Science undecided of CICO?
Options
Replies
-
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
- 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