CICO Model vs Actual progress, misunderstood "plateau"
Options
FitAgainBy55
Posts: 179 Member
I'm an engineer, so math and data are important to me. I decided to plot my predicted weight loss (at a rate of 1.5 lbs per week) against my actual weigh ins since I started counting calories 2 months ago. It's not really a surprise to me but there is a STRONG correlation between the CICO model and my weight so far.
While only a sample of 1, it's hard to deny real data.
The blue line is the linear prediction of 1.5 lbs per week. The dots are actual weigh ins. The top red trend line comes from a weight trending app that attempts to smooth out the day to day variance.
Someone might look at that chart and say I've plateaued because my weight hasn't dropped in the last week -- it even shot above my trend line.
Am I worried ? Not in the least. You can find other examples of this. Look around 1/20/21 you'll see a similar "plateau" followed by a bigger than normal drop a week later.
The bottom line is calorie counting works, if you are honest and you put in the work.
While only a sample of 1, it's hard to deny real data.
The blue line is the linear prediction of 1.5 lbs per week. The dots are actual weigh ins. The top red trend line comes from a weight trending app that attempts to smooth out the day to day variance.
Someone might look at that chart and say I've plateaued because my weight hasn't dropped in the last week -- it even shot above my trend line.
Am I worried ? Not in the least. You can find other examples of this. Look around 1/20/21 you'll see a similar "plateau" followed by a bigger than normal drop a week later.
The bottom line is calorie counting works, if you are honest and you put in the work.
20
Replies
-
As I predicted, after 9 days of no weight loss (even a 2 lb gain) the swoosh happened where I had a huge drop. I have no idea how or why this happens but luckily I'm experienced enough to know it does and not worry about these weekly 'stalls' when they happen.
3 -
I've had a similar experience, but with a larger data set, having plotted 600+ days in a row of CICO-based estimated weight gain/loss vs the actual scale reading. Not surprisingly, CICO and actual have been right in sync *over the long term*. For any week-long or even two week period, results can be way off, but they always come back into alignment over a 4-5 week period. Over a period of 21 months and 90 lbs lost, the total difference between what the CICO-based formula says my weight should be and what my weight is, is 1.6 pounds, i.e. within 2 % accuracy.5
-
Good post!
The same is true for me . . . even though my base calorie needs (TDEE/NEAT) are dramatically different from what many calculators say (and what's indicated by my good brand/model fitness tracker that estimates well for others). For some reason, I'm an outlier, compared to population average calorie needs for my demographic.
Once I figured out my base calorie needs from logging & loss experience, 3500 calories = 1 pound (cumulatively) was very close for me, too, though I've never been motivated to do a spreadsheet to find out how close. Just watching trends over time was plenty of proof for my own purposes, if not as scientifically rigorous.
After logging for several years (I log in maintenance), I've even found it very easy and painless to lose a few vanity pounds super slowly. While even the weight trending app gets confused for a month or so sometimes, the multi-month weight loss is very consistent with my expectations.
I've seen people here argue that CICO is wrong because the so-called "calorie calculators" are not accurate for everyone. That fact - that calculators give a starting point, not a magical truth - can be a bump in the road for calorie counting, for folks who don't realize that the "calculators" estimate, they don't "calculate", really . . . ditto for fitness trackers. Another possible road-bump is people who don't understand that CI has an influence on CO, i.e., it's a dynamic system (especially at extremes), not a static one.
CICO, though? That's a separate issue. Physics, basically.1 -
The same is true for me . . . even though my base calorie needs (TDEE/NEAT) are dramatically different from what many calculators say (and what's indicated by my good brand/model fitness tracker that estimates well for others). For some reason, I'm an outlier, compared to population average calorie needs for my demographic.
Your point about fitness trackers and adjustments is also true for me.
When I lost weight the first time 10 years ago I didn't have a fitness tracker. I simply used sedentary activity level as a base and then subtracted my exercise calories. I have also plotted that data over 9 months and it matches perfectly.
This time around I have a garmin GPS enabled watch that also tracks steps and I've essentially found it useless for TDEE calculations. When I first started tracking this time I was not getting any calorie adjustments. I knew that I should be able to lose weight fairly quickly eating 2000 calories per day but without adjustments I was going to be eating around 1600 calories per day. I knew this wasn't enough for me, so I tweaked my settings -- setting my activity level to Highly Active and even adding an extra 100 calories to my budget.
Based on my experience my garmin fitness tracker underestimates my TDEE by 300+ calories per day.
0 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »
The same is true for me . . . even though my base calorie needs (TDEE/NEAT) are dramatically different from what many calculators say (and what's indicated by my good brand/model fitness tracker that estimates well for others). For some reason, I'm an outlier, compared to population average calorie needs for my demographic.
Your point about fitness trackers and adjustments is also true for me.
When I lost weight the first time 10 years ago I didn't have a fitness tracker. I simply used sedentary activity level as a base and then subtracted my exercise calories. I have also plotted that data over 9 months and it matches perfectly.
This time around I have a garmin GPS enabled watch that also tracks steps and I've essentially found it useless for TDEE calculations. When I first started tracking this time I was not getting any calorie adjustments. I knew that I should be able to lose weight fairly quickly eating 2000 calories per day but without adjustments I was going to be eating around 1600 calories per day. I knew this wasn't enough for me, so I tweaked my settings -- setting my activity level to Highly Active and even adding an extra 100 calories to my budget.
Based on my experience my garmin fitness tracker underestimates my TDEE by 300+ calories per day.
I got my Garmin after I'd already been using MFP for quite a while, and had figured out that MFP underestimates me by something in the realm of 25-30%, which is 500 or so calories. I'm sedentary (before exercise) in real life, usually lots under 5k steps, especially in Winter. If I set MFP to "active" (which is crazy false) and log exercise consistent with the most accurate estimating methods I can identify for what I do, it's somewhat close . . . still underestimates by a small amount.
My Garmin's TDEE estimate is in a similar realm to MFP's. Once I got it, and saw that, I never bothered to synch it to MFP. Synching would cause me more trouble than it's worth. I know how to eat and log to accomplish my goals, so I ignore it, except to use it as my best exercise-estimating option (among worse choices) for certain activities, or for pure amusement value.
I've been losing (super slowly, by intention) for over a year, eating 1850 plus exercise, so well over 2000 on many days (and having the periodic blow-out day, besides). The Garmin's usual 7-day average TDEE estimate is around 1500-1600ish. (It was remarkable on a couple of recent days when it actually gave me a number a tiny bit above 2000!)
I believe my actual average TDEE to be somewhere in the low 2000s (2100-2200 +/-, probably, now) depending on season among other things. 1850 net ought to be about a 250 calorie deficit, half a pound a week. My occasional well-over-maintenance eating days (every couple of weeks, but it varies) are not as well tracked - more estimating involved, if I even bother. My long-term weight loss average on this routine, over around 18 months, suggests my effective average deficit is 100-150 calories daily, which seems pretty consistent with CICO-based ballpark estimation, for me.
During weight loss, and the first months of maintenance, I tracked much more meticulously, because I knew I needed to find my own maintenance level rather than trusting the "calculators". Then, I could even predict what my weight would be, and when, after (say) an indulgent long travel weekend that was enough to add a little bit of fat weight. The water fluctuations were pretty predictable in magnitude and duration (I've been weighing daily for years), and when I'd get back to starting weight was usually predictable within about a day, too. Since I log more loosely now, I can't pin it down that precisely anymore. 🤷♀️0 -
During weight loss, and the first months of maintenance, I tracked much more meticulously, because I knew I needed to find my own maintenance level rather than trusting the "calculators". Then, I could even predict what my weight would be, and when, after (say) an indulgent long travel weekend that was enough to add a little bit of fat weight. The water fluctuations were pretty predictable in magnitude and duration (I've been weighing daily for years), and when I'd get back to starting weight was usually predictable within about a day, too. Since I log more loosely now, I can't pin it down that precisely anymore. 🤷♀️
If more people did this there would be less frustration. Unfortunately, many (most?) people don't have sufficient knowledge of the process to do this on their own and they draw conclusions based on small sample sets in terms of days instead of weeks and they don't understand water weight fluctuations.
