Science undecided of CICO?
Options
Replies
-
I actually watched the whole video and found it pretty interesting even though some of it was over my head.
In the video he says the body can do 3 things with energy: store it, use it or waste it where wasting is through urine or exhaling.
My thought is that the “wasting” is actually part of “using”. The body might be using energy to convert the fat to waste and sending it out the body burning calories in the process. Therefore, there’s still only 2 things the body can do with energy: store or use.
But I’m just guessing.
Thanks for taking the time to watch the video Riff1970. While I have problems with the CICO model, i actually like the model that AnvilHead sent as a better and more complete model (http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html).
Based on other literature, like the video, I've concluded that low carb is the way to go (in my case to the point of being ketogenic) because a ketogenic diet creates a new pathway to expend energy (wasting - through exhaled breath and through urine). I've also found that adjusting my macros to favor protein and fat and significantly reduce carbs has improved my "Level of Satiety" and "degree of primary appetite control" (these are two additional variables in the model that AnvilHead sent. For me, this is another reason that you can't say "a calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie." I think macros matter because there is some type of hormonal or other signaling response that is driving your body.17 -
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
In my understanding of the CICO model, ALL calories out are ONLY accounted for by BMR + thermic effect of food + activity. BMR is ONLY based on body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level.
Thats the point of the biggest loser study - they found metabolism slowed more than one would expect based on the BMR formula and when people regained weight, their BMR didn't go up in the way predicted by the BMR formula.
To be clear, I thing metabolisms do slow down and speed up based on external signals. I think hormones play a big role in that (e.g., insulin from carbs, cortisol from lack of sleep/stress, and something hormonal caused by HIIT) and its why i think the CICO model is flawed.
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.
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)
10 -
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.18 -
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
In my understanding of the CICO model, ALL calories out are ONLY accounted for by BMR + thermic effect of food + activity. BMR is ONLY based on body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level.
Thats the point of the biggest loser study - they found metabolism slowed more than one would expect based on the BMR formula and when people regained weight, their BMR didn't go up in the way predicted by the BMR formula.
To be clear, I thing metabolisms do slow down and speed up based on external signals. I think hormones play a big role in that (e.g., insulin from carbs, cortisol from lack of sleep/stress, and something hormonal caused by HIIT) and its why i think the CICO model is flawed.
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.
CICO simply says CI=CO for weight management. CI>CO means weight gain. CI<CO means weight loss. There are no specific formulas associated with it other than that. If something, anything, causes your CO to go down, you need to eat less to maintain weight. That's really it.10 -
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.
If you're in a calorie deficit then you will lose weight. If your TDEE is lowered by a low BMR, EE, or NEAT, then you won't be in a calorie deficit following the basic calculators. This is why people are often encouraged not to trust the calculator dogmatically and to adjust based on their own real world results.
A calorie deficit comes from your actual TDEE, not a number the computer spits out.11 -
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.
Again, you're conflating CICO with calorie counting. "The CICO model" says nothing of the sort, and there is no such thing as "The CICO model". CICO is simply an acronym for the physical law of energy balance. It doesn't say anything about tracking anything, counting anything or estimating anything.
Go ahead and try keto. You'll soon discover that the laws of energy balance apply no matter how you divide your macros up. And that's all a ketogenic diet is - dividing your macros differently. There are plenty of studies which have shown that, given equal calories, there is no "metabolic advantage" to a ketogenic diet.16 -
Comments section of an online newspaper article? LOL. Can't take it seriously.
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.
Like the rule about thunderstorms. X seconds between lightning and thunder means Y distance of the storm. Uses the different speeds of light and sound to make a guess at the distance. It's a rough estimate, doesn't change the science underneath if you were to use accurate numbers.8 -
You keep referring to the "CICO model" as if it is a theory that was derived out of nothing. CICO is merely a statement of the first law of thermodynamics, as applied to a living system. The laws of thermodynamics are well understood to apply in physics, chemistry (a subset of physics), and biochemistry (a subset of chemistry). The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and CICO is a statement of that as it relates to living things.
CICO itself is not a model, it's a restatement of a fundamental law in science. CO is estimated by models, but they do not have to be absolutely precise to be useful. Hormones cannot increase CI, and only influence CO slightly. The beauty of understanding how weight loss comes down simply and fundamentally to energy balance means that you can use these estimates to hone in on your own balance and then eat whatever meets your nutritional needs and personal preferences.13 -
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
In my understanding of the CICO model, ALL calories out are ONLY accounted for by BMR + thermic effect of food + activity. BMR is ONLY based on body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level.
Thats the point of the biggest loser study - they found metabolism slowed more than one would expect based on the BMR formula and when people regained weight, their BMR didn't go up in the way predicted by the BMR formula.
To be clear, I thing metabolisms do slow down and speed up based on external signals. I think hormones play a big role in that (e.g., insulin from carbs, cortisol from lack of sleep/stress, and something hormonal caused by HIIT) and its why i think the CICO model is flawed.
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.
The problem lies not in the model, but in your understanding of it.
It has been explained several times, you just keep ignoring it16 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K 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