Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If CO is all estimates is precision in measuring CO overkill?
crackpotbaby
Posts: 1,297 Member
in Debate Club
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
0
Replies
-
Finally - right section. I really can't say if that was me or the app.0
-
The whole thing is estimation. I figure, why not be as accurate as possible where you can. If it's working without the accuracy, then it doesn't really matter. If it's not working, then being more accurate makes sense.3
-
Because we're human, there's going to be estimates and not entirely correct accuracy. That's why even though someone is fast and we can estimate their 40 meter dash time, they aren't always going to run the same exact time every attempt. But we do have some CONSISTENCY within the time range. So based on that, we apply a basic formula and see how much energy is expended.
Since CICO is an equation and we know if CI is less than CO, then weight loss should occur. If not, then numbers may be skewed and it's like more on the CO side. So to address it, we lower CI a little to see if the equation works. If it does then we continue.
It's never going to be exact like a recipe or manufacturing a product, but we should be able to get close.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
My response to your other thread:
CI is only an estimate too, since you can't possibly know the exact calorie/macronutrient composition of every food (especially foods with multiple ingredients) and you can't possibly know every minor metabolic wrinkle in the absorption of everything you eat. Unless you happen to live in a metabolic ward and have a bomb calorimeter in your kitchen, that is. But since we're dealing with estimates, why wouldn't we want to make them as accurate as possible and then tweak our approach based upon the results from there?
I'll put it this way - if a carpenter was building my house, I'd much rather he used a tape measure instead of eyeballing all the measurements. I'm sure I'd be much happier with the results even if the tape measure was only graduated in half-inch increments.13 -
Through the imperfections of both CI and CO one can achieve a pretty close approximation of ones calorie needs and exercise burns.
Ie:
My calorie intake was 1200 and I was losing .5lbs a week. The 1200 I was logging probably wasn't 100% accurate, but the way I was counting was accurate for me.
I take it a step further and log my exercise to find out how much to eat back. MFP gives me 185-310 for an hour of exercise.
I track both for 2 weeks (post menopause so little hormone fluctuation) and do the math. My average burn for 60 min exercise was 205 cals.
From that point on I knew my exercise average and applied it. This had my personal NEAT of 1400, rounded out, for days I exercised and 1200 on days I didn't.
This worked for the end of my weight loss and well into maintenance only changing when I did a reverse diet then started lifting. I just recalculated my personal approximations again.
So everything is estimates, but the more precise one can make those estimates, at a personal level, the more accurate ones results will be.
Cheers, h.2 -
I do think this can largely come to personality type. Some people lose just fine by simply reducing portions/eyeballing and being more active.
Some people, myself included, like to minimise the potential margins for error. Which are an inevitability when the human body is involved. So I weigh my food but not prepackaged things like bagels etc. I'm happy accepting this may put me over/under but the margins are small enough for me at this stage for it not to have an impact. I measure CO by wearing a fitness tracker and using a chest strap when I exercise. And then I track the long term trend and make little tweaks as I need to.
I do those things because I like data and the more I have the more I can optimise results. But I'm also a realist. I don't take my food scale to a restaurant for example. If I had a formal event I'd take my not that attractive tracker off.
So there's the ideal and then there's the less than ideal and all this space in between to find your own personal sweet spot.2 -
Reasonable and consistent estimates with the common sense to make adjustments to your calorie balance is all that's really required IMHO.
Early on I realised trying for absolute precision on the CI side was too much of a P.I.T.A. for me so settled for weighing high calorie density items only. I compensated for loss of accuracy by adjusting my base calorie goal based on actual long term weight loss results.
I used packages, eyeballing, generic items like a banana, averaging out regular items (logging 5 cups of tea a day etc.).
Maintaining without food logging hasn't been hard - I'm still calorie aware and read packaging. Losing weight to correct a drift I find harder but that's more because I'm greedy and my intuitive eating level is higher than I actually require.
The CO side of me interested me more so spent more time than most in trying to get closer to "the truth".