I wonder if the trackers are intentionally underestimating because that's the "safest" thing to do ? I'm like you and sedentary except for intentional exercise -- I don't get a lot of NEAT calories. I did early on this go around simply because I wasn't fit enough yet to sustain a 1 hour workout. Now that my fitness is sufficient to sustain a 1+ hour workout, I don't really rely on NEAT much. I alternate running and strength training days -- on my strength training days I usually only get 2k - 4k steps unless it's the weekend and I have time for leisurely walks.
0 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »During weight loss, and the first months of maintenance, I tracked much more meticulously, because I knew I needed to find my own maintenance level rather than trusting the "calculators". Then, I could even predict what my weight would be, and when, after (say) an indulgent long travel weekend that was enough to add a little bit of fat weight. The water fluctuations were pretty predictable in magnitude and duration (I've been weighing daily for years), and when I'd get back to starting weight was usually predictable within about a day, too. Since I log more loosely now, I can't pin it down that precisely anymore. 🤷♀️
If more people did this there would be less frustration. Unfortunately, many (most?) people don't have sufficient knowledge of the process to do this on their own and they draw conclusions based on small sample sets in terms of days instead of weeks and they don't understand water weight fluctuations.
I wonder if the trackers are intentionally underestimating because that's the "safest" thing to do ? I'm like you and sedentary except for intentional exercise -- I don't get a lot of NEAT calories. I did early on this go around simply because I wasn't fit enough yet to sustain a 1 hour workout. Now that my fitness is sufficient to sustain a 1+ hour workout, I don't really rely on NEAT much. I alternate running and strength training days -- on my strength training days I usually only get 2k - 4k steps unless it's the weekend and I have time for leisurely walks.
I don't think the trackers underestimate, as a pattern. I see too many people here (who for other reasons I think are intelligent, insightful) say that their trackers work well. I think it's a normal distribution, or close, so we'd expect to see a strong central tendency, most people close to the mean, and fewer out a standard deviation or two, as you'd expect. Only tiny numbers of people are likely to be out beyond 2 standard deviations in either direction, of course, if it's normal (less than 5%, by definition, if a normal distribution).
I found this interesting and informative:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
Then, of course, the standard estimation methodologies amplify any difference from that source (BMR), by using activity multipliers. Trackers, presumably, handle the activity component differently, but I think they use the same research findings as their starting point, and I believe at least some of the trackers' estimation algorithms for some activities depend on estimated BMR as well.
If I truly really cared, I'd spend the bucks for a BMR/RMR lab test, but I have all I need for practical purposes, so am undermotivated.
Thinking about some of the probable mechanisms for possible variations in BMR/RMR, I kind of wonder whether it might be more common to be healthy with high calorie needs, vs. healthy with very low ones. A person can't harvest more calories from a food than are in it (effectively faking a "slow metabolism"), but a person can definitely absorb fewer than are present . . . but extreme cases of that latter seem likely to present with symptoms that would be called "ill health". Kind of the same for extreme lassitude vs. a fair range of what we'd consider high energy.
Keep in mind, too, that the research suggests fidgetiness may account for low hundreds of calories daily, vs. being very placid but still in the normal range. If someone's hyper fidgety, they might stand out, but I don't think smaller amounts of routine spontaneous movement would be all that noticeable. I'd asked a couple of friends (honest ones!) if I was fidgety, and got "no" from both, though one did acknowledge that I gesture when I talk, and maybe in bolder ways than are typical in our demographic (I'm 65, F). However, watching myself on Zoom in the same screen view as other women my age, I think I do move somewhat more than average, though (I think) not in a way that looks pathologically twitchy, rather just on the high end of gestures, facial expression, shifting my body position, etc.
