Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Replies
-
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will MAY cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
FIFY2 -
paperpudding wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Yes, appetite suppressants.
The other sort that do work ( if you can put up with the side effects) are the sort that interfere with fat absorption. So you can eat more and your body does not absorb the calories from the fat content - therefore, of course, the fat content is eliminated in your faeces - it has to go somewhere, it doesn't just vanish.
Super smelly incontinent poo explosions - but, sure, you lose weight.
And obviously this doesn't negate CICO - as calories in is reduced. The same way it is in diseases like chrohn s disease or coeliac disease where the person cannot absorb some types of food.
Alli and Adult diapers FTW4 -
You're still eating at a deficit so cico still applies calories in vs calories out. MyFitnessPal has 1200 as the minimum for a lady for a guy it's 1500. But you don't have to eat at 1500 calories and losing 2 pounds every week is a pretty aggressive goal. I'm glad you found an eating technique that works for you which is helping you shed weight. Regardless if someone is eating vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, gluten free, or junk food the same rules applies eating less than what you're eating will help you lose weight.
Congrats on finding a method that works for you!!2 -
A rose by any other name...........et al
Bottom line, it is still eating less calories than you are burning. How you arrive there and what you call it may be different, but it is still eating less calories than you burn.4 -
In 2010 I set out to lose some weight. I honestly don't know what my scale weight was (I'm thinking somewhere around 193, but I avoided the scale then like the plague). This was WAY before I ever knew MFP, calorie counting, macros, etc even existed.
I lost weight basically by working on my bad habits. But losing those habits and replacing them with good habits STILL impacted CICO even if I didn't "count" a single calorie. I lost 20lbs before I started to level out. I found MFP to keep losing and to figure out why the loss at stopped.
OP, I'm so happy you found a way to lose weight - but I do caution you, it will level out. I have no idea how overweight you are, but if you only lost 6lbs and dropped a jean size you are probably small already (I lost in the 50lbs range, but needed to keep increasing my deficit to see progress near the end). 6lbs is great, and I'm glad you are feeling good, but EVERY way you lose weight takes CICO to count. You could low carb, high fat, high protein, etc - you are still balancing CICO.4 -
Plus, there's no doubt an increase in NEAT when you no longer feel miserable from the bloating etc caused by the gluten intolerance. Moving about more incidentally can be a surprisingly large contributor to calorie needs.15
-
I don't think people should take the drugs either but it makes a point that other mechanisms can cause fat loss. if that is true then why are people dismissive that LC or IF can ever have an effect. Some things obviously do make a difference. Some are safe others are not.
Not true. All that drugs do is affect the CO side of the equation (e.g.- increase calorie expenditure).5 -
I'll just leave this here.
http://sci-fit.net/2017/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Don't they also tend to damage the heart? Or am I misremembering?
yes. that's why they had to pull the OG Hydroxicut off shelves, and new Hydroxicut is just caffeine and capsaicine, like every other diet pill.
Although innovative folks with high to moderate risk tolerance can still get all the ingredients.
For the record, I lost 30 lbs in 30 days with the stack that was in the OG Hydroxicut. And kept it off for nearly 2 years.
If it wasn't
1. Risky
2. tested for and expressly prohibited by my employer.
I might consider doing the regimen again. but between the health and legal risk, it's simply not worth it to me.
yeah, i don't think there was much doubt that it worked. I lost a fair chunck of weight on it as well when I was in the military, right around the time it was banned as a matter of fact.0 -
You have (maybe) Celiac's disease. An autoimmune disorder that causes intense inflammation in your body and attacks the villi in your small intestine if you eat gluten, often causing malabsorption and a whole host of problems systemically. At age 51, you stop eating gluten, your waist size is reduced, generally feel better, and you lose six pounds. You aren't counting calories, eating more, and losing weight.
Alternate view:
You're right, in this instance, I don't think CICO had anything to do with your weight loss at all. But you didn't drop 6 pounds of fat in a month (unless you are still in a deficit, which is possible even without logging your calories). The key here is not that CICO doesn't work, but that removing gluten is reducing systemic inflammation (which causes water retention, sometimes excessive) and letting your body repair itself. If you do have Celiacs and your intestines are healing, they're likely pulling more nutrients from the food you are eating and doing who knows what other awesome things to your hormones and metabolic processes. Some people with Celiacs also report intense swelling of the stomach or a distended belly when they eat gluten, even if they are underweight or can't gain; removing gluten from their diet decreases swelling and bloating.
Also, if you do want to find out if you really have Celiac's disease, which might be a good idea since you have a family history - you need to keep eating gluten for a while before bloodwork and endoscopies, or you'll get false negatives if your body has had enough time to repair damage.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will MAY cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
FIFY
If a person is celiac and eats gluten, there is no may, it will. When a person consumes gluten with celiac disease, it attacks their small intestine. So you will have an inflammatory response from it.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Plus, there's no doubt an increase in NEAT when you no longer feel miserable from the bloating etc caused by the gluten intolerance. Moving about more incidentally can be a surprisingly large contributor to calorie needs.
yes. Celiac can cause a tremendous amount of fatigue along with the painful bloating too (as in: just ate wheat- can barely make it to the couch before dropping to the floor levels of fatigue).
Starchy carbs are also 1 of the things that people are really, really bad at estimating portions for (so if you weren't actually weighing out your food before, your calorie intake may have decreased significantly without realizing it).3 -
Newgoals1966 wrote: »I am a 51yo with a strong family history of Celiac Disease, and saw so many things change for the better once I dropped gluten. No more migraines, better sleep, no sugar cravings and better moods in general.
After a month of eating what I want sans gluten, I am down 6 pounds and find my clothing is significantly baggier - I have dropped a jean size in four weeks! So while MFP suggested me keeping my calories down to 1200 to meet a 20 pound weight loss goal, I am eating hundreds more each day and losing at a healthy pace.
Logic would have it that by watching sugar, eating enough protein and choosing healthy carbs for the most part, my body is shedding fat with no need for restrictive caloric intake. I do not have a perfect diet by any stretch, but my body seems to respond better to letting go of the extra pounds since I kicked gluten from my diet.
So after following outdated and restrictive weight loss paths, I have finally found the one way to lose the stubborn pounds that refused to budge. Just wanted to post for anyone frustrated by watching the calories like a hawk, only to see no real progress for their trouble.
MFP gave you a calorie target based on your stats and desired rate of loss...1200 is the most aggressive rate, and it doesn't include exercise. Most women I know can steadily lose weight eating far more than 1200 calories.
My wife can pretty easily lose about 1 Lb per week eating around 1800 calories and she's short.
Bottom line is that if you're losing weight (fat), you're in an energy deficiency...so CICO absolutely applies...otherwise what you have lost is simply water...possibly a result of decreased inflammation given your condition....
Really though, I can swing 5 Lbs day to day at times...7 -
FWIW, my husband was diagnosed with Celiac a couple of years ago after years of delaying going to a doctor. After the official diagnosis and finally being able to eat without being sick he actually gained 30 pounds going gluten free. It took me convincing him to count calories before he was able to lose that 30 pounds.8
-
FWIW, my husband was diagnosed with Celiac a couple of years ago after years of delaying going to a doctor. After the official diagnosis and finally being able to eat without being sick he actually gained 30 pounds going gluten free. It took me convincing him to count calories before he was able to lose that 30 pounds.
Same thing happened to a friend of mine who was diagnosed as an adult (although she was too thin when diagnosed due to years of health issues before diagnosis, so the gain was part of regaining her health).
Re OP, most people don't need to eat 1200 to lose and that you got that goal from MFP doesn't mean you did, or are losing without a deficit now.2 -
I was all set to make a snarky comment, but WOW, this post has sparked some really interesting conversations. I love it!1
-
FWIW, my husband was diagnosed with Celiac a couple of years ago after years of delaying going to a doctor. After the official diagnosis and finally being able to eat without being sick he actually gained 30 pounds going gluten free. It took me convincing him to count calories before he was able to lose that 30 pounds.
Yeah, that happened to me too. I lost some weight when I was first diagnosed, because I was afraid to eat anything that wasn't plain meat, veg or fruit prepared by me. Then I discovered the gluten-free section of the grocery store, and started eating my way through the cookies and muffins. If it was gluten free I felt obligated to eat it.
7 -
FWIW, my husband was diagnosed with Celiac a couple of years ago after years of delaying going to a doctor. After the official diagnosis and finally being able to eat without being sick he actually gained 30 pounds going gluten free. It took me convincing him to count calories before he was able to lose that 30 pounds.
Yeah, that happened to me too. I lost some weight when I was first diagnosed, because I was afraid to eat anything that wasn't plain meat, veg or fruit prepared by me. Then I discovered the gluten-free section of the grocery store, and started eating my way through the cookies and muffins. If it was gluten free I felt obligated to eat it.
Back when I was diagnosed, there wasn't really a gluten free section of the grocery store, but I made sure to order gluten free flours and cook books off the internet and tried ALL the recipes.
3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FWIW, my husband was diagnosed with Celiac a couple of years ago after years of delaying going to a doctor. After the official diagnosis and finally being able to eat without being sick he actually gained 30 pounds going gluten free. It took me convincing him to count calories before he was able to lose that 30 pounds.
Yeah, that happened to me too. I lost some weight when I was first diagnosed, because I was afraid to eat anything that wasn't plain meat, veg or fruit prepared by me. Then I discovered the gluten-free section of the grocery store, and started eating my way through the cookies and muffins. If it was gluten free I felt obligated to eat it.
Back when I was diagnosed, there wasn't really a gluten free section of the grocery store, but I made sure to order gluten free flours and cook books off the internet and tried ALL the recipes.
I was only diagnosed about 7 years ago, so I was able to take advantage of the gf fad just getting in full swing. My cousin who was diagnosed in the mid-70s ended up rail-thin because there weren't many alternatives and she couldn't eat most of what her family ate.1 -
This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
any weight loss pill that actually worked would be affecting the "CO" side of the equation, so you'd still be in a deficit while eating calories that would normally be maintenance level.
Been reading about a drug that was developed to treat diabetes but has weight loss properties. It reduces your appetite by imitating GLP-1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaglutide
0 -
Several years ago, a doctor finally discovered that gluten was trashing my body (many clueless doctors couldn't figure out my GI problems - this was before the GF craze.) When I eliminated it from my diet (also several years ago) my weight didn't change much - I was already at goal and I didn't change my calorie intake, only eliminated the gluten. Interestingly, although I didn't drop any weight, I actually DID drop a pant size or two simply because the chronic, massive bloating had vanished! I looked great! But the best part was not being sick all the time (TMI: chronic abdominal pain and puking out both ends is no fun).
I think when people make dietary changes for health reasons they often lose weight because they may be inadvertently dropping their calorie intake when they eliminate certain foods. Then they attribute their weight loss to the food elimination. But CICO is still the standard for weight loss, because, physics, of course.6 -
goldthistime wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
any weight loss pill that actually worked would be affecting the "CO" side of the equation, so you'd still be in a deficit while eating calories that would normally be maintenance level.
Been reading about a drug that was developed to treat diabetes but has weight loss properties. It reduces your appetite by imitating GLP-1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaglutide
I think that is the medication marketed in Australia under the brand name Saxenda. Not on PBS for weight loss so quite pricey here.
However, obviously, it does not negate CICO - it reduces appetite and food cravings - hence reduces CI.
( either that or price of it means you can't afford to buy food as well ) *
* joke.
4 -
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full
Ill have to look at the study tomorrow but what argument are you making? Or did you just look for a study to suggest that glucenogenisis increases EE?
Just posting a study without an argument doesnt drive discussion.
what I got out of it was that gluconeogenesis was 67% efficient (33% losses). A person eating all the time with carbs will not be doing that much gluconeogenesis whereas the people that eat very low carb or that do IF (say one meal a day) will be doing a lot more dluconeogensis so they will incur more losses for the same caloric intake.16 -
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
The amount by which fat would be affected by glucogenesis is negligible, which is evident in the lack of insulin release.
Does protein increase metabolism? I was saying that keto changes the way the metabolism functions in that different substances are being broken down for energy, which also has different effects on how the body responds. I wasn't aware protein increases metabolism if that's what you meant. Thank you for telling me about Dr. Hall's studies, I'll check them out.
I don't believe the studies main point was that protein increases metabolism but that the lack of carbs and hence the need for gluconeogenesis caused more calories to be burned. IF is also a lack of carbs during the fasting period and although wasn't discussed in the study, should have the same effect.13 -
stanmann571 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.
Long term results are the accumulation of short terms results and if IF and LC have short term results and are adhered to in the long term, you will get long term results doing them.
Yes, and in the long term, the reduced efficiency balances out with the generally lower energy level caused by LC.
So it seems to me you just acknowledged that it does make LC or IF does make a difference at least in the short term.4 -
russelljam08 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.
Long term results are the accumulation of short terms results and if IF and LC have short term results and are adhered to in the long term, you will get long term results doing them.
Except in the long term LC has no advantage over other woe with the same calorie deficit.
I asked some questions and you completely ignored them. What do you base your statement on?
Low fat has the advantage. Get over it, read and weep
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28193517
"While low-carbohydrate diets have been suggested to partially subvert these processes by increasing energy expenditure and promoting fat loss, our meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies with isocaloric substitution of carbohydrate for fat found that both energy expenditure (26 kcal/d; P <.0001) and fat loss (16 g/d; P <.0001) were greater with lower fat diets. "
I'm not a LC person, I'm just discussing weather LC or IF makes a difference or not. I like my carbs and I eat carbs. So no weeping here. The studies are interesting. I would like to look at them sometime if I can find the time.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Yes, appetite suppressants.
The other sort that do work ( if you can put up with the side effects) are the sort that interfere with fat absorption. So you can eat more and your body does not absorb the calories from the fat content - therefore, of course, the fat content is eliminated in your faeces - it has to go somewhere, it doesn't just vanish.
Super smelly incontinent poo explosions - but, sure, you lose weight.
And obviously this doesn't negate CICO - as calories in is reduced. The same way it is in diseases like chrohn s disease or coeliac disease where the person cannot absorb some types of food.
CO needs to have a standard definition. Seems like it should be based on calories lost due to energy demands or the body and not due to other factors. Then the other factors can be evaluated.7 -
This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
any weight loss pill that actually worked would be affecting the "CO" side of the equation, so you'd still be in a deficit while eating calories that would normally be maintenance level.
People who say you can't lose more than CICO predicts will lump those losses to more CO, but is the CO based on a metabolic need to support the activity and bmr or is the fat just released (with a possible raise in body temp that is independent of workload) without a need for it to be released?
Minor technical quibble: CICO doesn't predict, at least not in the sense of predicting that any specific person will lose a specific amount at a specific calculated calorie level. Two people of the same size, age, and sex may lose at different rates on the same calorie level, with the same activities.
CICO merely posits a central role for calorie balance: That I will lose, maintain or gain when I eat below, above, or exactly at my own personal, idiosyncratic calorie level. You can't predict this calorie level with reliable precision. You can estimate it with a fairly large potential range of error, or determine it experimentally with closer accuracy.
I eat several hundred calories more daily than any calculator says I can, and my weight stays consistent. (This is true, not a theoretical proposition.)
Some less fortunate people have to eat several hundred calories less than calculators predict, to maintain the same weight.
In neither case is CICO violated, nor are the laws of physics.
In the example you use, a raise in body temp is an increase in CO. It's also "work". Energy is being burned. In my example, perhaps one reason some people burn slightly more calories is that they have a slightly higher than average body temperature.
(Body temp isn't exactly the same for everyone, either.)
Of course people have different BMR levels, that doesn't mean LC or IF don't make a difference and cause more calories to be used. Work is a unit of energy but is usually reserved for mechanical motion. Heat is also energy. Energy isn't burned. Energy transitions from one form to another and some of the energy that is available for work (enthalpy) always decreases with each transition (increase in entropy) if I remember thermodynamics correctly.5 -
I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!
CICO isn't a lie, we all obey thermodynamics, CICO just isn't the whole energy equation. CO really needs a clear definition. Excretion isn't part of the CICO equation but there are some calories lost that way.11 -
This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
any weight loss pill that actually worked would be affecting the "CO" side of the equation, so you'd still be in a deficit while eating calories that would normally be maintenance level.
People who say you can't lose more than CICO predicts will lump those losses to more CO, but is the CO based on a metabolic need to support the activity and bmr or is the fat just released (with a possible raise in body temp that is independent of workload) without a need for it to be released?
Minor technical quibble: CICO doesn't predict, at least not in the sense of predicting that any specific person will lose a specific amount at a specific calculated calorie level. Two people of the same size, age, and sex may lose at different rates on the same calorie level, with the same activities.
CICO merely posits a central role for calorie balance: That I will lose, maintain or gain when I eat below, above, or exactly at my own personal, idiosyncratic calorie level. You can't predict this calorie level with reliable precision. You can estimate it with a fairly large potential range of error, or determine it experimentally with closer accuracy.
I eat several hundred calories more daily than any calculator says I can, and my weight stays consistent. (This is true, not a theoretical proposition.)
Some less fortunate people have to eat several hundred calories less than calculators predict, to maintain the same weight.
In neither case is CICO violated, nor are the laws of physics.
In the example you use, a raise in body temp is an increase in CO. It's also "work". Energy is being burned. In my example, perhaps one reason some people burn slightly more calories is that they have a slightly higher than average body temperature. (Body temp isn't exactly the same for everyone, either.)
Of course people have different BMR levels, that doesn't mean LC or IF don't make a difference and cause more calories to be used. Work is a unit of energy but is usually reserved for mechanical motion. Heat is also energy. Energy isn't burned. Energy transitions from one form to another and some of the energy that is available for work (enthalpy) always decreases with each transition (increase in entropy) if I remember thermodynamics correctly.
I agree that I phrased that poorly.
The main underlying question, though, is when you say "People who say you can't lose more than CICO predicts will lump those losses to more CO", what do you mean by "more than CICO predicts"? What, or in what way, does CICO predict?I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!
CICO isn't a lie, we all obey thermodynamics, CICO just isn't the whole energy equation. CO really needs a clear definition. Excretion isn't part of the CICO equation but there are some calories lost that way.
I don't know whether there's a precise definition, but calories lost by excretion are clearly either calories out, or never count as calories in (along with other undigested/undigestible material). In practical terms, it doesn't really matter.3
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
- 424 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