'calories in-calories out' model might be flawed?
Replies
-
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
-
-
Yep, it's hard work losing weight!.0 -
It might actually genuinely be harder now than it used to be... didn't read the article but here goes:
50 years ago people were still kind-of post-war. Rationing was recently ended, food was a lot scarcer than it is now, and comparatively more expensive. That means children *couldn't* grow up obese anywhere near as easily because there simply wasn't as much food for them to eat. Studies *have* shown that if you are overweight around your teens you are far more likely to be overweight and struggle with losing weight later on in life. Then bring in the children of baby boomers... the "eat it all up, don't let any go to waste" attitude in many post-rationing countries is no longer needed. There is plenty of food to go around and if anything we all eat too much of it. Historical baggage and global inequality means we are made to feel guilty when we waste food so we finish our food even when we don't need to. We become overweight as teenagers and low and behold, you have a generation of people hamstrung for the rest of their lives. Couple that with decreased activity levels, increased stress, and you might reasonably lead to a world in which it *is* harder to lose weight.
That said, the fact that there were much fewer overweight people back then means studies on how hard it was to lose weight then versus now are crippled with both statistical bias and demographic bias - the lack of easy availability of food meant many more of the overweight people back then would have been overweight due to medical conditions and not due to general overeating.
All pure speculation based on a few studies, not related to how hard it is now compared to back then. And ultimately, hundreds of studies have shown time and time again that for the overwhelming majority of people it's all about calories in vs calories out. True, many people struggle controlling the calories in part due to psychological issues, stress, comfort eating etc., but once you get a handle on those it's plain sailing.0 -
CICO isn't a WOE.
CICO will help you gain or maintain as easily as it will help you lose.
People need more than just the knowledge of how calories work. Most people who got through school learned about the energy in food having a relationship to their weight. Losing weight, for many people, takes more than just knowing how it works.0 -
CICO works, but it's a starting point, not the be-all and end-all of dieting. It's not perfect:
1. You can't really know CO. At best, CO is an educated guess, or inferred from weight changes.
2. CI requires a lot of work to accurately measure.
3. Many people treat CO as though it is unaffected by CI. It is not.
4. It doesn't help you to know where the energy to make up the deficit is coming from - fat, muscle, etc.
5. It's oversimplified, in the way that "earn more money than you spend" is true but very oversimplified financial advice. Real success needs to include details like finding foods that are satisfying and fit your calorie needs, or incorporating the habits that allow you to continue on the path for your lifetime.0 -
Thanks OP, I knew my mom's consumption of groundhog in the 40's was one of the reasons my weight loss has slowed. I also blame the bright lights in other people's homes and the pesticides the farmer across the road uses. Granted, I can't blame asbestos unless my folks ate that too; can't blame smoking since they didn't smoke but they did have friends who did. Didn't drink to excess though they had friends who drank. While I have no doubt there is greater food availability than any time in history I'm sure it is just coincidence people are eating more.
0 -
The best I've heard it explained is - losing weight is SIMPLE, but it isn't EASY - those are two different things. It's calories in vs calories out, which is incredibly simple. It's not easy to implement though, because we misjudge our portion sizes, give in to temptation, crave comfort foods, forget to log all that we eat, and so on.0
-
The best I've heard it explained is - losing weight is SIMPLE, but it isn't EASY - those are two different things. It's calories in vs calories out, which is incredibly simple. It's not easy to implement though, because we misjudge our portion sizes, give in to temptation, crave comfort foods, forget to log all that we eat, and so on.
Yup. I think simple but not easy is a good way to view it.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions