Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Replies
-
Some people with celiacs also have other problems and cannot absorb nutrients like others. Which means those people might be undereating involuntarily by just eating a lot of food their body does not absorb properly. Just another possibility.
edit: oh, just 6 pounds? That's water weight or just a bit of bloating for most. Forgot what I wrote above.
1 -
Well, yes, yirara that is what I meant before - weight loss pills which mean you can't absorb fat or diseases which mean you cant absorb certain foods, eg Crohns disease or coleiac disease.
I would call this reducing calories in - you aren't burning more, you are not absorbing them in the first place.
They go through your digestive system unabsorbed
But, semantics really.1 -
MFP suggests calorie target based on your weight loss rate, not your weight loss goal. Pick a too aggressive goal, and you get the lowest MFP will go.
Could it be that eating enough is what stopped migraines and cravings, improved sleep and mood?
Eating at a moderate deficit, and a balanced diet, is exactly what people in here recommend, every day.
Sticking to a calorie deficit is what makes you lose weight. Eating so little that you can't stick to it, is extremely common, but it does not invalidate CICO.
Do YOU have celiac disease? Keep in mind that restricting foods is not easy in the log run, it just seems so simple in the beginning.4 -
What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.5 -
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.
Except that celiac is one of thousands of autoimmune conditions. most of which have nothing to do with gluten, and thus your statement was ambiguous.
Finally, having reread her OP, there's no clinical evidence she has celiac... merely a family history.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.9 -
paperpudding wrote: »Well, yes, yirara that is what I meant before - weight loss pills which mean you can't absorb fat or diseases which mean you cant absorb certain foods, eg Crohns disease or coleiac disease.
I would call this reducing calories in - you aren't burning more, you are not absorbing them in the first place.
They go through your digest
It is semantics but it matters in these discussions.0 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.8
-
rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.7 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
Surely if there is a medical situation it's still something that affects calories in or calories out, either by meddling with a persons metabolic rate or their ability to absorb certain nutrients.
It's all approximates when it comes to Calories In and Calories Out but you can still get a pretty decent idea of what they are. I know what my Calories Out is for a normal day because I have been able to successfully maintain my weight over periods of time by eating the amount equal to what I burn.4 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!14 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
The fact IS, if a person who continually fails to lose weight on a reasonable calorie intake doesn't know what is in their way then they will never have success. But they will hear, "CICO! It's ALL you need!" Some folks do need to dig deeper. But you know that. You just want to argue. Carry on!19 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
Exactly!
Everyone is different, but for the vast majority of people, without any medical issues, eating less calories than your body burns is the only way we lose excess weight. No matter whether or not you are actively counting the calories you consume or expend, or arrive at the loss by any other way. You are eating less calories than you are burning if you are losing weight.
0 -
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.
The biggest problem with this study is that it doesn't align to how people normally operate on LCHF or Keto diets. Most do not have a protein intake of 30% (~170g in the study), they do not have a 0% carb intake and do not go through glycogen depletion workouts. So while the study is interesting, application is limited.
Glucenogenesis just doesn't occur because it can, it occurs because it has to. And if you look at matched calories and protein studies, the increase in EE is not there for keto or LCHF diets as compared to a higher carb diet. This study suggested the increase in EE driven by glucenogenesis was ~ 42% of the EE change; of which the TEE goes from 2404 to 2411, so minimal.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519/T3.expansion.html
7 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
The fact IS, if a person who continually fails to lose weight on a reasonable calorie intake doesn't know what is in their way then they will never have success. But they will hear, "CICO! It's ALL you need!" Some folks do need to dig deeper. But you know that. You just want to argue. Carry on!
What do they define "reasonable" as?
How are they measuring their calorie intake?
What entries in MFP are they using for logging?
Are they eating back exercise calories? How were they measured?
etc. etc.
ALL things that could be potential pitfalls
ALL things that get asked when someone doesn't know why they're not losing weight.
ALL things that people like the person you just told "you just want to argue" to are asking to help find the reason people don't lose weight.9 -
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.
