Science of What Works For Me Works For You

Unknown

This content has been removed.

criticaltodd

The quote in the OP comes from a thread where people are claiming that paleo leads to weight loss and that they can eat as much as they want, even eating over their calorie goals, and not gain weight, correct? So it is hardly a case of someone's personal preference for macros being called into question, it's calling someone out when they claim it's not CICO but not eating <insert whatever food> that has caused them to lose weight and that if everyone else cut it out of their diets, they'd lose weight as well.

So yes, the science should be called into question, but you're directing your ire at the wrong half of the conversation.

That particular quote was, yeah, but I could have pulled ones from any number of threads. That was just the one that was there at that moment.

I have no ire. To be fair to the paleo folks, there are scientific citations to be had if you go to the sources. Now, how those studies will shake out over time, I have no idea (they might even be generally accepted within their fields now, I dunno) but they are there, though I have no idea if they filter into all the various paleo-centric blogs, etc.

criticaltodd

After taking this much time out of my life to explain the very basics, and trust me I mean BASICS, of how science works and the human body operates people STILL want to put stock in "magic future conditions" that negate everything.

Criticaltodd, you're going on ignore. For my own sanity.

I would have figured you might have gotten that I wasn't being totally serious but no worries. You won't see my response anyway because I've been ignored.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I'm so confused on how people can be so convinced weight loss is simply CICO, like nothing else matters. My bf and I BOTH ate ate a huge deficit yesterday, worked out, and I gained 1 lb, and he 5! The reason? Because we went through a highly stressful event together and likely had cortisol raging through our blood! Hormones actually do matter, and in this case, they beat the hell out the CICO theory for us both. Other things matter like sodium and water intake. Even more than that matters, but it's not a simple formula, if it was that would greaaaaaaaaaaat. But it's not.

But that doesn't disprove CICO, it just proves that CICO can be complex and we don't always have all the variables. Other things, like hormones, can change the calories out side of the equation. But that doesn't mean CICO isn't true. Just that you may not understand the equation completely.

So what you're basically saying is two people could do the exact same thing and get a different result due to numerous other factors? It's good to finally hear someone admit it LOL.

I don't believe I ever said otherwise.

SideSteel

There are medical conditions that can mean that either side of the energy in v energy out equation are not where they should be...

Thanks for the long response. Now, what if someone has a condition that throws the energy equation out of balance, but it's simply not severe enough to call attention to itself? What if someone's energy equation isn't massively out of balance but only a bit out of whack?

If they are objective and observant they will observe that their rate of progress is unsatisfactory and they will adjust intake and/or activity to correct this, just like someone would do under non-slightly-out-of-whack conditions.

Achrya

I'm so confused on how people can be so convinced weight loss is simply CICO, like nothing else matters. My bf and I BOTH ate ate a huge deficit yesterday, worked out, and I gained 1 lb, and he 5! The reason? Because we went through a highly stressful event together and likely had cortisol raging through our blood! Hormones actually do matter, and in this case, they beat the hell out the CICO theory for us both. Other things matter like sodium and water intake. Even more than that matters, but it's not a simple formula, if it was that would greaaaaaaaaaaat. But it's not.

But that doesn't disprove CICO, it just proves that CICO can be complex and we don't always have all the variables. Other things, like hormones, can change the calories out side of the equation. But that doesn't mean CICO isn't true. Just that you may not understand the equation completely.

So what you're basically saying is two people could do the exact same thing and get a different result due to numerous other factors? It's good to finally hear someone admit it LOL.

Who doesn't admit to this?

Everyone is willing to acknowledge CICO can be different (and will be different) from person to person because of the calorie out factor. I don't know anyone who says otherwise.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

maab_connor

...going back to the car - changing the oil and the air filter are not going to change the end result wherein fuel is brought into the cylinder and ignited.

does that help?

Very much though, to reiterate, I wasn't doubting or looking for evidence of CICO. More like: is it possible some engines like a higher mix of ethanol than others or, maybe better: do all the engines of a certain make and model react exactly the same to different fuel mixes or could there be some perceptible differences in performance? Or is the feelings of the car driver really just feelings or could they sense the vehicle handling differently?

(I think I surpassed my quota of automotive references.)

no, those things don't matter - insofar as the analogy is that human-to-human comparison = car of same make/model-to-car of same make/model comparison

lemurcat12

So what you're basically saying is two people could do the exact same thing and get a different result due to numerous other factors? It's good to finally hear someone admit it LOL.

But who has ever said this is not true?

CICO says that you lose weight if your calories in are greater than calories out (and not that it happens instantaneously anyway).

Of course other factors affect what the calories out are, including cortisol, exercise, the make up of your body, etc.

So the argument isn't that if two people eat the same and exercise the same they will lose the same. Of course not. The argument is that if one person eats less than she burns she will lose and if the same person eats more than she burns she will gain.

To take the example, that someone might burn less than one might predict based on known factors because of other factors like stress is totally likely. What would contradict CICO is not that, but instead a claim that ALL else equal, including factors like stress, the same person would have lost (or gained less) if she'd taken in more calories on that same day or the same calories from a different mix of food (adjusting for the small effect of the different calories burnt from digesting the food).

Sharon_C

He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.

No, I'm not.

Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:

Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.

Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.

Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?

Ok, I'm gonna try...

Person B is correct, but here is the difference in the communication between the two.

Person A believes they lost weight because carbs are bad, or fat is bad, or whatever. The truth is they are more likely to find success because X diet fits with their own personal preferences. But to them it's cut out X = Weight loss. Person B is stating that the real reason they lost weight is a caloric deficit, which is correct.

Eliminating ANY food does not change the fact that a calorie deficit leads to weight loss, and a calorie surplus leads to weight gain. That's how the body works, every body.

The main problem is bad science. People use anecdotal evidence, they trust the way they feel as opposed to cold statistics. They "know what works for them" and nothing you can say is going to change their mind.

Have I answered your question?

Yes! This is perfect.

pinkyslippers

After taking this much time out of my life to explain the very basics, and trust me I mean BASICS, of how science works and the human body operates people STILL want to put stock in "magic future conditions" that negate everything.

Criticaltodd, you're going on ignore. For my own sanity.

I would have figured you might have gotten that I wasn't being totally serious but no worries. You won't see my response anyway because I've been ignored.

Oh man! After I did that literature search for you and you were just posting for lolz! :sad:

neandermagnon

Along these lines I've always been bugged by the fact that people recognize, or at least seem to, that there are "hard gainers." That is, someone is skinny and has trouble gaining mass. However when someone says they have trouble losing or seems to gain very easily it's dismissed.

I suspect it's the same problem, just in a different direction: inaccurate tracking...

...and I say this as a former "hard-gainer" myself. My biggest problem was that I simply wasn't eating enough.

Ooh perfect! I'll probably butcher the quote, but it'll sum things up simply.

-What has the better odds? That the laws of the universe were temporarily suspended specifically in your case, or did you get something wrong?

If the laws of the universe are so universal than why is the first thing people say after they point you to any one of a dozen calorie calculators, "But that's just a starting point. You'll have to try it a few weeks to see if it's working. If not reduce your intake. Or eat more. Or use magic. Something."

because calorie calculators give you an estimate based on averages.

Your body is made of cells. Each of these cells needs a certain amount of energy to function every day. Some kinds of cells need more energy than others, e.g. muscle cells and brain cells need quite a lot more energy to function than fat cells do, because they work harder while fat cells just sit around storing fat.

Different people don't have the same number of cells. Small people have fewer cells than big people, so smaller people don't need so much energy (calories) from food as big people do to stay alive. People with more muscle mass and less fat will need more energy than other people their size, because they have more muscle cells, which all need more energy to function. So the exact amount of energy needed to keep someone alive varies from person to person, based on how many of each kind of cell they have. And people also need calories to move around (exercise/activity calories) and that's going to vary from person to person based on how active they are and how heavy they are (it takes more energy to move heavier bodies than lighter bodies).

Anyway, the total amount of energy you need to keep each of your cells alive - your BMR - is not something you can calculate exactly, unless someone can actually count exactly how many of each kind of cell you have and measure exactly how much energy each of those cells are using. But using estimates based on size, weight and body fat percentage, because human bodies all have the same organs and stuff, you can get a pretty good estimate from a mathematical formula based on an average human, when you put in the height and weight (or height and body fat percentage in the case of the Katch McArdle formula).

......But yes, this is just a starting point, because it's only an estimate of how much energy your cells are burning. And that's just calculating BMR... you also have to calculate exercise/activity calories too, and because your body follows the laws of physics, i.e. physicists can work out how much energy it would take to move a person of a given mass a given distance, it's still going to be an estimate, because there are far too many variables to be able to know precisely how much energy someone is expending in any particular activity BUT because our bodies follow the laws of physics, using the right formulas, you can get a reasonable estimate. Heart rate monitors and similar are also good at giving estimates for calories burned, though they measure different things and use different formulas.

So, calories in versus calories out is still true. The practicality of accurately measuring calories out make it impossible to ever have a precise measurement of calories out (maybe some future technology will be able to do this, but it's not currently possible). However, the calculators for the majority of people will give a close enough estimate that it gives them a starting point. Your actual real world results reflect the reality of what's going on in your body... if the calculator has overestimated your daily calorie burn, then you won't lose weight as fast as predicted, so you just reduce your calories by 100 or so. Calories in versus calories out is still true and it's still what is happening in your body, it's just that the calculators can't tell you exactly how many calories your body's burning daily, it can only give an estimate based on averages.

jofjltncb6

I'm so confused on how people can be so convinced weight loss is simply CICO, like nothing else matters. My bf and I BOTH ate ate a huge deficit yesterday, worked out, and I gained 1 lb, and he 5! The reason? Because we went through a highly stressful event together and likely had cortisol raging through our blood! Hormones actually do matter, and in this case, they beat the hell out the CICO theory for us both. Other things matter like sodium and water intake. Even more than that matters, but it's not a simple formula, if it was that would greaaaaaaaaaaat. But it's not.

It is *impossible* to draw any relevant conclusions from your weight change in any one day period. Im. Poss. I. Ble. It almost certainly had nothing to do with cortisol.

I'd even say that it's impossible to draw any relevant conclusions from weight change over a one *week* period either. The noise in the measurement exceeds the amount of possible change.

Yeah, sodium and water are a couple of the MANY variables that might explain weight change over a very short period...but those are present regardless of your beliefs on CICO.

CICO is a simple basic fact regardless of the temporary influences of sodium, water, etc. Finding a measurement period that you think disproves CICO does not. It simply confirms that there are numerous variables that also (temporarily) influence weight.

usmcmp

I'm so confused on how people can be so convinced weight loss is simply CICO, like nothing else matters. My bf and I BOTH ate ate a huge deficit yesterday, worked out, and I gained 1 lb, and he 5! The reason? Because we went through a highly stressful event together and likely had cortisol raging through our blood! Hormones actually do matter, and in this case, they beat the hell out the CICO theory for us both. Other things matter like sodium and water intake. Even more than that matters, but it's not a simple formula, if it was that would greaaaaaaaaaaat. But it's not.

It is *impossible* to draw any relevant conclusions from your weight change in any one day period. Im. Poss. I. Ble. It almost certainly had nothing to do with cortisol.

I'd even say that it's impossible to draw any relevant conclusions from weight change over a one *week* period either. The noise in the measurement exceeds the amount of possible change.

Yeah, sodium and water are a couple of the MANY variables that might explain weight change over a very short period...but those are present regardless of your beliefs on CICO.

CICO is a simple basic fact regardless of the temporary influences of sodium, water, etc. Finding a measurement period that you think disproves CICO does not. It simply confirms that there are numerous variables that also (temporarily) influence weight.

But I weighed, then pooped, then weighed again and I was a pound lighter. That proves that not eating for 3 minutes=fat loss.
*not srs

Seriously though, there's a reason weight loss studies are longer than 24 hours. It's a long term trend, not one day of starving yourself to see what the scale does. If I have a high sodium meal today it won't show on my scale until Friday. If I increase potassium and water it will be gone by Sunday. Sodium doesn't store fat, it stores water.

Also, it's fat loss, not weight loss. There's a difference.

stephe1987

...unless the poster is an actual scientist, I don't think they're going to have a study that shows what they did and how it worked for other people...

geebusuk

Was going to 'defend' CICO, but a nice job of that done already!

The poster may not have study on themselves, but quite often will have read studies on the topic to draw their conclusions from.

Certainly a lot of my views on sugar have come from people claiming it's an evil-nasty and linking to studies. Yet, when I've read through them, I've found that in reality the study doesn't really conclude that and certainly not for someone in my position.

JoyousRen

I'd like to state that "calorie in" is a misnomer. It should be "calorie absorbed". "Calorie in" implies the calories that are eaten which is not the same as the calories absorbed. That's why diets (I use the word to mean what a usually person consumes rather than the controlled intake of food) that are low in certain macros or types of food may have different results for an individual even if the same number of calories are eaten. Their body may absorb a low number of calories from those foods. Saying that the number of calories a person eats is the same as the number of calories absorbed is like saying the number of calories a person actually burns is the same as the number their HMR says.

delicious_cocktail

Let's go with thermodynamics. Is the theory that, outside of known conditions like diabetes, that the efficacy of diet, etc. comes down only to thermodynamics and nothing else? So that, two people, A and B, neither suffering from any diabetes or similar conditions, should, on the same diet and regimen, perform exactly the same?

(I have no ulterior motives for starting this discussion, it's not out of some butthurt, it's not to refute anything about exercise or calories in vs. out, it's a) to expand my own knowledge and b) to see if there is evidence for something that I see presented often in these forums as fact is, in fact, a fact... as a matter of fact.)

I find droll those people who demand to be spoon-fed science for entertainment. Go do research.

geebusuk

I'd like to state that "calorie in" is a misnomer. It should be "calorie absorbed".

Only if you define it as 'Calories in vs Calories burned'.
If you use 'CICO', then the 'out' part accounts for calories not absorbed.

tennisdude2004

I'd like to state that "calorie in" is a misnomer. It should be "calorie absorbed".

Only if you define it as 'Calories in vs Calories burned'.
If you use 'CICO', then the 'out' part accounts for calories not absorbed.

Agreed with this it's about the cals going into the body vs cals leaving the body.

Just not in any given day - I still have cals leaving my body that entered it 6 months ago!

I think where things get blurred is when people use the term

- its all about burning more calories than you eat!

geebusuk

It does boil down to burning more calories than you eat for the most part, I'd say - other losses seem to be fairly minor in the grand scheme of things from what I've read.

When the calories 'leave' your body doesn't really matter I'd say.

Tracking weight day to day won't get you an accurate picture of CICO because of water weight, never mind that it's easier to understand an approximation of 'CO' than trying to work out why your body may suddenly burn more or less for whatever reason.

tennisdude2004

It does boil down to burning more calories than you eat for the most part, I'd say - other losses seem to be fairly minor in the grand scheme of things from what I've read.

When the calories 'leave' your body doesn't really matter I'd say.

Tracking weight day to day won't get you an accurate picture of CICO because of water weight, never mind that it's easier to understand an approximation of 'CO' than trying to work out why your body may suddenly burn more or less for whatever reason.

I think it's more about burning more calories than you store.