that is very different than an issue with CICO. Calorie counting is very much a process where you are continually adjusting for real world results. You don't follow a calculator dogmatically and the advice is usually to use the calculator as a starting point, but to be prepared to go with that for 6-8 weeks and adjust based on the actual results. It isn't expected that two 6ft, 200 lb men will have the same maintenance calories and that they will vary based on a lot of different reasons. Even as simple as being fidgety or not will have an impact on an individuals BMR. So you start with the calculators and adjust as needed.13 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BMR isn't as static as some people tend to think, though. For instance, take someone like me who menstruates. My BMR changes due to hormones depending on where I am in my monthly cycle -lowest at ovulation and then climbing during the luteal phase. Hormones affect my BMR which in turn affects my calories out without any changes to my body composition. Most of the changes you're describing are covered in the CICO equation, it's just that you've boiled the equation down too far to see it.
I agree with everything you wrote - the problem is that the BMR formula thats used in the CICO model does not allow for a dynamic BMR (other than accounting for changes in weight etc.) . According to the formula, your BMR should be unaffected by hormones other than a general variable of being male or female. Your argument that hormones matter is exactly the argument that I have been making - that the CICO model is too simplistic to account for what actually happens in the human body in real life.25 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BMR isn't as static as some people tend to think, though. For instance, take someone like me who menstruates. My BMR changes due to hormones depending on where I am in my monthly cycle -lowest at ovulation and then climbing during the luteal phase. Hormones affect my BMR which in turn affects my calories out without any changes to my body composition. Most of the changes you're describing are covered in the CICO equation, it's just that you've boiled the equation down too far to see it.
I agree with everything you wrote - the problem is that the BMR formula thats used in the CICO model does not allow for a dynamic BMR (other than accounting for changes in weight etc.) . According to the formula, your BMR should be unaffected by hormones other than a general variable of being male or female. Your argument that hormones matter is exactly the argument that I have been making - that the CICO model is too simplistic to account for what actually happens in the human body in real life.
There is no "CICO model" man....so when you say that we have to guess what you are talking about. CICO isn't a model, it isn't a strategy, it isn't a plan...it is just accounting for energy and that is it. Deciding to track BMR isn't "CICO" and using a particular formula to estimate it isn't "CICO".13 -
It sounds like you're just eager to throw the baby out with the bath water. CICO says nothing about the accuracy of formulas/algorithms we've derived to predict things such as BMR. CICO is an energy balance equation - it simply has to do with what happens to your weight when you're in an energy deficit, surplus or equilibrium. As many people do, you're confusing energy balance with calorie counting. They're two separate things.
The whole point of a theoretical model (like CICO) is that its supposed to be an accurate representation of how something works (in this case weightloss). The model is supposed to be a summation of scientific understanding about relationships and interactions. If the model is accurate it should help inform your decision making. if the model is inaccurate then decisions based on the model will not result in the expected results.
I'm not eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater - i think calories matter, but their not the whole story. I think macros also make a big difference (they are not addressed in the CICO model except to acknowledge that they have different thermic effects). i think hormones matter (both insulin, and as another person noted estrogen and other reproductive hormones. I think sleep and stress matter (cortisol). i also think theres something going on with signaling in the body during sustained calorie restriction that down regulates metabolism in a way that we don;t totally understand (theres some interesting literature about metabolic adaption in both the ketogenic and bariatric surgery literature that says theres something different going on but its not quite clear what).
I've said before, i think the complex model of obesity that you linked to is a better representation of whats going on. I think it also explains why weightloss is so hard for most people and why such a small percentage of people actually sustain weightloss over long periods of time (not that people can't do it, but that its hard to do and they are unlikely to do it). I myself have lived the cycle of yo-yo dieting a number of times. i'm currently on my longest sustained downward trend at 10 months and I've been able to do that by really questioning the science behind the recommendations and the recommendations themselves for the first time in my life.22 -
It sounds like you're just eager to throw the baby out with the bath water. CICO says nothing about the accuracy of formulas/algorithms we've derived to predict things such as BMR. CICO is an energy balance equation - it simply has to do with what happens to your weight when you're in an energy deficit, surplus or equilibrium. As many people do, you're confusing energy balance with calorie counting. They're two separate things.
The whole point of a theoretical model (like CICO) is that its supposed to be an accurate representation of how something works (in this case weightloss). The model is supposed to be a summation of scientific understanding about relationships and interactions. If the model is accurate it should help inform your decision making. if the model is inaccurate then decisions based on the model will not result in the expected results.
I'm not eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater - i think calories matter, but their not the whole story. I think macros also make a big difference (they are not addressed in the CICO model except to acknowledge that they have different thermic effects). i think hormones matter (both insulin, and as another person noted estrogen and other reproductive hormones. I think sleep and stress matter (cortisol). i also think theres something going on with signaling in the body during sustained calorie restriction that down regulates metabolism in a way that we don;t totally understand (theres some interesting literature about metabolic adaption in both the ketogenic and bariatric surgery literature that says theres something different going on but its not quite clear what).
I've said before, i think the complex model of obesity that you linked to is a better representation of whats going on. I think it also explains why weightloss is so hard for most people and why such a small percentage of people actually sustain weightloss over long periods of time (not that people can't do it, but that its hard to do and they are unlikely to do it). I myself have lived the cycle of yo-yo dieting a number of times. i'm currently on my longest sustained downward trend at 10 months and I've been able to do that by really questioning the science behind the recommendations and the recommendations themselves for the first time in my life.
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
23 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BMR isn't as static as some people tend to think, though. For instance, take someone like me who menstruates. My BMR changes due to hormones depending on where I am in my monthly cycle -lowest at ovulation and then climbing during the luteal phase. Hormones affect my BMR which in turn affects my calories out without any changes to my body composition. Most of the changes you're describing are covered in the CICO equation, it's just that you've boiled the equation down too far to see it.
I agree with everything you wrote - the problem is that the BMR formula thats used in the CICO model does not allow for a dynamic BMR (other than accounting for changes in weight etc.) . According to the formula, your BMR should be unaffected by hormones other than a general variable of being male or female. Your argument that hormones matter is exactly the argument that I have been making - that the CICO model is too simplistic to account for what actually happens in the human body in real life.
You keep asking us to tell you if your understanding of CICO is wrong and then ignoring us when we say it is. At this point, I don't think you're arguing in good faith and I'm out. Good luck to anyone who continues.20 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BMR is affected by everything from bone density to climate to hormones. T4, a high fever, hot weather, or menstruation can affect it. Where are you getting this idea that nothing but body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level affect it (and for the record, I don't believe general activity level is included since that's added on as your NEAT)
i would agree that all the things you said can affect metabolism in general. However,BMR in the CICO model is a specific formula used to estimate your metabolic rate. You can read about the formula here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris–Benedict_equation16 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BMR is affected by everything from bone density to climate to hormones. T4, a high fever, hot weather, or menstruation can affect it. Where are you getting this idea that nothing but body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level affect it (and for the record, I don't believe general activity level is included since that's added on as your NEAT)
i would agree that all the things you said can affect metabolism in general. However,BMR in the CICO model is a specific formula used to estimate your metabolic rate. You can read about the formula here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris–Benedict_equation
Could you point us to wherever you are getting the idea that there is a "CICO model" that specifically depends on BMR to function?
The quoted link is not about CICO.
You keep ignoring the suggestion that the problem is actually you arguing against something you are calling CICO but is not what we call CICO. So could you quote or cite or summarize what you think CICO is? Because my understanding of CICO and my use of it to lose 20 lbs never involved knowing my BMR.11 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BMR is affected by everything from bone density to climate to hormones. T4, a high fever, hot weather, or menstruation can affect it. Where are you getting this idea that nothing but body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level affect it (and for the record, I don't believe general activity level is included since that's added on as your NEAT)
i would agree that all the things you said can affect metabolism in general. However,BMR in the CICO model is a specific formula used to estimate your metabolic rate. You can read about the formula here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris–Benedict_equation
Now go and read the Wikipedia article for basal metabolic rate. This is a specific formula - one of several available - to estimate BMR. It is not everything that encompasses a person's BMR.7 -
9 -
As it's most basic level, energy balance (EB, also called the energy balance equation) represents the relationship between energy intake (EI, from food) and energy expenditure (EE, the number of calories expended during the day). In the US, it is often described as calories in versus calories out (other countries use kiloJoules). This relationship of EI and EE determine the changes that occur in the body's overall energy stores. Please note here that I have not said change in body weight but energy stores and this is a critical distinction that is often ignored and contributes to the misconceptions that surround EB.
