'calories in-calories out' model might be flawed?
Replies
-
They forgot that people sit around more nowadays.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »They forgot that people sit around more nowadays.
Yup
And drive rather than walk, and load food in back of car from all in one supermarkets rather than visit individual shops
And have more food choices
But lets go for the micro and blame external factors for our choices0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Interesting article. A little over a year ago I would have gobbled this up. I was looking for the reason I could not drop weight. Was it my thyroid? Eating white (processed) foods?
Dr confirmed no thyroid issue... I switched to mostly whole and healthy foods... Got back on my exercise game... Lost some weight then hit the wall.
I wasn't monitoring my caloric intake. I thought as long as I got rid of "bad foods" from my diet... My body would take care of the rest. Lol. Once I started monotoring both what I ate AND how much... I pushed past and lost 10 pounds (3.8 of Those since joining MFP).
I believe the root of most weight problems is not monitoring how much you eat0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »If you read this, The entire article is based on another article, which in turn is based on a study which doesn't come to any conclusions other than more study is needed. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871403X15001210 They've apparently observed differences that they can't attribute to activity and state that other factors may come into play. I didn't read the entire Atlantic article because my break is up at work, but it appears the authors of that article have just made up their own reasons for the discrepancy.
Some 'valid' reasoning. MFP community is blessed with brainiacs.
0 -
This has been discussed before.
Life is different now than it was then. It's much easier to not be active these days, but dieting itself has never been easier.
Even if you agree with the premise that it's harder now (which I really do not), it's still possible to lose weight now.
Every time this gets brought up, I hum the Diet Pepsi jingle from the 80s, which was a fun one. So, thanks. ..."Diet Pepsi won't go to your waist! So, now you see it, now you don't. Oh, Diet Pepsi, one small calorie. Now, you see it. Now, you don't!" 
0 -
Yes, there are a lot of factors that affect the CO part of the equation that weren't so prevalent 30 years ago. That does not change the CO<CI equation that is the only thing that works to lose weight.0
-
This has been discussed before.
Life is different now than it was then. It's much easier to not be active these days, but dieting itself has never been easier.
Even if you agree with the premise that it's harder now (which I really do not), it's still possible to lose weight now.
Every time this gets brought up, I hum the Diet Pepsi jingle from the 80s, which was a fun one. So, thanks. ..."Diet Pepsi won't go to your waist! So, now you see it, now you don't. Oh, Diet Pepsi, one small calorie. Now, you see it. Now, you don't!"
I don't miss jingles. One good thing about ad free viewing of television shows.
ETA: On topic, I really feel like they ignore the calorie out. As previously mentioned people are far less active now. The equation isn't flawed, it's just skewed based on how habits have changed.0 -
The article claims CICO is possibly flawed, but does not establish it to the satisfaction of even someone who is not an expert like me. First off, the article is written very badly. It basically states that our CO might be lower now due to many factors, and thus CICO is flawed. CICO is technically based on total CI minus total CO. If your CO is lower due to things like pesticides and environmental changes, then your CI needs to be lowered as well. Claiming CICO is flawed because the CO of people is lower now merely means that people estimate their CO too highly. None of the reasons stated in the article support the idea that CICO is flawed. Rather, the points merely support that CO models might need to be fine-tuned. The fact that current models for estimating CO might be flawed does not make CICO flawed since we already know things like BMR and other types of calorie burn are estimates based on generic models unless we get ourselves tested in lab conditions.
Next, the article reads more like opinion than science. Where are the cited studies? I think some of the points seem okay on the face of it. Maybe CO models are overestimating BMR and caloric burn. But without cited studies, the author's post has little validity.0 -
my personal points and observations'
first- I hit a wall, thyroid med not adjusted properly and now I'm really really struggling. I'm at the point where dropping artificial sweeteners from my diet isn't hurting anyone, so why not?
second-Insulin Resistance is getting more and more attention and only beginning to be understood.
third- there are no good studies on how gut flora affects how food is absorbed.
forth-kids are bigger than ever before. seriously bigger.0 -
my personal points and observations'
first- I hit a wall, thyroid med not adjusted properly and now I'm really really struggling. I'm at the point where dropping artificial sweeteners from my diet isn't hurting anyone, so why not?
second-Insulin Resistance is getting more and more attention and only beginning to be understood.
third- there are no good studies on how gut flora affects how food is absorbed.
forth-kids are bigger than ever before. seriously bigger.
None of which invalidates CICO
Though I am disappointed. I was really hoping I was a special snowflake having been successful using CICO0 -
the equation isn't flawed...there are a myriad of factors that affect the CO part of the equation...but that doesn't invalidate the equation itself. i'd say on average, people are less generally active than they were 30 years ago which is going to have a huge impact on CO...they're burning less but eating the same or more...so no brainer there. certain medical conditions can also affect the CO part of the equation...but they don't invalidate the equation...those people simply must account for the fact that their medical condition is interfering with the amount of energy (calories) their bodies will burn.
IMO, people get hung up on these calculators and the numbers they spit out and they treat these calculators as "gospel" when in reality, they are just meant to be a reasonably good starting point. people tend to take these numbers and when it doesn't work, they blame the equation rather then stepping back and making adjustments per their real world results.0 -
my personal points and observations'
first- I hit a wall, thyroid med not adjusted properly and now I'm really really struggling. I'm at the point where dropping artificial sweeteners from my diet isn't hurting anyone, so why not?
second-Insulin Resistance is getting more and more attention and only beginning to be understood.
third- there are no good studies on how gut flora affects how food is absorbed.
forth-kids are bigger than ever before. seriously bigger.
Just in regards to the 4th - yup, they are. And they are far less active than they ever were. Part of my job this year has brought me into the school system. I'm not *that* old but I was shocked to see the difference around here. there is no recess. There is no playground. Kids don't run around before/after school playing. EVERYONE gets bussed or driven. all of the schools I'm involved with are in the middle of an area where the majority can walk to school but they don't.
I was bussed to school because I lived in a rural area. But I went to a city school where everyone walked to and from school and home for lunch. They don't do that either and end up eating in the cafeteria that has chicken burgers, fries and poutine. Or hitting the pizza shop. Everyday.
And that isn't even addressing the amount of time using computer and video games as opposed to even a decade or two ago.
Kids are bigger but they are also far more sedentary.
0 -
OP thanks for sharing. Food for thought for some. 0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »Just in regards to the 4th - yup, they are. And they are far less active than they ever were. Part of my job this year has brought me into the school system. I'm not *that* old but I was shocked to see the difference around here. there is no recess. There is no playground. Kids don't run around before/after school playing. EVERYONE gets bussed or driven. all of the schools I'm involved with are in the middle of an area where the majority can walk to school but they don't.
It's sad. All they seem to do in wealthy Fairfax County (northern Va.) at all the schools, but especially the elementary schools, is park big ugly trailers on the basketball courts -- and sometimes right on the grass. And you should see the "baskets" - just loose hoops with no netting.
0 -
As usual, some people will read this with their normal cognitive bias and use it to support their flawed thinking. Others will be more skeptical and realize the shortcomings in the speculative thinking used by the author and the failure to account for all the variables. Some people will continue to struggle with their weight, others will be successful. I wonder how those populations match up...0
-
Harsh assessment.
Sometimes realizing things aren't so black and white is necessary. It is how I was able to lose my weight and keep it off. I think there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind. 0 -
I've lost 124 pounds while being more skeptical.tincanonastring wrote: »As usual, some people will read this with their normal cognitive bias and use it to support their flawed thinking. Others will be more skeptical and realize the shortcomings in the speculative thinking used by the author and the failure to account for all the variables. Some people will continue to struggle with their weight, others will be successful. I wonder how those populations match up...
0 -
I vaguely remember this coming up before on the forums. I also vaguely remember it being pretty well refuted.
CICO works, people who don't fully understand its complexity and the variables it accounts for notwithstanding.0 -
.. it's still CICO. There are just factors that decrease CO and increase CI...0
-
OP again, thanks for your post. Judging by the messages and friend request I have gotten from this post, I suspect that some appreciate it. 0
-
CICO is of course is a valid way to measure efficiency of a system.
We know some people can lose a pound a week eating 1200 calories a day and others can loss the same weight eating 2400 while they exercise the same as the person eating 1200.
Just because one car gets 15 MPG and other car gets 30 MPG using the same quality of fuel does not invalidate CICO/EIEO.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »CICO is of course is a valid way to measure efficiency of a system.
We know some people can lose a pound a week eating 1200 calories a day and others can loss the same weight eating 2400 while they exercise the same as the person eating 1200.
Just because one car gets 15 MPG and other car gets 30 MPG using the same quality of fuel does not invalidate CICO/EIEO.
Agreed. I don't think people that claim that CICO may be flawed think that it's invalidated. That would be a total bar to CICO. I think they simply believe it's not only that CI must be less than CO to lose weight.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »CICO is of course is a valid way to measure efficiency of a system.
We know some people can lose a pound a week eating 1200 calories a day and others can loss the same weight eating 2400 while they exercise the same as the person eating 1200.
Just because one car gets 15 MPG and other car gets 30 MPG using the same quality of fuel does not invalidate CICO/EIEO.
Agreed. I don't think people that claim that CICO may be flawed think that it's invalidated. That would be a total bar to CICO. I think they simply believe it's not only that CI must be less than CO to lose weight.
To lose weight CI MUST be less than CO. If it's not, you won't lose weight, absolutely regardless of ANY other factor. You can eat clean, or low carb, or paleo, you can take whole bottles of supplements that put you in the ER, you can pray to the moon goddess or eat while standing on your head while closely monitoring your gut flora, hormone levels and urine acidity in real-time, you won't lose fat if you're not putting less energy into your body than leaves your body.
CICO is the single one factor responsible for all fat loss or gain standing above every single of all those little things people like to mention as an excuse why they're not losing. Those factors can INFLUENCE your CI or CO, but it is always the CICO that leads to fat loss.
Sometimes I can't believe that's still a thing that needs to be explained to such lengths on here.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »CICO is of course is a valid way to measure efficiency of a system.
We know some people can lose a pound a week eating 1200 calories a day and others can loss the same weight eating 2400 while they exercise the same as the person eating 1200.
Just because one car gets 15 MPG and other car gets 30 MPG using the same quality of fuel does not invalidate CICO/EIEO.
Agreed. I don't think people that claim that CICO may be flawed think that it's invalidated. That would be a total bar to CICO. I think they simply believe it's not only that CI must be less than CO to lose weight.
CICO is very, very complex though it sounds simple
The issue that its detractors have with it usually comes down to "I ate 500 calories less a day and I didn't lose a whole pound!"
The problem as I see it is with the reality of CICO going on beyond our ability to observe it mucking up the works here. There are boatload of factors playing into the equation that are beyond the common dieter's ability to calculate and account for in any exact way.
I once saw a study that had an amazing, elegant, and fantastically complicated formula for calculating CICO for its participants. It accounted for all sorts of things and I still kick myself for not saving the link.
The bottom line though? For anyone trying to lose weight, once they get a handle on any medical issues standing in the way? It really does come down to eating less than you burn. You might not lose weight at a certain expected rate because of factors you're not calculating, but you will lose weight.
CICO is working just as it should.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CICO is of course is a valid way to measure efficiency of a system.
We know some people can lose a pound a week eating 1200 calories a day and others can loss the same weight eating 2400 while they exercise the same as the person eating 1200.
Just because one car gets 15 MPG and other car gets 30 MPG using the same quality of fuel does not invalidate CICO/EIEO.
Agreed. I don't think people that claim that CICO may be flawed think that it's invalidated. That would be a total bar to CICO. I think they simply believe it's not only that CI must be less than CO to lose weight.
To lose weight CI MUST be less than CO. If it's not, you won't lose weight, absolutely regardless of ANY other factor. You can eat clean, or low carb, or paleo, you can take whole bottles of supplements that put you in the ER, you can pray to the moon goddess or eat while standing on your head while closely monitoring your gut flora, hormone levels and urine acidity in real-time, you won't lose fat if you're not putting less energy into your body than leaves your body.
CICO is the single one factor responsible for all fat loss or gain standing above every single of all those little things people like to mention as an excuse why they're not losing. Those factors can INFLUENCE your CI or CO, but it is always the CICO that leads to fat loss.
Sometimes I can't believe that's still a thing that needs to be explained to such lengths on here.
You completely missed my post. No one ever said you will lose weight if your calories in are more or equal to your calories out.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CICO is of course is a valid way to measure efficiency of a system.
We know some people can lose a pound a week eating 1200 calories a day and others can loss the same weight eating 2400 while they exercise the same as the person eating 1200.
Just because one car gets 15 MPG and other car gets 30 MPG using the same quality of fuel does not invalidate CICO/EIEO.
Agreed. I don't think people that claim that CICO may be flawed think that it's invalidated. That would be a total bar to CICO. I think they simply believe it's not only that CI must be less than CO to lose weight.
CICO is very, very complex though it sounds simple
The issue that its detractors have with it usually comes down to "I ate 500 calories less a day and I didn't lose a whole pound!"
The problem as I see it is with the reality of CICO going on beyond our ability to observe it mucking up the works here. There are boatload of factors playing into the equation that are beyond the common dieter's ability to calculate and account for in any exact way.
I once saw a study that had an amazing, elegant, and fantastically complicated formula for calculating CICO for its participants. It accounted for all sorts of things and I still kick myself for not saving the link.
The bottom line though? For anyone trying to lose weight, once they get a handle on any medical issues standing in the way? It really does come down to eating less than you burn. You might not lose weight at a certain expected rate because of factors you're not calculating, but you will lose weight.
CICO is working just as it should.
I am able to understand complex topics as are many of the posters on here. And those that say there is more to the equation do understand CICO. That's why we don't say CICO is it. There's more.
0 -
CICO isn't wrong, it's just people looking for excuses....0
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