Does the math of CICO always work?

Options
2»

Replies

  • fbchick51
    fbchick51 Posts: 240 Member
    Options
    mehreen_xo wrote: »
    Ofc it's a law of physics and is not wrong but what I mean is if I was to work out my deficit from food and my burn from excercise for the entire week, and eat like this for many weeks, will the deficit divided by 3500 definitely be how many pounds I will lose? I know things like TOM/unexpected meals out etc come into play but roughly?! Thank you!

    No. The issue is accuracy. Calorie counts in foods are estimates and not 100% accurate for each and every serving you eat. Calorie counts for exercise is also an estimate. So is your RMR and BMR and TDEE. So it's pretty rare that the math will ever work out exactly right.

    BUT... It is a great guideline and it can be adjusted as you learn how your tracking tends to vary.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    savithny wrote: »
    The problem with doing the math yourself is that everything on both sides of the = is estimated. We know more and more about the values that we're estimating, but we also know that they're not exact, and they vary enough that people have to figure otu their own balance.

    But yes, science approximates. Math approximates. Mathematical modelling is based on a set of assumptions and approximations, and scientific discoveries of relationships between events often are not "X causes Y" but X and Y are statistically related in the followin gway."

    So: We estimate the number of calories a specific food provides, but it can vary based on how the food is prepared (cooked or not, chopped or mashed or whole, growing conditions at the farm). We estimate the number of calories a specific person needs to live, but it can vary based on the individual (lean mass, metabolism, hormones), and we estimate the number of calories a specific exercise will burn, but that also varies (some people develop more efficient movements, and "effort expended" measurements are very subjective).

    Chopping/mashing don't change caloric content of food.
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    Options
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    savithny wrote: »
    The problem with doing the math yourself is that everything on both sides of the = is estimated. We know more and more about the values that we're estimating, but we also know that they're not exact, and they vary enough that people have to figure otu their own balance.

    But yes, science approximates. Math approximates. Mathematical modelling is based on a set of assumptions and approximations, and scientific discoveries of relationships between events often are not "X causes Y" but X and Y are statistically related in the following way."

    So: We estimate the number of calories a specific food provides, but it can vary based on how the food is prepared (cooked or not, chopped or mashed or whole, growing conditions at the farm). We estimate the number of calories a specific person needs to live, but it can vary based on the individual (lean mass, metabolism, hormones), and we estimate the number of calories a specific exercise will burn, but that also varies (some people develop more efficient movements, and "effort expended" measurements are very subjective).

    Chopping/mashing don't change caloric content of food.

    It changes the availability of carbohydrate and how fast we respond to it:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X11000725

    Cooking and breaking down cell walls changes how much nutrition we extract from food:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WW4DpaIgSEw
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    savithny wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    savithny wrote: »
    The problem with doing the math yourself is that everything on both sides of the = is estimated. We know more and more about the values that we're estimating, but we also know that they're not exact, and they vary enough that people have to figure otu their own balance.

    But yes, science approximates. Math approximates. Mathematical modelling is based on a set of assumptions and approximations, and scientific discoveries of relationships between events often are not "X causes Y" but X and Y are statistically related in the following way."

    So: We estimate the number of calories a specific food provides, but it can vary based on how the food is prepared (cooked or not, chopped or mashed or whole, growing conditions at the farm). We estimate the number of calories a specific person needs to live, but it can vary based on the individual (lean mass, metabolism, hormones), and we estimate the number of calories a specific exercise will burn, but that also varies (some people develop more efficient movements, and "effort expended" measurements are very subjective).

    Chopping/mashing don't change caloric content of food.

    It changes the availability of carbohydrate and how fast we respond to it:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X11000725

    Cooking and breaking down cell walls changes how much nutrition we extract from food:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WW4DpaIgSEw

    Neither of those addresses chopping or mashing.

  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    Options
    The first refers to "influenced by processing," and refers out to several other articles in which "processing" includes breaking down particle size as well as heating.
      Here's another:
      https://www.intechopen.com/books/carbohydrates-comprehensive-studies-on-glycobiology-and-glycotechnology/food-structure-and-carbohydrate-digestibility
      "Mechanical disruption of food structure is one of the most effective ways of increasing carbohydrate energy availability from foods, and milling, crushing, pounding and such processes have been used for thousands of years to improve energy extraction from all types of plant tissue, but especially from the wellprotected form of seeds. On the other hand, reducing tissue disruption to lower carbohydrate digestibility of grain products has been found to be an effective strategy in reducing the glycemic impact of foods in populations with excessive energy intakes, obesity and diabetes"

      Would a skeptics site be a reasonable resource? If they agree that breaking food up changes what we can extract from it (in this case, carotenoids?) is that legit to you?
      https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/26559/does-blending-food-to-break-down-the-cell-walls-make-it-healthier
    1. TR0berts
      TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
      Options
      Bob314159 wrote: »
      Add the fact that not all the food you eat gets digested-and that varies for each person....CICO is not science at all- its approximates.

      If it doesn't get digested, then it leaves the body as part of CO.
    2. stanmann571
      stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
      Options
      savithny wrote: »
      Note that I"m not arguing against CICO. I'm a big proponent of it. I'm not arguing for woo or clean diets or any of that crap. I'm arguing that the math on both sides is based on estimates, as most research in complex systems is. Biochemistry at the cell level is pretty straightforward; biochemistry at the organism level is more complicated, and biochemistry at the societal level (once you include farms and agricultural practices) is even more so.

      Human beings are not bomb calorimeters. We don't burn our food to ash and efficiently use it all.

      Neither are we special snowflakes. this isn't an argument that some people are exempt from CICO. It's an argument that CICO requires understanding where those numbers come from on both sides of the equal sign.

      You're claiming that slicing a cucumber(for example) changes the caloric content.

      You may not have intended to make that claim, but it's what you said.
      savithny wrote: »
      The problem with doing the math yourself is that everything on both sides of the = is estimated. We know more and more about the values that we're estimating, but we also know that they're not exact, and they vary enough that people have to figure otu their own balance.

      But yes, science approximates. Math approximates. Mathematical modelling is based on a set of assumptions and approximations, and scientific discoveries of relationships between events often are not "X causes Y" but X and Y are statistically related in the followin gway."

      So: We estimate the number of calories a specific food provides, but it can vary based on how the food is prepared (cooked or not, chopped or mashed or whole, growing conditions at the farm). We estimate the number of calories a specific person needs to live, but it can vary based on the individual (lean mass, metabolism, hormones), and we estimate the number of calories a specific exercise will burn, but that also varies (some people develop more efficient movements, and "effort expended" measurements are very subjective).

    3. CSARdiver
      CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
      edited July 2017
      Options
      No mathematical concept exists in perfection in the real world. Math is an abstract concept and perfection only exists in the abstract.

      For a simple answer this is more of a short term/long term issue as we are attempting to isolate the variable of behavior. Few will see any level of accuracy or precision in the short term, but over long term this increases. I can attest to losing ~1 lb/week over a year following a moderate 500 kcal/week deficit. Of course reviewing my diary will show days eating under/days eating over and a changing exercise regimen, which are just three variables out of the countless variables we ignore every day.
    4. HeidiCooksSupper
      HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
      Options
      Simply put, all other things being equal, on average, the average person will lose an average of 1 pound per week if they consume an average of 3500 calories per week less than they expend on average over the long haul.
    5. Rammer123
      Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
      Options
      CICO always works, the energy always goes somewhere.

      Both CI and CO is an estimate, so you won't know until after the fact which number you estimated was right or wrong until you test it out and see how your body changes. That is why it is important to properly track CI and as accurately as possible (stick to a certain method and dont change it) measure CO, and over time, make adjustments as needed based on results.
    6. StaciMarie1974
      StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
      Options
      mehreen_xo wrote: »
      Ofc it's a law of physics and is not wrong but what I mean is if I was to work out my deficit from food and my burn from excercise for the entire week, and eat like this for many weeks, will the deficit divided by 3500 definitely be how many pounds I will lose? I know things like TOM/unexpected meals out etc come into play but roughly?! Thank you!

      Yes, assuming your logging is 100% accurate and your calorie burn is 100% on schedule. Unfortunately it would be pretty difficult to complete avoid logging error and the rate at which is the body burns energy is an estimate.
    7. AnnPT77
      AnnPT77 Posts: 32,082 Member
      Options
      Roughly. As others have said, CI and CO are estimates.

      One thing I think no one's said yet (unless I skimmed past it) is that the overs and unders tend to offset each other a bit (akin to the law of large numbers in statistics).

      Two big areas where major discrepancies can arise:
      • The TDEE or NEAT calorie requirement 'calculators' (they're really estimators). They give you an estimate of your needs from studies of large groups: They peg you at the average from those studies. But, in practice, individuals can differ from average by up to several hundred calories per day. They're the best source of a starting point estimate, but you should use several weeks of your own loss data to estimate your own personal calorie requirements, before expecting your weight loss to be somewhat predictable.
      • Exercise estimates are pretty hard to pin down accurately. Many sources overestimate. There are better and worse practices to improve accuracy a bit, but that's a whole 'nother complicated discussion.

    Categories