Of course it makes a difference, but what value does it provide? Why would you want to force your body to function inefficiently? And short-term results are not indicative of long-term results. You can eat a diet of purely isolated carbs (no fat or protein), and the short-term results (up to a few days maybe longer) would not be quantifiable or reach statistical significance against an isocaloric, mixed-macro control diet. Long-term though, the carb-only diet would make your body incredibly inefficient, making you lose weight until you eventually die from malnutrition-induced organ failure. None of this violates CICO by the way.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
The fact IS, if a person who continually fails to lose weight on a reasonable calorie intake doesn't know what is in their way then they will never have success. But they will hear, "CICO! It's ALL you need!" Some folks do need to dig deeper. But you know that. You just want to argue. Carry on!
What do they define "reasonable" as?
How are they measuring their calorie intake?
What entries in MFP are they using for logging?
Are they eating back exercise calories? How were they measured?
etc. etc.
ALL things that could be potential pitfalls
ALL things that get asked when someone doesn't know why they're not losing weight.
ALL things that people like the person you just told "you just want to argue" to are asking to help find the reason people don't lose weight.
Sorry. I didn't post a comment because I felt like arguing with internet strangers. My comment is being interpreted subjectively and honestly I do not care. I have no need to win arguments or engage in them with all of you self proclaimed experts. I don't have time to return to argue or take jabs or whatever it is you do around here all the livelong day. So again I say, Carry on! And enjoy yourself while you're at it.17 -
stevencloser wrote: »Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
The fact IS, if a person who continually fails to lose weight on a reasonable calorie intake doesn't know what is in their way then they will never have success. But they will hear, "CICO! It's ALL you need!" Some folks do need to dig deeper. But you know that. You just want to argue. Carry on!
What do they define "reasonable" as?
How are they measuring their calorie intake?
What entries in MFP are they using for logging?
Are they eating back exercise calories? How were they measured?
etc. etc.
ALL things that could be potential pitfalls
ALL things that get asked when someone doesn't know why they're not losing weight.
ALL things that people like the person you just told "you just want to argue" to are asking to help find the reason people don't lose weight.
Sorry. I didn't post a comment because I felt like arguing with internet strangers. My comment is being interpreted subjectively and honestly I do not care. I have no need to win arguments or engage in them with all of you self proclaimed experts. I don't have time to return to argue or take jabs or whatever it is you do around here all the livelong day. So again I say, Carry on! And enjoy yourself while you're at it.
Well then, I will not proclaim myself an expert and will interpret your comment objectively. There is no underlying pathology or individual inefficiency that can prevent weight loss from occurring if calorie intake is reduced to below energy balance. May not be the best choice given the individual's circumstances, but you will lose weight. This is a fact due to the law of the conservation of energy.11 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
I think the crux of the problem is that people feel it should be more complicated than it is and are amazing a making excuses, so they latch onto anything that might explain their failure to lose weight. Certainly there are many things we don’t know around the margins of CICO, but it’s just around the margins. The key to your point above is the word “exact” - you don’t have to have exactly the right diet, or exactly the right meal timing, or exactly anything to lose weight. You just have to consume roughly fewer calorie than you use. The only thing that really matters is compliance over time.
This argument reminds me of why I hated philosophy in college - at a certain point, you’re just going around in circles for no reason, and I don’t have the patience for that kind of hair splitting unless I’m real drunk and among good friends. The bottom line for me is, does this matter to real people in the real world?15 -
Yes and anecdotes don't overide evidence. This is NOT an uncommon opinion by people who seem to think that CICO doesn't apply to people who don't eat "clean".I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!
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
0 -
My understanding of LCHF (which I do, to some degree) is that the idea is that you DON'T do much gluconeogenesis. You simply fuel a higher percentage of your activity with fat (that you consume) vs. carbs.
That's consistent with the evidence where a straight one for one comparison of low carb vs. low fat shows no meaningful difference in fat loss with controlled intake. It's also consistent with longer term studies and studies that control for protein intake, which also show no difference (although compliance is always an issue with those).
I think the gluconeogensis argument is essentially the reverse of the McDougall Starch Solution argument, which is that you can't gain weight eating high carb and low fat, because you waste so many calories if you have to turn carbs to fat (and in any case it gives you a higher metabolism). That's silly too, when it comes to real life.
Anyway, nothing to do with OP's post which seems to be that if you go from feeling bad to feeling good, drop some inflammation or water weight, and eat a sensible controlled diet, you can definitely do very well eating more than 1200. Heck, that's how I lost weight, and I never thought it meant CICO had no bearing on my diet or losses.4 -
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.
This might help you: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989
CICO is an representation of EE. People's misinterpretations of that doesn't make it any less relevant.7 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
The fact IS, if a person who continually fails to lose weight on a reasonable calorie intake doesn't know what is in their way then they will never have success. But they will hear, "CICO! It's ALL you need!" Some folks do need to dig deeper. But you know that. You just want to argue. Carry on!
I agree that we sometimes see a pile-on in the forums: Some people who've had simple results from calorie counting at calculated goals (but who don't have much understanding of the underlying mechanics or variability in individuals) may wave the banner, and sometimes in a dismissive or even rude way.
However, I personally don't see this always, or even most often. That "why am I not losing" flowchart that's posted in so many such threads that some regulars almost get hostile about it (
)? It quite quickly branches to a "see your doctor - could be medical". Yeah, the chart leaves out many nuances, it's a bit of a blunt object, but it seems like an argument that the MFP forum culture doesn't simply beat people over the head with "CICO! CICO! CICO!")
I'm not going to repost the flowchart here, but if it's not familiar, one of the many places you can see it is right at the top of replies in this thread: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/40602638#Comment_40602638
The patient, kind, helpful old hands pretty much always go on asking questions and helping the OP, as long as OP provides the needed details rather than disappearing. (I love those old hands!
) 6 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
It's actually pretty easy. Most of these calculators will give you a good starting point based on population statistics...from there you just adjust based on what's actually going on...that's pretty much how I figured out that I maintain on about 2800 calories per day give or take (it's a range really)...so my total CO is around 2800 calories per day.
Medical conditions are just another variable in the equation...it doesn't negate the math...it just means that someone's CO may not be what another persons CO is of similar stats...it's simply a variable the muddies the waters.
My CO is higher than most calculators give me for persons with similar stats...I think primarily because I'm very fidgety and have difficulty sitting still for very long.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.18 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Once again: Please explain what, or how, CICO predicts.
Maybe I'm obtuse, but I like to learn.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Except for all those studies that say they don't matter...8 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.
I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!
The fact IS, if a person who continually fails to lose weight on a reasonable calorie intake doesn't know what is in their way then they will never have success. But they will hear, "CICO! It's ALL you need!" Some folks do need to dig deeper. But you know that. You just want to argue. Carry on!
What do they define "reasonable" as?
How are they measuring their calorie intake?
What entries in MFP are they using for logging?
Are they eating back exercise calories? How were they measured?
etc. etc.
ALL things that could be potential pitfalls
ALL things that get asked when someone doesn't know why they're not losing weight.
ALL things that people like the person you just told "you just want to argue" to are asking to help find the reason people don't lose weight.
Sorry. I didn't post a comment because I felt like arguing with internet strangers. My comment is being interpreted subjectively and honestly I do not care. I have no need to win arguments or engage in them with all of you self proclaimed experts. I don't have time to return to argue or take jabs or whatever it is you do around here all the livelong day. So again I say, Carry on! And enjoy yourself while you're at it.
These aren't jabs or arguments. You said some people need to dig deeper, and these kinds of questions is how digging deeper happens. The person who fails to lose weight can either troubleshoot through all the possible user error scenarios, and if nothing solves it seek medical investigation, or they could give up and blame their "metabolism". Which one do you think would ultimately lead to their success? I burn 180-200 fewer calories than calculators estimate. All I needed to do was recognize that by accurate logging and direct my expectations accordingly. CICO still applies in my case, but due to several issues the CO part is kind of screwed up for me.6
This discussion has been closed.
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