Seeking out better methods for various exercises (power measurement, formulae etc.) VO2 max testing, max HR testing, calibrating a HRM to match my personal settings....
But that was really as much out of curiosity as anything.
In terms of results (weight loss or maintenance) I can manage that with relatively precise or imprecise tools/estimates.
You also do develop a "feel" for what is a reasonable estimate over time - I know a certain eSpinning bike I use will exaggerate by about 100/cals in a hard hour of training for example.
1 -
Both CI and CO are gross estimations based on population studies. The finesse comes from knowledge of your behavior. If you can't track it you can't manage it. Not to say it's perfect or even that perfection is required, but estimation is sufficient.
For the purpose of weight management the end result is the scale. If one is attempting to lose they first need to know where they are in terms of CI and CO. If after 6 weeks there is no progress, data is reviewed and probable causes determined - corrective action is applied through decreased CI or increased CO.1 -
Nothing in life is absolutely precise. You control for as much variance as possible if you need the accuracy to get the results.
Gaining/maintaining/losing the way you want to? Excellent. Continue doing whatever you're doing. Maybe experiment with relaxing measurements. No need to tighten up your measurements - or even to take any if you aren't.
Gaining/maintaining/losing not going according to plan? Time to tighten up and troubleshoot. Once the problem is fixed, you may want to continue being more precise, or not.3 -
I measure the energy I put into the bike using a power meter, just like we all measure (not estimate) our body weight using a scale.1
-
Many people lose weight not measuring/counting CI nor CO. I yoyo'd for 20 years not counting and going on various restrictive diets. Lost successfully each time.
Fast forward to this weight loss - I lost my first 30 lbs eyeballing everything. But here's the deal I knew that once I slowed or stopped losing would be because of my eyeballing. I was gently encouraged to weigh foods to recalibrate my eyeballing and sure enough my weight loss sped back up, until I took a diet break.
It may be overkill for some but by far the vast majority of us it helps get close enough that we see results just as the math tells us. I hated math all my life but these imprecise estimates have been pretty spot on for me so far. When they stop working I know it's time to tweak things.0 -
If one end is imprecise, being imprecise on the other hand will not make the end result more precise, rather the opposite.4
-
Being off by a few hundred calories on either side of the equation isn't such a big deal if you're consistently off by that amount. Just pretend your TDEE is either slightly higher or lower and adjust your deficit accordingly.2
-
It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.1 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
Context is key and the only time precision comes into play is when someone posts "I'm not losing...why?" claiming to be logging everything and killing it at the gym (I'm being deliberately hyperbolic) it must be something else.
I look at this like a car - its purpose is getting you from point A to point B. Does it matter if the speedometer and gas gauges are broken if it gets you to point B? Sure you are going to be more comfortable and take less risks if the gauges are calibrated, precise, and accurate, but if the destination is achieved this is really a moot point.1 -
Context is key and the only time precision comes into play is when someone posts "I'm not losing...why?" claiming to be logging everything and killing it at the gym (I'm being deliberately hyperbolic) it must be something else.
This. It's only overkill if you can successfully lose weight without being so precise. Back before my first pregnancy, I managed to lose weight without paying any attention at all to CI or CO. I just knew if I tacked on a few extra pounds, simply adding a bit more activity to my weeks would be all I needed. But that activity came in the form of playing volleyball at the bar or spending several hours at the beach one day a week. Never did I bother tracking how many extra cals I burned. Nor did I pay any attention to what I was eating.
After the kids came along, I had to pay a bit more attention to the CI part of the equation. Not that I counted calories, rather I simply did eyeball portion control. That simply meant stopping at 1 or 2 slices of pizza instead of 3 or 4, or cutting my usual steaks in half.
This go around, I'm in my mid forties and my activity levels are about 1/10th of what they use to be. Paying closer attention to both the CI and CO part of the equations became necessary when 1 year of the eyeball approach left me gaining and losing the same 10lbs. Now, I'm still not "precise". I do weigh my meats and calorie dense foods, but my scale is a cheap mechanical scale that only goes down to the .25 ounce or 10 grams. Far from precise, but good enough to relearn what portions sizes I now need. I do measure my refined carbs with measuring cups, but I often have a little spill over and don't panic. Veggies and fruits, thou, I stick with my guesstimates. I also don't bother weighing or tracking the oils/butter I use for greasing pans. At the end of the day, I simply leave about 150 to 200 cals on the table to account for my imprecise measuring tactics. So far, it's been a nice steady 1lb per week loss since I started this method back in January.
I have no doubt that the closer I get to goal, the more precise I may need to be.. but I don't seem to need it now, nor have I needed to in the past.
1 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
It's an imprecise science but that doesn't mean one shouldn't attempt to be as accurate as they personally can be.
Personally, I'm fine with just weighing stuff using ounces and most of what I weigh is calorie dense...there are many things that I don't weigh and have never weighed...and I use measuring cups and spoons for quite a few things that people tell people not to.
That said, I never had an issue dropping weight and have had little trouble maintaining for about 4 years...so whatever I was doing and am currently doing is good enough...others mileage may vary.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm interested in the logic behind many posts I see on this forum, that's all.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm interested in the logic behind many posts I see on this forum, that's all.
You clearly made an argument in your OP. Not sure what you believe, but you made it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm interested in the logic behind many posts I see on this forum, that's all.
You clearly made an argument in your OP. Not sure what you believe, but you made it.
Are you kidding me? You have no idea what my opinion on this is.
I posed a question (complete with typo) as a topic for discussion. I haven't even contributed an argument, or stance, or even response to other people's views on this.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm interested in the logic behind many posts I see on this forum, that's all.
You clearly made an argument in your OP. Not sure what you believe, but you made it.
Are you kidding me? You have no idea what my opinion on this is.
I posed a question (complete with typo) as a topic for discussion. I haven't even contributed an argument, or stance, or even response to other people's views on this.
I clearly said I didn't know your opinion, but your OP also clearly made an argument, you just asked us to support or challenge it.0 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
Estimate if understood as a guess, would be the wrong way to characterize CO numbers. They are based on extensive research, but due to variations from person to person even those who are the same sex, weight, age, height the numbers are not 100% precise. For some people they will be right on, for others they will be right on, and for others they will be low. In all those cases they will be pretty close though for the vast majority of people. Yes, there will be outliers who are far out of the standard deviation of those numbers; but they are outliers. The majority of people will not be outliers. So overall those CO numbers while not 100% precise, are reasonably close to what is actually burned
As to whether that means striving for precision in CI is overkill. First, realize something, calorie numbers for foods are "estimates" too. Again, not in the sense of wild guesses, but the calories for say a tomato will vary depending on when and where they grew. However, once again, these numbers will be close. Not 100% precise, but close.
Following your reasoning, because they are not 100% precise guessing at portions rather than measuring as precisely as possible should be our approach, but all that does is add another level in imprecision. If you measure your portions as precisely as possible that removes the imprecision that you can remove, give the most accurate numbers you can get in light of the lack of precision in other areas. That doesn't seem like overkill to me. That sounds like a smart way to get numbers as precise as you can in light of the variations that are part of the functioning of biological organisms functioning.2 -
As noted above by rileysowner, CO estimates are based on research and can usually be verified over time (assuming exercise/activity levels follow a somewhat consistent pattern) by scale performance) to some degree of reasonable certainty.
Saying that, zeroing in close enough with close enough tracking of calories in, and close enough tracking of calories out, while monitoring scale performance and balancing all of those with each other works for me and my personality type.
For someone else, this might not be the optimal way to go, and there are certainly other means by which to set one's course towards losing weight.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not "overkill" but it's not necessary (depending on personality type) and might not be appropriate longterm (or even at all) for certain personality types.
For me the hassle is logging, not weighing, and it's easier to log if I weigh (and thus use gram measurements). I've lost without logging or weighing before, but I find it enjoyable. I also find it enjoyable and motivating to have a training program with planned workouts and to do those (and use that for my estimate CO, whether logging or not) and that's also not necessary.
I don't think anyone claims that it's necessary to weigh and log -- people recommend it when others are finding they aren't losing on calories that are likely lower than what is really being eaten. It's a tool.
I find that logging is useful even if my numbers are off also because the process of logging makes me more mindful. (Logging or tracking my exercise -- which I don't do on MFP -- serves the same function even though I don't even try to track calories burned.)
Are you trying to argue that there's something wrong with logging/tracking/weighing? It sounds like that to me, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions so am asking.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm interested in the logic behind many posts I see on this forum, that's all.
You clearly made an argument in your OP. Not sure what you believe, but you made it.
Are you kidding me? You have no idea what my opinion on this is.
I posed a question (complete with typo) as a topic for discussion. I haven't even contributed an argument, or stance, or even response to other people's views on this.
I clearly said I didn't know your opinion, but your OP also clearly made an argument, you just asked us to support or challenge it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
3 -
And, I saw this video yesterday concerning the accuracy of calories on menus in New York and how far out they can be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGunZpKLb5o 2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »And, I saw this video yesterday concerning the accuracy of calories on menus in New York and how far out they can be.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGunZpKLb5o
Just looking at the screen shot without watching the video, if you take out the on sandwich that was 320 calories high, likely a typo on the nutrition information that a serving is actually half a sandwich, the amount it is off is only 228 calories. If one weighed the serving, then recalculate the calorie to reflect the weight, it might be even closer.0 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
Curious to hear arguments for and against.
If losing weight is the goal you can measure what's measurable (weight of food & drink, some forms of exercise etc) and observe the result in terms of weight loss. If you don't see the result you expect then you can change one of the measured variables and look for an effect. A lack of response to the variable you change suggests either a) it isn't an important one or b) something else changed that you aren't measuring.
So personally I don't titrate to a perceived deficit number, but I eat what I eat which is typically well short of the TDEE that I estimate ranges from 2000 min up to 3000 max with a typical result around 2400-2600.
If weight or fasting blood glucose creeps up I know I have to reduce the measured inputs (food) or increase the voluntary activity (walking / running / cycling) to counter the trend. I can never see myself following MFP's "hamster wheel" algorithm where I'm expected to "reward" myself with more food if I exercise, in order to maintain a set estimate of my "calorie deficit".0 -
Mathematically, being as accurate as possible, when possible, puts the Law of Large Numbers into play, in your benefit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
Basically, although each individual measurement is inaccurate, to a degree, over time, average accuracy approaches what is expected.2 -
First and foremost I am no expert to this CICO thing...
I do not measure out every morsel that I put in my mouth, most of my measurements are "eyeballed" I don't add exercise calories to MFP, I simply let my fitbit do it for me. I do not eat back all of my exercise calories for the very reason that I do eyeball my portions so it leaves me a pretty good cushion for error. Been doing that for 4 months now and have managed to lose 43lbs in 16 weeks. For me, it works, for others I know they need to measure and weigh out everything. I also should probably disclaimer, I went from being a lazy, lazy, did I mention LAZY couch potato to moving my body 6 days a week and eating better so that may have a lot to do with the decline in weight as well. I don't know the science of CICO, I don't really even know if my macros are set to where they are suppose to be? All I do know is I log my foods every day, do my best to stay within my macros given by MFP and exercise. I find that a lot of you MFP users are very well educated on all these things and I am all over here "winging" it so I don't usually respond to these threads in fear of being chastised. But I do have to say that I learn a lot from these thread and appreciate all of the information, even when I am being chastised.. LOL Happy Tuesday!!! That video above... WOW eye opener! 2 -
If CO predictions are only an estimate (based on age, bodyweight and subjective assessments of activity levels and burns), is absolute precision in measuring CI (like logging to the gram) overkill?
I'd see it more an issue of using the available this in an appropriate, and thoughtful, way. The accuracy and precision of the estimate depends on how it's being instrumented, and whether the instrumentation is against a meaningful proxy for the estimate.
To use an analogy, is it better to estimate speed of a car based on an axle based pick up, a GPS, or counting telephone poles over a fixed period?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions