Science undecided of CICO?

1234568»

Replies

  • lacyphacelia
    lacyphacelia Posts: 58 Member
    Caralarma wrote: »
    lacyphacelia wrote: »
    Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:

    If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.

    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 down

    ROFL at first I thought you were serious about the not eating carbs part lol.

    But yeah, it's hard to accept that the reason why most people can't lose weight is because they're eating too much.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,222 Member
    edited June 2018
    All1971 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    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_modelling

    LOL!

    You're still missing the point. You've continue to claim that the model/equation includes variables not named in the equation. You've further seemed to argue that by its very nature the model/equation contends that those unshown but included variables are rigid, invariant, and predictable by formula.

    I'll happily leave it to other readers to decide who's making the best overall argument on the substance. ;)

    Edited: Trying to sort out messed-up quote tags.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,222 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    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)

    I'm not a statistician, but #2 is not how I'd interpret what they're saying as a practical matter, if I'm understanding your #2 statement. I would have read what they're saying as amounting to something more like "when 2 different people and do the very same exercise at the same intensity (power metered), they will burn within 1-2% of the same number of calories" (for some exercises that would require the people to be of the same personal characteristics, or it's different exercise?), or maybe just asserting that the same exercise for the same person doesn't vary much in calorie expenditure.

    I think maybe #3 is why folks are wanting to see protein held constant when comparing weight loss on high fat vs. high carb diets . . . not that those are the only sources of variation in TEF, as far as I understand it (and I don't understand it much ;) ).

    Someone else probably has a better understanding - like the actual science folks here. ;)

Categories