Science of What Works For Me Works For You

maab_connor

i'm failing to understand what you find confusing about human = human = human. please be specific.

I'm not confused about it but I do wonder about the variance within our parameters.

It would be similar to if I was looking into engines for a specific model car (and I know very little about cars so I apologize in advance for the analogy). All the engines are built to be within certain tolerances and, because of that, they will all perform within a certain range (assuming there are no major defects). But there will be variances within that range. If the engine is rated to 45 MPG, it doesn't mean every individual engine will get exactly 45 MPG. Some might get a little more, some might get a little less but the average of all the engines will be around 45.

It seems like, if the question were posed on a forum for that model: hey, my engine only gets 41 MPG, that the response is, if the engine isn't broke, you're doing it wrong that you're not getting 45. Now, with an engine, you could take it apart, have some engineers go over everything and probably figure out where the engine efficiency is being lost.

Not quite so easy with a human body. Now, I totally get that everybody is the same at a certain level and the Fight Club, "you are not a unique snowflake." I get it. And I have no doubt that 99.9% of the folks who want to defer their own responsibility for diet/exercise/whatever failing look to throw it to special circumstances. However, even eliminating all of those, maybe there's a number of people who really do have different efficiencies. Or maybe there isn't.

I've been reading up a bit on epigenetics (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/) after hearing about it on a podcast, and it made me think about how much variability there might be going on. Or maybe not.

ok. i think i get what you're saying. and the car analogy was a good one. b/c just like with diets - petrol heads will argue the issue for DAYS. but unlike with cars, we're not built by machines on an assembly line.

our DNA is set to human. the basic thermodynamics of that don't change. even a Situs twin (a mirror twin born w/ organs in mirror to where they should be - and that's about as different as it can get for us) will follow the same rules of energy.

the parameters within the human DNA are more - male and female and tall and short and large framed and small framed and allergic to peanuts and more prone to problems with a certain system and better immune system and...and...and... but within every one of those million and a half teeny tiny DNA changes - each person has to work at a surplus of calories to gain weight and a shortage of calories to lose weight.

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?

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.

RGv2

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.

So you're using one day, one whole day to argue the law of thermodynamics?

It's just as easily water from one whole day as it is not having a movement since it was a whole day.

criticaltodd

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?

Pretty much, though I wonder (purely academically), if what some of these people feel is the symptom of a condition that just hasn't been described yet? In other words, is someone going to publish a study next year saying that certain populations react differently to X, Y, and Z? (Thereafter to be alternately refuted and proved year after year into infinity.)

criticaltodd

...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.)

usmcmp

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?

It depends on if Person A is stating something as a fact or opinion and what science says about their statement.

You can't generalize everything. You get people who say they are losing weight because they drink a specific shake at lunch who could lose weight eating the same number of calories with the same macros. You get people with actual hormonal issues that cut back on specific things that cause the energy equation to go out of balance (store more energy) and they lose weight. How do you determine if you need a special diet due to hormones? See a doctor and have them run tests.

The problem with people and studying fat loss in general is that people are absolutely horrible at being accurate. A lot of studies are done with people self reporting what they ate. If a study required my to eat 1000 calories below my TDEE there's a good chance I would under report calories to stay included in the study while not trying to chew my hand off and make money.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7869932
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8315169
http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/8/611.full

kgeyser

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?

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.

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.

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.