The main concept to grasp at right now is that long-term imbalances between EI and EE lead to changes in the body's energy stores. If EI exceeds EE, the body's energy stores and bodyweight will increase. If EE exceeds EI, the body's energy stores and body weight will decrease If EI equals EE over the long term, weight will be stable with no meaningful change in the body's energy stores. A key concept here is that of long-term imbalances. Most people have small imbalances between intake and expenditure on a day-to-day basis but they tend to cancel each other out over time which is why most people remain at a fairly stable weight and body composition over fairly long time periods. It's a long-term imbalance that causes meaningful changes in the body's energy stores and body weight or body composition.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2780-2786). Lyle McDonald.
7 -
While energy intake simply represents the calories and nutrients absorbed from foods, energy expenditure (which I will refer to as Total Daily Energy Expenditure or TDDE) is made up of four distinct components that I will describe separately. Those four are resting metabolic rate (RMR), the thermic effect of food (TEF), the thermic effect of activity (TEA) and a relatively new factor called Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT). When all four are added up, this represents TDEE.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2803-2807). Lyle McDonald.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.
You would lose weight because you aren't eating carbs... kidding! People like to complicate weight loss and blame it on certain food groups because they can't accept that they just need to put the damn fork down13 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,
On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)
According to the gravity model - your daily strength training with weights should be the weight you are lifting times the amount of times you are lifting it. My point is that weight that you should lift when you start seems to do a poor job of predicting the weight someone should lift overtime when one is doing strength training. The formulas used to calculate what a progressive program load should look like have been shown to be not that accurate. If the progressive load formula is an inaccurate variable in the gravity model then the whole gravity model has a flaw.11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,
On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)
According to the gravity model - your daily strength training with weights should be the weight you are lifting times the amount of times you are lifting it. My point is that weight that you should lift when you start seems to do a poor job of predicting the weight someone should lift overtime when one is doing strength training. The formulas used to calculate what a progressive program load should look like have been shown to be not that accurate. If the progressive load formula is an inaccurate variable in the gravity model then the whole gravity model has a flaw.
We need the 'Awesome' button back.
1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Now go and read the Wikipedia article for basal metabolic rate. This is a specific formula - one of several available - to estimate BMR. It is not everything that encompasses a person's BMR.
You are 100% right, this is one of several formulas of varying complexity, though most are pretty much the same. The formula is only as good as the variables included in the estimate. However, i have only seen BMR formulas that are static - i have never seen one that is dynamic (e.g., accounts for the fact that i have been in a calorie deficit for a while and my body is trying to retain its mass, or that i didn't sleep well last night and my cortisol is up). the only thing you are advised to do is recheck your BMR every time your weight changes significantly.
The problem is the CICO model is still a simple linear equation - weight loss is supposed to be predictable with a fair degree of precision based on your calorie balance no matter what else is going on in your body or life. Which is exactly my point, the formulas are not a great approximation of a person's real BMR because they don;t include all the variables and they are not dynamic (that is, allow for the variables to interact with each other such as estrogen levels affecting insulin levels which in turn affect other metabolic processes).
20 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »According to the gravity model - your daily strength training with weights should be the weight you are lifting times the amount of times you are lifting it. My point is that weight that you should lift when you start seems to do a poor job of predicting the weight someone should lift overtime when one is doing strength training. The formulas used to calculate what a progressive program load should look like have been shown to be not that accurate. If the progressive load formula is an inaccurate variable in the gravity model then the whole gravity model has a flaw.
My point actually lines up with your attempt at humor somewhat. lifting 200 lbs once takes the same effort/calories as lifting 50lbs four times - calories used are the same but one might result in overload and signals to the body to build stronger muscle and the other wouldn't - again, calories are only part of the story, not the whole story.
13 -
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.11 -
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.
CICO is not a model. It's just the energy balance equation.10 -
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.
I feel like you are willfully ignoring everything people have told you so I’m not sure why anyone would bother trying to explain it again but just for grins...
If you have metabolic adaptation your CO would be different (presumably lower). Therefore you need less CI to keep the equation balanced in the direction you desire.
Again:
CI<CO weight loss
CI=CO weight maintenance
CI>CO weight gain
That’s all there is to it.12 -
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.7 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Now go and read the Wikipedia article for basal metabolic rate. This is a specific formula - one of several available - to estimate BMR. It is not everything that encompasses a person's BMR.
You are 100% right, this is one of several formulas of varying complexity, though most are pretty much the same. The formula is only as good as the variables included in the estimate. However, i have only seen BMR formulas that are static - i have never seen one that is dynamic (e.g., accounts for the fact that i have been in a calorie deficit for a while and my body is trying to retain its mass, or that i didn't sleep well last night and my cortisol is up). the only thing you are advised to do is recheck your BMR every time your weight changes significantly.
The problem is the CICO model is still a simple linear equation - weight loss is supposed to be predictable with a fair degree of precision based on your calorie balance no matter what else is going on in your body or life. Which is exactly my point, the formulas are not a great approximation of a person's real BMR because they don;t include all the variables and they are not dynamic (that is, allow for the variables to interact with each other such as estrogen levels affecting insulin levels which in turn affect other metabolic processes).
You continue to conflate CICO, which is the energy balance equation, with calorie counting, which is an estimation/approximation method for accomplishing weight loss.6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,
On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)
CICO doesn't mean that you grab a random number from a calculator and follow it dogmatically, though. You're using poor application of a rule to invalidate the rule itself.
Exactly. The “CICO model” just deals with your calories in and your actual calories out. Two people that seem exactly the same will probably have different calories out for a multitude of reasons... you don’t really need to know why. Just track what you eat and what your weight does over the long haul and you’ll know what YOUR calories out are. Then adjust your calories in (or adjust how much you move to adjust calories out) to get the weight change you want. That’s it.4 -
Has anybody else wondered if we’re dealing with a bot here? Just curious.14
-
Brain fog5
-
This discussion reminds me of Abbot and Costello's "Who's On First?" routine.4
-
Oh, crap: Could be. The last (presumed) one I interacted with here was more oriented to picking out a phrase in replies then going off on semi-tangents from those (ELIZA-like keyword strategy). This would be more a "Yes, but <restate premise in new words>" strategy. Slightly more convincing approach, if that's what it is.Has anybody else wondered if we’re dealing with a bot here? Just curious.
ETA: The riff off the diagram is a little too good, though - riff has suitable context added.
Can anyone think of test strategies?
3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »According to the gravity model - your daily strength training with weights should be the weight you are lifting times the amount of times you are lifting it. My point is that weight that you should lift when you start seems to do a poor job of predicting the weight someone should lift overtime when one is doing strength training. The formulas used to calculate what a progressive program load should look like have been shown to be not that accurate. If the progressive load formula is an inaccurate variable in the gravity model then the whole gravity model has a flaw.
My point actually lines up with your attempt at humor somewhat. lifting 200 lbs once takes the same effort/calories as lifting 50lbs four times - calories used are the same but one might result in overload and signals to the body to build stronger muscle and the other wouldn't - again, calories are only part of the story, not the whole story.
I think you missed my point. The fact that weight lifting programs aren't necessarily 100% guaranteed to work isn't some indictment of the concept of gravity itself. Similarly the fact that formulas used to estimate CO aren't necessarily accurate or calories in packaging might not 100% represent CI given other factors is not an indictment of CICO.
Gravity isn't just some method for strength training, it is the conceptualization of our physical reality that weightlifting just happens to depend upon. In the exact same way CICO isn't just some method for weightloss...it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which weightloss and gain just happens to depend on. The relevance of validity of CICO is not somehow contingent on some BMR formula that is specifically about humans with the idea of weight tracking in mind.6
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