Trust in CICO
Replies
-
lydiakitten wrote: »
I disagree with the bolded part totally. That is the easy part. Food scale, USDA website...done.
USDA. Right. You do realize we don't all live in the US? The US is what, 4.48% of the world's population? It's nigh impossible to find nutritional data for most generic/cheap Greek or Turkish food brands; trust me on this, I've been trying hard.
But that is evidently not an issue with CICO itself, which as I clearly said, is the cold hard truth. One just has to approximate in some cases, and hope that rounding up here and down there will yield a rather steadily accurate long-term calculation.
I don't live in the US either...but the WWW is amazing and there are many foods in the USDA database have you taken a look at it or found something similar for the country you live in?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
You'd be surprised (or maybe not... no, probably not-sadly) at the opposition I received to this in a Facebook forum of people who CALL OUT *kitten*!! People hoping so much that a GM bacteria that's being tested to make people consume less to be their miracle weight loss bullet. They were adamant that CICO didn't work for everyone, and someone even told me that someone wi the PCOS can "literally starve to death without losing a pound," which we all know from a physiological standpoint is not possible. I recognize there are some legit issues that need adjusting before CICO can work (as is the case sometimes with insulin resistance from PCOS, etc.), but to sit and argue that the very basic of weight loss isn't to out less fuel in that you burn...ugggh. People.0 -
To me the tough part of CICO is the "CO" part. Yes, it's relatively simple to figure out your "CO" through estimators supplemented with trial and error....but I think a lot of people run into trouble because they assume it is more constant over time than it really is.
For example, just because you burned X calories doing your usual workout a few months ago doesn't mean that you're still burning X calories doing it today. That workout will get easier for you and your body will get more efficient at it and you'll burn fewer and fewer calories if you don't constantly make your workouts harder. Like if you run 3 miles every day at a speed of 6 mph you won't burn as many calories after a year of doing the exact same thing even if your weight is the same.
Or if you start taking new medications they might impact your "CO" (I saw this with my special needs son, he started gaining weight on exactly the same "CI" after starting a new medication).0 -
hsmith0930 wrote: »I think the real problem with a lot of the arguments here are that they are assuming that you have to have such a precise deficit to lose weight! Sure as you lose more and get closer to goal weight you have to be a little closer because the deficit range is smaller, but overall, it's not that big of a deal to hit EXACTLY a -500 or -1000 deficit. BECAUSE we are not robots and we will burn more calories on some days and less on others and we will eat more and eat less, the deficit is a suggested goal. If you calculate a deficit of -400 calories on day, that doesn't mean you won't lose you pound for the week, because you might have burned 100 extra calories just by twitching you leg all week and you didn't take any of that into account!!
It's like the "if every day were like today your would be ___ lb. in 5 weeks" you get when you close out a day. How can every day be like the previous one? Even if you eat exactly the same food, the apple you ate today might have a little more water than the apple you ate yesterday so has a couple fewer calories at the same weight. No way can you guarantee you will walk exactly the same number of steps at the same rate.
2 - 2 = 0 therefore (2+5+7+1+7+9+0) - (3+4+6+2+8+3+2) = -3 and you have lost weight
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
Who ever said that it would be?
A person's TDEE (or maintenance level for those who don't know what TDEE means) is the variable. It can be different person to person and even for that same person year to year.
None of that negates the "eat less than your TDEE and you'll lose weight" which is what CICO means.0 -
Math people where would you place CICO? I say it is like algebra one I think( as in by 7 grade I would be able to easily figure out CICO). I don't remember but the math is very easy to what is out there.0
-
Linear functions are some of the easiest and most predictable things in maths though.Sometimes the CICO equation is pretty complex. That's why it doesn't work for some people in the black and white sense.
+ 1
If all the blood work stars are nicely lined up.
Then it is simple math and simple math is black and white.
Else it's a complex linear function such as f(CI) = f(CO) (+-) X
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Math people where would you place CICO? I say it is like algebra one I think( as in by 7 grade I would be able to easily figure out CICO). I don't remember but the math is very easy to what is out there.
It's a simplified model. Sufficient for its purpose but not precise at the general level.
I would say that telling people that CICO is what matters for weight loss over the long term would be better than just saying it's all about CICO. People would still want a definition of long term and very well may not like it but that may help expectations. The whole idea of a 500 calorie per day deficit meaning they'll lose a pound a week is what people grab onto and obsess over. It's approximately a pound a week on average over the long term. Not a pound a week, every week.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Math people where would you place CICO? I say it is like algebra one I think( as in by 7 grade I would be able to easily figure out CICO). I don't remember but the math is very easy to what is out there.
It reminds me a lot of the engineering math I took in grad school (and some undergrad classes like heat transfer that use the same types of equations).
It's a model. Models take complex scenarios and replace those with simplified constants or variables that get you "close enough" for practical application. It might not be dead on spot accurate, but when it's applied, it works for all practical purposes.
So, the biological and physiological functions behind weight loss and CICO are complex. But you can apply the simplified version to get your practical results.
And anyone who thinks math is "black and white" hasn't ever studied higher levels of math where most complex systems are simplified using assumptions of behavior. Solving the equation might be "black and white", but deriving the equation is full of assumptions and modeling.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
Who ever said that it would be?
A person's TDEE (or maintenance level for those who don't know what TDEE means) is the variable. It can be different person to person and even for that same person year to year.
None of that negates the "eat less than your TDEE and you'll lose weight" which is what CICO means.
Again - if you read the conversation I'm not challenging the definition of CICO or whether it works. It does.
However, to say it's simple math is innacurate. Macros do matter, as can be demonstrated by large weight variations and difficulty in adherence at extreme macro percentages. And while I'm not a low carb supporter, there is published evidence that ketogenic diets have a different metabolic cost (aka dat der metabolic advantage the keto people rave about) than a standard 30/30/40 diet.
It works, yet it is a simplification (which is what I wrote at the beginning of this conversation) .
Even the concept of labelled cals per gram of fat, carbs and protein is a simplification. We ignore it because the effect of eating variety tempers the metabolic effect of macro mixing but research does show that how we mix food does impact absorption. Unfortunately people then extend that to funky diets.
What I'm say I got is that while it is important to not confuse the forest for the trees, it doesn't mean the trees aren't there.
Yes, we shouldn't major in the minors. But the minor effects do exist. Simplification is ok, it works. But don't blind yourself to think it isn't.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
Oh I agree with issues with definition and with a lack of a timescale, I also think the values of either side of the equation depend on the individual (and even what is happening to that individual over that period of time). But I think we are both saying that the basic underlying formula remains.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Math people where would you place CICO? I say it is like algebra one I think( as in by 7 grade I would be able to easily figure out CICO). I don't remember but the math is very easy to what is out there.
Wellll, it much higher math than that. Really complex equations if you want to factor in everything.
Basic CICO? Freshman high school algebra.
0 -
We're not talking about water weight though. By that you could say that since your weight now is not necessarily the same as it is at midnight tonight, all that calorie stuff is nonsense.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Nope, but still close enough to lose those 20 lbs again at the same calorie amount and maybe take a few days longer. I went ahead and calculated the worst possible situation, the loss being entirely lbm and the gain entirely fat (which would probably never happen to anyone). I'd have 250 calories less TDEE if that happened.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
I'd say all the numbers are close enough to work for the vast majority of the population even without adjusting the numbers at all, and saying things like these is just going to make people even more in denial than many already are.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.0 -
The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct ...
I think when it comes to those that fall outside the norm, this is one of the biggest problems because it's not always true in the short term.
You need to be in a calorie deficit to lose fat. You can lose weight while not in a calorie deficit and you can gain weight when not in a calorie surplus. Sometimes quite a bit of weight.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Math people where would you place CICO? I say it is like algebra one I think( as in by 7 grade I would be able to easily figure out CICO). I don't remember but the math is very easy to what is out there.
It reminds me a lot of the engineering math I took in grad school (and some undergrad classes like heat transfer that use the same types of equations).
It's a model. Models take complex scenarios and replace those with simplified constants or variables that get you "close enough" for practical application. It might not be dead on spot accurate, but when it's applied, it works for all practical purposes.
So, the biological and physiological functions behind weight loss and CICO are complex. But you can apply the simplified version to get your practical results.
And anyone who thinks math is "black and white" hasn't ever studied higher levels of math where most complex systems are simplified using assumptions of behavior. Solving the equation might be "black and white", but deriving the equation is full of assumptions and modeling.
This.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct ...
I think when it comes to those that fall outside the norm, this is one of the biggest problems because it's not always true in the short term.
You need to be in a calorie deficit to lose fat. You can lose weight while not in a calorie deficit and you can gain weight when not in a calorie surplus. Sometimes quite a bit of weight.
No. You're disregarding the energy out balance of the side of the equation in saying this.
I'll give you and example. In the time leading up to my diagnosis with celiac disease, I was eating an ENORMOUS amount of food. I craved salt. Bags of potato chips. I'd eat them together with pretzels. To be graphic here, everything I ate came through me completely undigested. I lost a tremendous amount of weight because I had a medical condition that caused me not to absorb the calories I was eating.
Last year, my Hashimoto's decided to act up. I stopped responding to my thyroid meds. I was eating the same amount of food, but I gained a lot of weight. My energy expenditure went down, while my energy intake was the same.
Both cases were still CICO.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
We're not talking about water weight though. By that you could say that since your weight now is not necessarily the same as it is at midnight tonight, all that calorie stuff is nonsense.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Nope, but still close enough to lose those 20 lbs again at the same calorie amount and maybe take a few days longer. I went ahead and calculated the worst possible situation, the loss being entirely lbm and the gain entirely fat (which would probably never happen to anyone). I'd have 250 calories less TDEE if that happened.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
I'd say all the numbers are close enough to work for the vast majority of the population even without adjusting the numbers at all, and saying things like these is just going to make people even more in denial than many already are.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
So we agree, a simplification.
As to the bold - not my problem. I try to not dumb down or slant the science - if people choose to support their own confirmation bias, it's their issue.
Btw, the 250cal number you calculated is accurate only with regard to LBM changes. It seems that there are/may be other hormonal effects going on which can account for 10-15% - these adaptive thermogenic effects may result in a TDEE that makes it appear that CICO doesn't work to a person experiencing them. In fact, their TDEE dropped lower.
For some individuals maintenance may be 800-1000 cals off from the estimators or require significant time to readjust metabolic changes. (See the paper quoted or, in my profile the whole thread on AT)0 -
I must say, it IS refreshing to see the tide turn towards the CICO mentality and away from the Eat More calories because you are in 'starvation mode' mentality that was prominent on the boards a couple of years ago.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DebbieLyn63 wrote: »I must say, it IS refreshing to see the tide turn towards the CICO mentality and away from the Eat More calories because you are in 'starvation mode' mentality that was prominent on the boards a couple of years ago.
Girl, I know! I was here back then and I didn't really get it but it kinda made sense at the time but clearly things didn't work out for me. This has been a lifesaver. Even though I still screw up and get myself off course, I am 100% confident, like the OP said, that if I just straighten myself out, the weight loss equation works.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
Oh I agree with issues with definition and with a lack of a timescale, I also think the values of either side of the equation depend on the individual (and even what is happening to that individual over that period of time). But I think we are both saying that the basic underlying formula remains.
Yep. Never questioned the basic idea. It's a tautology.
"To lose weight one needs to eat less than the amount needed to maintain weight", we qualify that amount by the magic unit called calories and recognize that these "calories" aren't the same as work calories. We use outdated factors to represent this energy (thanks Atwater) and it works pretty well.
Rigorous? Certainly not. Sufficient? Yep.
I generally avoid addressing the details because people either assume I'm challenging the basics (as it appears upstream) or, as is a valid criticism, it does result in confusion. I say I don't care about people using it to confirm their bias, but in reality it does get my goat.
So how many Cals in a gram of fat? (Is that a European or African Swallow)?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
We're not talking about water weight though. By that you could say that since your weight now is not necessarily the same as it is at midnight tonight, all that calorie stuff is nonsense.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Nope, but still close enough to lose those 20 lbs again at the same calorie amount and maybe take a few days longer. I went ahead and calculated the worst possible situation, the loss being entirely lbm and the gain entirely fat (which would probably never happen to anyone). I'd have 250 calories less TDEE if that happened.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
I'd say all the numbers are close enough to work for the vast majority of the population even without adjusting the numbers at all, and saying things like these is just going to make people even more in denial than many already are.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
So we agree, a simplification.
As to the bold - not my problem. I try to not dumb down or slant the science - if people choose to support their own confirmation bias, it's their issue.
Btw, the 250cal number you calculated is accurate only with regard to LBM changes. It seems that there are/may be other hormonal effects going on which can account for 10-15% - these adaptive thermogenic effects may result in a TDEE that makes it appear that CICO doesn't work to a person experiencing them. In fact, their TDEE dropped lower.
For some individuals maintenance may be 800-1000 cals off from the estimators or require significant time to readjust metabolic changes. (See the paper quoted or, in my profile the whole thread on AT)
Using dumbed down formulas is a major part of teaching someone. Like the things in maths and in physics we learned back in school, if they started out with throwing the completely accurate, no detail left out stuff at you, you'd probably have thrown your hands in the air and surrendered to your fate. For people starting out, talking simplified helps. And if they're following the simplified things and it doesn't work, THEN you can come and say "well there's a few things that can *kitten* over your numbers without your fault, you should go see a doctor or whatever to make sure." which you can then explain in detail if you want. But for most people those details are completely irrelevant because they account for less than the inaccuracies from the calories in side of logging.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
We're not talking about water weight though. By that you could say that since your weight now is not necessarily the same as it is at midnight tonight, all that calorie stuff is nonsense.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds
Let's demonstrate by a simple experiment you can do a home.
Shift a person's carb intake from 50g/day to 300g/day at constant calories. What happens? Weight gain due to glycogen water sheathing. Can last a few months.
Nope, but still close enough to lose those 20 lbs again at the same calorie amount and maybe take a few days longer. I went ahead and calculated the worst possible situation, the loss being entirely lbm and the gain entirely fat (which would probably never happen to anyone). I'd have 250 calories less TDEE if that happened.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Or,
Have someone lose 20 lbs quickly then return to start weight quickly. Do you think their TDEE is the same?
I'd say all the numbers are close enough to work for the vast majority of the population even without adjusting the numbers at all, and saying things like these is just going to make people even more in denial than many already are.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The general statement "you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight" is correct but it's cicular reasoning if by "calorie deficit" we define as "the amount of calories needed to lose weight".
I'm not challenging the basic CI < CO results in weight loss I'm saying that every espect of that equation CI, CO and even "weight loss" is poorly defined and an estimate. CICO as a methodology works, but it's incorrect to not consider it a simplification.
Do you really think that a lb of weight loss is 3500 cals across all bf%?
Oh, and since I should back this up ... Here you go:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1495.full
The Hall model attempts to address the hysterisis effect.
So we agree, a simplification.
As to the bold - not my problem. I try to not dumb down or slant the science - if people choose to support their own confirmation bias, it's their issue.
Btw, the 250cal number you calculated is accurate only with regard to LBM changes. It seems that there are/may be other hormonal effects going on which can account for 10-15% - these adaptive thermogenic effects may result in a TDEE that makes it appear that CICO doesn't work to a person experiencing them. In fact, their TDEE dropped lower.
For some individuals maintenance may be 800-1000 cals off from the estimators or require significant time to readjust metabolic changes. (See the paper quoted or, in my profile the whole thread on AT)
Using dumbed down formulas is a major part of teaching someone. Like the things in maths and in physics we learned back in school, if they started out with throwing the completely accurate, no detail left out stuff at you, you'd probably have thrown your hands in the air and surrendered to your fate. For people starting out, talking simplified helps. And if they're following the simplified things and it doesn't work, THEN you can come and say "well there's a few things that can *kitten* over your numbers without your fault, you should go see a doctor or whatever to make sure." which you can then explain in detail if you want. But for most people those details are completely irrelevant because they account for less than the inaccuracies from the calories in side of logging.
Using simplified models works best when we learn to recognize the limits of the model. It's unnecessary to teach a model as an aboslute truth. I prefer to state up front that it's a simplified model and generally works than have someone assume it's the absolute truth and then lose trust when it doesn't work - given that metabolic related issues occur in 20-30% of the population and likely higher in the MFP crowd.
I taught in high school and college (remedial math and then biosensors, adhesion molecules) and anytihng related to biology needs to be understood as an estimated equation. Yet we see daily on the board - "black and white maths", "it's physics", "laws of thermo". BS.
We aren't having a discussion just with newbies. In that case, my general advice is always to focus on majors do the three (track, create a deficit while meeting macros, exercise) and assure adhesion. I do also expect to have a conversation that sometimes goes beyond that. We aren't talking about the Thermogenic Effect of Food or leucine factor of gut flora.
I'll tend to place the cursor a little more on explaining the basics and then going a little further for an (imaginary) reader that might want a little more than the basics. The stickies already cover those rather well.
Also, when arguing with people that criticize CICO and use arguments like "it's a simplification" so "it's wrong" I'm going to agree with the first but refute the second.
Eta: Also, I find that it's not intellectually rigorous to say "for most people" factor x doesn't matter. I'd rather understand what does factors might be and be able to understand them. Things like large changes in diet (fiber uptake, going "clean") etc... Do they matter signifcantly? Maybe... When they affect up to 20% or more of Calories In from prior diet ...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
Not so black and white....0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Belief/trust are hugely important to changing habits.
If you can't believe that what you are doing will result in changes then you won't stick to it.
It's more important to believe that you can control your habits than the tools.
CICO is an excellent screwdriver, which you must couple to the other tool set of proper nutrition (macro/micro) to make it work. But it's one tool. Body recomp is another.
It's an imperfect estimator in many ways but like any good tool it gets the job done.
Habits drive success. One drink didn't give you 4lbs. Address the habit of self sabotage linked to thinking that. If you undermine your trust system it isn't going to work.
I went through a stall during the month of February. The scale bobbed around the same weight.
BUT
I knew I had established good habits. I exercised when my health allowed. For me, meticulous logging clicks and is a fantastic tool. I genuinely like calorie counting. I continued everything I had been doing during the stall.
I didn't really panic over the scale not moving and wasn't worried that I was doing anything wrong.
It was a really great feeling, and I learned a lot. I didn't feel powerless in the face of a lack of results. I didn't NEED the immediate gratification of the scale moving to know I was doing the right thing. That was... there are no words for how huge not having a motivator but calmly continuing was for me.
After three weeks, the stall broke and the scale started moving again.
This!!! This is what I was trying to say but you said it so much better than me. It's such a relief to know that what you're doing will work as long as you keep doing it. I have faith in the science and know that any gain is just water weight and not fat. It can't be fat because I believe in cico and I trust my logging0 -
I have complete faith in CICO even on weeks I've lost about as much as a fart would weigh.
But how I wish it stood for Cake In Cake Out.
Hahahahaha0 -
This thread has been cleaned up a bit. Please stay on topic and discuss the topic respectfully. If you feel another user is in violation of the guidelines, please report them to the moderators via the Report feature.
Also, the flag feature is for Spam (as in spam bots) or Abuse (hate speech, graphic images) only. Someone saying something you don't like or being a big meanie (in your opinion) is neither Spam nor Abuse, so please Report instances where you feel someone has violated guidelines. Hitting the flag button for posts which do not meet the criteria only gets the person flagging in trouble, not the person being flagged.0 -
This thread has been cleaned up a bit. Please stay on topic and discuss the topic respectfully. If you feel another user is in violation of the guidelines, please report them to the moderators via the Report feature.
Also, the flag feature is for Spam (as in spam bots) or Abuse (hate speech, graphic images) only. Someone saying something you don't like or being a big meanie (in your opinion) is neither Spam nor Abuse, so please Report instances where you feel someone has violated guidelines. Hitting the flag button for posts which do not meet the criteria only gets the person flagging in trouble, not the person being flagged.
That answers the question I have about the flag system thank you. Also funny GIF.0 -
This thread has been cleaned up a bit. Please stay on topic and discuss the topic respectfully. If you feel another user is in violation of the guidelines, please report them to the moderators via the Report feature.
Also, the flag feature is for Spam (as in spam bots) or Abuse (hate speech, graphic images) only. Someone saying something you don't like or being a big meanie (in your opinion) is neither Spam nor Abuse, so please Report instances where you feel someone has violated guidelines. Hitting the flag button for posts which do not meet the criteria only gets the person flagging in trouble, not the person being flagged.
Oh, @kgeyser, you never fail to make me smile at your modly gifs.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions