Energy equation - the best article I've ever read
Replies
-
I've never understood the whole "resistant starch" theory - that the calories in starches such as potatoes are harder to absorb if they are chilled. Once they are inside you wouldn't they be reheated to 98.6 and throw that theory out the window?
I have read that the "starch" actually changes form when it has been chilled - http://www.medicaldaily.com/healthy-meal-cooking-and-cooling-pasta-changes-starch-quality-cut-calories-fat-3073000 -
Great article! Thanks for sharing.0
-
Giving this a bump, since I reposted it to another discussion where it seemed relevant2
-
Great read!0
-
Glad you bumped. I missed it the first time you posted @rybo. Great article - comprehensive and easy to understand.2
-
Excellent! I've been slammed for saying some of the same things on these forums.
CICO as most people discuss on these forums is the worst case for calculating a deficit. It assumes you digest and use all calories in and it also assumes that calories out are only due to bmr and energy demands on the body. So if you go by that reasoning and if your accurate with CI the mouth and exercise and bmr estimates, it is a useful tool for losing weight. It isn't the whole equation though as discussed. Not all food is used, some takes more energy to digest (especially if gluconeogenesis is high), and fat can be liberated through thermoneogensis not due to body energy demands. Also hormone effects on hunger do influence how much we eat!
Now the diagram that showed all the feedback should be modified by taking the time derivative of everything so that each term is a rate (CI rate - CO rate) and you can then also look at magnitude and rate limiting of these processes which also has effects (the body can process things to a max level and at a max rate).14 -
Good article but hard to believe it's totally unbiased as they just want to promote their nutrition program (has nobody else caught it, seriously?).3
-
The article starts off well and then goes off into dubious methods for further weight loss and a shill for Precision Blah Blah.
Grade B.2 -
Excellent! I've been slammed for saying some of the same things on these forums.
CICO as most people discuss on these forums is the worst case for calculating a deficit. It assumes you digest and use all calories in and it also assumes that calories out are only due to bmr and energy demands on the body. So if you go by that reasoning and if your accurate with CI the mouth and exercise and bmr estimates, it is a useful tool for losing weight. It isn't the whole equation though as discussed. Not all food is used, some takes more energy to digest (especially if gluconeogenesis is high), and fat can be liberated through thermoneogensis not due to body energy demands. Also hormone effects on hunger do influence how much we eat!
Now the diagram that showed all the feedback should be modified by taking the time derivative of everything so that each term is a rate (CI rate - CO rate) and you can then also look at magnitude and rate limiting of these processes which also has effects (the body can process things to a max level and at a max rate).
For the billionth time, NO IT DOESN'T.
Every knowledgeable person on this board is aware of all the points raised in that article.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »
If that’s what you took away, you missed the point. The article is saying that CI doesn’t equal CO the same for everyone. So, observing results, and adjusting CI, will always lead to the desired results. Therefore, CI=CO. It always works and the equation always works. But, the integers are not universal. Everyone has to adjust for their own results.
It’s really baffling that people throw out CICO because they don’t understand science. The equation always works.
Here is an article i posted for him multiple times discussing the complexity. And its always over looked.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989
5 -
I noticed. As well as the fact that half of their sources are 10+ years old. The article sounds good, but I would like it to be backed by more up to date research and NOT end in a massive self-advertisement.Good article but hard to believe it's totally unbiased as they just want to promote their nutrition program (has nobody else caught it, seriously?).
3 -
I noticed. As well as the fact that half of their sources are 10+ years old. The article sounds good, but I would like it to be backed by more up to date research and NOT end in a massive self-advertisement.
Old references aren't necessarily a bad thing. Why would people continue to research something that is solidly proven? There are very limited research dollars as well as limited time. There are tons of areas where there is no longer current active research because things have been sufficiently well studied in the past to explain what we need to know (at the current moment). If a new hypothesis is generated or if a study (likely of something else) produces results that cast doubt on the original hypothesis, then yeah, people will start researching that again. But until then, it makes sense to study things that are less well understood.
That said, there are plenty of current studies that validate CICO. That just isn't their purpose- rather they just use it as a tool/ given fact. They have a different stated purpose (and likely wouldn't be cited as proof for CICO). I've read multiple recent studies where they set calories/weight loss targets based on CICO and then tested something else (e.g. different types of exercise, macro breakdowns, etc. on lipid profiles, body comp, or whatever). However, the amount of weight the subjects lost generally is usually pretty much as predicted by CICO. I will note that most current papers don't even point this out (because it is so well established/obvious?)- I usually pull out my calculator and check that the weight loss matches the calories deficit.