To the bolded: I'm analytic to a fault (professional history includes systems analysis), was very inclined to treat weight loss as an n=1 science fair experiment (more fun, to me), and have come to be glad that I did my best to understand algebra and story problems in school (though I'm kind of horrid at arithmetic). So much of calorie counting is math-y, low-end algebra, story problems. I feel sad for people who struggle with that part. (Surprisingly much of adulthood has turned out to be story problems and low-end algebra, actually: Retirement planning, mortgage amortization, investing, weight management, budgeting . . . .).2 -
can u fix my stats?
(and I'm not talking normal distribution) 
1 -
Oh to be a man lol.
Loved your post and graph btw! Thank you for being consistent and sharing with us. Knowledge is power!0 -
Oh to be a man lol.
Loved your post and graph btw! Thank you for being consistent and sharing with us. Knowledge is power!
I'm curious: In this context, what's special about being a man? His TDEE may be higher than average for a woman, but he's also said it seems to be higher than average for a man his size. When I was around the starting weight shown on his chart (I was 183 pounds), I wouldn't have lost 1.5 pounds a week at 2000 calories, but I was losing at a satisfyingly fast rate eating around that much most days, and I'm not even remotely male.
Weirdness (calorie outlier-hood) isn't gendered, AFAIK. Men do tend to have higher TDEEs at the same bodyweight, but I believe that's largely because they tend to have higher muscle mass at the same bodyweight.1 -
Oh to be a man lol.
Loved your post and graph btw! Thank you for being consistent and sharing with us. Knowledge is power!
I'm curious: In this context, what's special about being a man? His TDEE may be higher than average for a woman, but he's also said it seems to be higher than average for a man his size. When I was around the starting weight shown on his chart (I was 183 pounds), I wouldn't have lost 1.5 pounds a week at 2000 calories, but I was losing at a satisfyingly fast rate eating around that much most days, and I'm not even remotely male.
Weirdness (calorie outlier-hood) isn't gendered, AFAIK. Men do tend to have higher TDEEs at the same bodyweight, but I believe that's largely because they tend to have higher muscle mass at the same bodyweight.
Oh I just meant no ovulation week and period week or 2 to show the bazaar changes we see on the scale. Mine looks like a heart rate monitor lol. Nothing regarding his TDEE or anything. This is why I love Libra and Happy, those weight trends are peace of mind.2 -
Oh to be a man lol.
Loved your post and graph btw! Thank you for being consistent and sharing with us. Knowledge is power!
I'm curious: In this context, what's special about being a man? His TDEE may be higher than average for a woman, but he's also said it seems to be higher than average for a man his size. When I was around the starting weight shown on his chart (I was 183 pounds), I wouldn't have lost 1.5 pounds a week at 2000 calories, but I was losing at a satisfyingly fast rate eating around that much most days, and I'm not even remotely male.
Weirdness (calorie outlier-hood) isn't gendered, AFAIK. Men do tend to have higher TDEEs at the same bodyweight, but I believe that's largely because they tend to have higher muscle mass at the same bodyweight.
Oh I just meant no ovulation week and period week or 2 to show the bazaar changes we see on the scale. Mine looks like a heart rate monitor lol. Nothing regarding his TDEE or anything. This is why I love Libra and Happy, those weight trends are peace of mind.
Ah - got it! Didn't occur to me . . . I'm 65, so very, very established in menopause, even though female.2 -
I actually had my RMR tested previously -- it was 10 years ago -- I was very close (as I recall it was actually roughly 50 calories lower) to the predicted value. After that point I definitely added muscle but then due to lack of working out the last few years I don't think I retained much of it.
Here's my back of the napkin calculation of my TDEE:
* Sedentary TDEE model: 1,889
* 3 days per week 1 hour metabolic strength training (low rest, super sets): 569 * 3 = 1701 or 243 calories per day
* 3 days per week, 1 hour running: 691 * 3 = 2073 per week or 296 per day
That's an average TDEE of 1899 + 243 + 296 = 2438
Now that I've done that it actually matches my tracker
which estimates my average is 2411.
My weight loss, on the other hand, would indicate that my TDEE is 2736. I suppose it's possible that I underestimate my CI. On the other hand it's possible that for some reason I burn more than those estimates. It's probably a combination of both.2 -
Excellent thread OP. Should be stickied.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions