'calories in-calories out' model might be flawed?
Replies
-
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
Study was already discussed a while ago.
It is based on self reported memories of a survey of items people ate in the last month with their own memory of the portion size eaten. It also uses self reporting of what is exercise, and doesn't measure NEAT.
It in no ways demonstrates a problem with CICO - give me someone that violates it in a metabolic ward, not in their own faulty, biased memory.
Also, saying antidepressants cause weight gain is too categorical of thinking. The average result of Wellbutrin use is, weight loss. Most SSRI's are mixed to averaging weight gain. They don't violate CICO though, they just change the parameters for appetite and movement.0 -
No pain no gain...0
-
I always find the people saying accurately figuring out CI and CO are too complex, there's factor X, y, z, z+1, and so on. Honestly, for the accuracy needed to make weight loss happen, approximations and feedback heuristics work.
I could say programming a computer is impossible - I can't accurately control where every electron goes inside of all the tiny gates inside the CPU. Yet here you all are typing away with computers that mostly work, and neither you or your software provider know what all the electrons are doing.
Same with weight loss. Plenty follow CICO and lose, and even predictably. The error bars aren't big enough to make prediction impossible, it isn't a chaotic function where small changes amplify to change results completely.0 -
I'm referring to anyone who overcomplicates the cico process.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
thorsmom01 wrote: »I'm referring to anyone who overcomplicates the cico process.
Yep, it's not really that complicated (unless you need an excuse for not following it).
0 -
I always find the people saying accurately figuring out CI and CO are too complex, there's factor X, y, z, z+1, and so on. Honestly, for the accuracy needed to make weight loss happen, approximations and feedback heuristics work.
I could say programming a computer is impossible - I can't accurately control where every electron goes inside of all the tiny gates inside the CPU. Yet here you all are typing away with computers that mostly work, and neither you or your software provider know what all the electrons are doing.
Same with weight loss. Plenty follow CICO and lose, and even predictably. The error bars aren't big enough to make prediction impossible, it isn't a chaotic function where small changes amplify to change results completely.
^This.
I don't really get the problem with it being "close enough is good enough".
As for the mysterious CICO+? There is no such thing. The + is included in CICO.0 -
I'd like to bring your attention to the following community guidelines:1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
This discussion has been cleaned up to remove posts that violated the above guidelines. In some cases, posts that did not violate the guidelines were removed because they quoted (somewhere along the way) a post that DID violate guidelines... and I hate with the passion of a thousand burning suns Vanilla's quote function because it's damn near impossible to accurately get rid of all those quotes (especially when you have to do a LOT of them and you're trying really hard not to screw it up)... I hope you feel my pain here. Um... Anyway, if anyone would like to refresh their memories regarding the community guidelines, they are located here (there may be a quiz later): http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
Now, I'm off to have a beer (which I will dutifully put into my diary... CI, right?).
Play nice.
JustSomeEm
0 -
Sure, anything can contribute to weight gain but the only thing that causes it is eating too much food or, in rare cases, water buildup from a serious medical issue. Personal responsibility is key.0
-
I heard a GREAT session on Sirius XM yesterday. It was transcendental meditation show Success Without Stress. Host Bob Roth was interviewing Dr. Peter Attia. A lot of the conversation had to do with hormones and cortisol and insulin resistance. Having gone through over a year where to just maintain my weight I had to stay under 1300 calories I'm looking for better answers. It's my opinion that CICO failed and my weight crept up since 1300 calories as maintenance is just undoable. At the beginning of my weight loss, I got from 195 to 160 with CICO then things went wrong and I'm certain my body is screwed up. I'm more active than I've ever been, I'm used to weighing and measuring carefully but this is just nuts. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE FULL EFFECTS OF GUT FLORA AND INSULIN RESISTANCE AND CORTISOL PRODUCTION so some of us need extra help.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 should see some of the days we have on the "theory of gravity" forum. Oy!
0 -
-
I heard a GREAT session on Sirius XM yesterday. It was transcendental meditation show Success Without Stress. Host Bob Roth was interviewing Dr. Peter Attia. A lot of the conversation had to do with hormones and cortisol and insulin resistance. Having gone through over a year where to just maintain my weight I had to stay under 1300 calories I'm looking for better answers. It's my opinion that CICO failed and my weight crept up since 1300 calories as maintenance is just undoable. At the beginning of my weight loss, I got from 195 to 160 with CICO then things went wrong and I'm certain my body is screwed up. I'm more active than I've ever been, I'm used to weighing and measuring carefully but this is just nuts. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE FULL EFFECTS OF GUT FLORA AND INSULIN RESISTANCE AND CORTISOL PRODUCTION so some of us need extra help.
Attia is a great example of....extremes. High fat(he did it or may still do it), high carb did it for many years, tons of stats, boat load of studies and he essentially proved you can do endurance events eating a whole pizza or eating a lot of fat, neither killed him. Also, not an elite athlete, but definitely an extremist. When I think elite I think Olympian.
By the math, BMR+EAT+NEAT+TEF seems to work pretty well. As for your 1300 calories there have been documented cases(a 51YO woman trying for a triathalon for a year gained weighed with a restrictive caloric diet). So, CICO does apply, except you want to apply in your terms or timeframe would be more accurate. Did you drop your calories too far for too long? Did you monitor your micro and macronutrients or just keep your calories restricted?
The hormones was best described by an endo where they are like whack-a-mole. You can't effect one without another one changing quickly. People seem to think if they cannot improve their insulin it must be the diet when it is probably their cortisol level changing. Interesting stuff because it has people talking. And gut flora, yes another unknown to 'hold out hope' for each individual snowflake out there.
I've seen people dump weight, go too far, and wreck their bodies. Slow and steady wins a lot of races.
If you want better answers start with the known. Blood work, work out load, rest, stress, life, work, kids, family.
0 -
That science doesn't know exact details of everything doesn't mean people can insert any explanation they like and contradict the proven parts. CICO is thermodynamics, one of the most proven laws.I heard a GREAT session on Sirius XM yesterday. It was transcendental meditation show Success Without Stress. Host Bob Roth was interviewing Dr. Peter Attia. A lot of the conversation had to do with hormones and cortisol and insulin resistance. Having gone through over a year where to just maintain my weight I had to stay under 1300 calories I'm looking for better answers. It's my opinion that CICO failed and my weight crept up since 1300 calories as maintenance is just undoable. At the beginning of my weight loss, I got from 195 to 160 with CICO then things went wrong and I'm certain my body is screwed up. I'm more active than I've ever been, I'm used to weighing and measuring carefully but this is just nuts. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE FULL EFFECTS OF GUT FLORA AND INSULIN RESISTANCE AND CORTISOL PRODUCTION so some of us need extra help.
Now predicting metabolic activity, that can be wrong, but it CO has a pretty firm floor, the ceiling is where you get oddities - if someone had the ability to use far less, their ancestors with those genes would have already dominated evolution and out reproduced others.
Cortisol will affect behavior and modestly affect which fat deposits have storage. It can't make someone store calories they didn't consume.
Gut flora may influence behavior, they can increase the digestion rate of food. Not to an incredible extent though - mice sterilized of gut flora only had about an 8% increase in metabolism if I recall correctly.
At 160 lb, maintaining at a true 1300 calories would be very unlikely, it would below almost any predicted basal metabolic rate let alone TDEE. Chances are much greater there was a logging error.0 -
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.0 -
That science doesn't know exact details of everything doesn't mean people can insert any explanation they like and contradict the proven parts. CICO is thermodynamics, one of the most proven laws.I heard a GREAT session on Sirius XM yesterday. It was transcendental meditation show Success Without Stress. Host Bob Roth was interviewing Dr. Peter Attia. A lot of the conversation had to do with hormones and cortisol and insulin resistance. Having gone through over a year where to just maintain my weight I had to stay under 1300 calories I'm looking for better answers. It's my opinion that CICO failed and my weight crept up since 1300 calories as maintenance is just undoable. At the beginning of my weight loss, I got from 195 to 160 with CICO then things went wrong and I'm certain my body is screwed up. I'm more active than I've ever been, I'm used to weighing and measuring carefully but this is just nuts. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE FULL EFFECTS OF GUT FLORA AND INSULIN RESISTANCE AND CORTISOL PRODUCTION so some of us need extra help.
Now predicting metabolic activity, that can be wrong, but it CO has a pretty firm floor, the ceiling is where you get oddities - if someone had the ability to use far less, their ancestors with those genes would have already dominated evolution and out reproduced others.
Cortisol will affect behavior and modestly affect which fat deposits have storage. It can't make someone store calories they didn't consume.
Gut flora may influence behavior, they can increase the digestion rate of food. Not to an incredible extent though - mice sterilized of gut flora only had about an 8% increase in metabolism if I recall correctly.
At 160 lb, maintaining at a true 1300 calories would be very unlikely, it would below almost any predicted basal metabolic rate let alone TDEE. Chances are much greater there was a logging error.
Great post!0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.0 -
CICO is correct.0
-
bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
5 miles is oddly specific.
Exercise is unneeded for weight loss.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