Science undecided of CICO?
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 -
If you have wandered into this thread without an appreciation for science remember you don't need to know or understand any of this to lose weight. Despite all attempts by our "bot" friend who reminds me of a young sibling who would stick fingers in his/her ears and hum to avoid hearing things losing weight is not complicated.5
-
stanmann571 wrote: »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.
Fair enough but to clarify did the source you were pulling from state that BMR has a stdev of 10% or was it that you remembered that the maximum variance was 10% from the mean and you just called it stdev?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »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.
Fair enough but to clarify did the source you were pulling from state that BMR has a stdev of 10% or was it that you remembered that the maximum variance was 10% from the mean and you just called it stdev?
I was being sloppy, and I apologize.
As I recall, 5-15% was the expected variation with additional outliers a bit further out, so closer to stdev than maximum, and it varied across several studies that I was reading last year with most closer to 10% than 5 or 15. I also don't recall if the sample sizes were even large enough to meaningfully predict a stdev.
I'd have to dig up the sources and grind through them to give a thoroughly vetted answer.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »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.
Fair enough but to clarify did the source you were pulling from state that BMR has a stdev of 10% or was it that you remembered that the maximum variance was 10% from the mean and you just called it stdev?
I was being sloppy, and I apologize.
As I recall, 5-15% was the expected variation with additional outliers a bit further out, so closer to stdev than maximum, and it varied across several studies that I was reading last year with most closer to 10% than 5 or 15. I also don't recall if the sample sizes were even large enough to meaningfully predict a stdev.
I'd have to dig up the sources and grind through them to give a thoroughly vetted answer.
Eh you don't need to. I was just curious because if the stdev of BMR is 10% across the population then there probably would be some pretty significant outliers....ie people whose weight would give a BMR formula calculation of 1500 based on the population average but whose BMR is actually more like 1050 (3-sigma). That would be suprising to me, I would have expected it to be much tighter than that.0 -
Discussing what component of TDEE is affected the most by losing fat:
"And this actually happens with a recent study (mimicking the Minnesota study for 3 weeks) found a loss of organ mass in the first week of dieting that explained most of the drop in RMR (18). There was still an adaptive component, mind you, it was simply smaller than had been seen previously. Given the importance of LBM in determining RMR, it's usually been felt (and at least some studies find) that preventing LBM while dieting is the best way to limit the a reduction in metabolic rate (adaptive or otherwise).
While there is at least some truth to this, the fact is that RMR tends to drop in response to large-scale fat and weight loss even if LBM is maintained (19). And this is due to the fact that body fat is sending the primary signal to the brain in terms of how it should adapt to dieting. Looking at the magnitude of the drop, a primary factor is still BF%.
In the Category 3 individual losing a moderate amount of weight, the total adaptiverop may be no more than 150-250 calories. Of this decrease, perhaps 10-15% is due to the changes in RMR and this amounts to roughly 15-40 calories per day, an insignificantly small number. Even the dieter who experiences a 500 calorie total decrease will still only see the RMR drop making up 50-70 calories per day. "
The Women’s Book Lyle McDonald0 -
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.
I've been thinking that for the last few pages 1 -
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
While you are indeed correct that there are different paths to weight loss, the only possible explanation for an eight month plateau is inaccurately estimating calories in or calories out.
When food intake is monitored in a laboratory setting, such as what was done in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, there was no difficulty with weight loss whatsoever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
6 -
These guys usually do a good job; I haven't done anything to validate, so FWIW:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
3 -
These guys usually do a good job; I haven't done anything to validate, so FWIW:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
Thanks Ann.fromtheabstract wrote: »Recent findings In humans, the coefficient of variation in the components of total daily energy expenditure is around 5-8% for resting metabolic rate, 1-2% for exercise energy expenditure, and around 20% for diet-induced thermogenesis. The coefficient of variance for 24 h energy expenditure measured using a room calorimeter for resting metabolic rate is around 5-10%. Thus, these measures are all rather reproducible. Total daily energy expenditure varies several-fold in humans, not due to variation in resting metabolic rate, diet-induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis, but rather, due to variations in nonexercise activity. A variety of factors impact nonexercise activity, including occupation, environment, education, genetics, age, gender, and body composition, but little is known about the magnitude of effect.
This lines up nicely with what's commonly criticized as MFP received wisdom.
1. TDEE/BMR/NEAT estimates need to be adjusted for and can vary from person to person
2. ACCURATE exercise estimations can be trusted almost completely
3. food estimates have a great deal of room for error(and apparently it's not just weighing/logging causing it)
1 -
CICO is not a model. It's just the energy balance equation.
An energy balance equation IS a scientific model. From Wikipedia...
"A scientific model seeks to represent empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical and objective way. All models are in simulacra, that is, simplified reflections of reality that, despite being approximations, can be extremely useful.[4] Building and disputing models is fundamental to the scientific enterprise. Complete and true representation may be impossible, but scientific debate often concerns which is the better model for a given task, e.g., which is the more accurate climate model for seasonal forecasting.[5]...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling6
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