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
For the billionth time, NO IT DOESN'T.
Every knowledgeable person on this board is aware of all the points raised in that article.
Since there was about 20 points mentioned, I'm not sure what your talking about. Also, if you agree with what was in the article, that is in opposition to CICO is the whole equation.6 -
Since there was about 20 points mentioned, I'm not sure what your talking about. Also, if you agree with what was in the article, that is in opposition to CICO is the whole equation.
No, it's in opposition to what you think the CICO equation is.
The CICO equation, in an objective sense, accounts for everything you think it doesn't account for. Countless people have told you this. You keep ignoring this.
The fact that an individual cannot manually calculate the variables doesn't negate the fact that they are part of what science considers to be part of the energy balance equation, and what science considers to be the energy balance equation IS CICO.6 -
Since there was about 20 points mentioned, I'm not sure what your talking about. Also, if you agree with what was in the article, that is in opposition to CICO is the whole equation.
This, among other threads, further demonstrates your lack of understanding about the CICO and the inherent complexities that are involved. What is in the article is also discussed in Dr. Halls paper.4 -
Many people on MFP assume all calories in the mouth is equal to all the calories either stored or all the calories used for energy demands of the body. That is how most people I've come across here have interpreted CICO. On the CI-side, they do not take into account excretion, they do not take into account the various energy required between directly using the calories consumed, storing the energy as glycogen, or storing the energy as fat (all three of these use up different amounts of energy and are dependent on what is eaten and also if the body is in a fasted or depleted state or not). On the CO-side, the differences in using the stored energy in the blood, in using glycogen, using fat by performing gluconeogenesis, or producing keytones are also ignored. Also thermogenic effecs of fat being liberated not due to an energy demand are also ignored. I could dig out hundreds of peoples posts that ignore all those things. These people just say the bmr isn't known and lump all the effects into that term. Tell me what is wrong with the paper referenced!3
-
Many people on MFP assume all calories in the mouth is equal to all the calories either stored or all the calories used for energy demands of the body. That is how most people I've come across here have interpreted CICO. On the CI-side, they do not take into account excretion, they do not take into account the various energy required between directly using the calories consumed, storing the energy as glycogen, or storing the energy as fat (all three of these use up different amounts of energy and are dependent on what is eaten and also if the body is in a fasted or depleted state or not). On the CO-side, the differences in using the stored energy in the blood, in using glycogen, using fat by performing gluconeogenesis, or producing keytones are also ignored. Also thermogenic effecs of fat being liberated not due to an energy demand are also ignored. I could dig out hundreds of peoples posts that ignore all those things. These people just say the bmr isn't known and lump all the effects into that term. Tell me what is wrong with the paper referenced!
So enlighten us, how does one implement all those factors if not by, as is advised here, to start with a number and adjust via results? This is a classic case of majoring in the minors. Results are what matter. CICO works for everyone, whether you understand the minutiae or not.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
So enlighten us, how does one implement all those factors if not by, as is advised here, to start with a number and adjust via results? This is a classic case of majoring in the minors. Results are what matter. CICO works for everyone, whether you understand the minutiae or not.
Of course CICO works because it assumes all CI the mouth are used as meeting energy demands or fat storage even when they are not. That is a worst case estimate. Same thing with the CO side. The idea that CO is only due to bodies energy demands is worst case also. If you go by CICO, it will work. The only danger I see by looking at it that way is the possibility of driving down the metabolism low by always eating at a deficit.
To model what is happening to a dynamic system, you can't just average stuff over a day or a week to see what is happening, you need to model instantaneous effects. Eating the same calories over the whole day or eating them in a short window should have some different effects. If a person always consumes at an instantaneous rate that is less than the TDEE rate, that person is always in a deficit. If a person eats the same amount of calories as the example just mentioned but does it in a short window, then that person will have a short term temporary surplus. That should drive metabolism effects differently than the person that rarely or barely has a surplus. Anyone who has modeled dynamic systems looks at instantaneous effects because in real systems, everything has saturation and rate limits on what it can do. Those effects are significant in real-life dynamic systems.5 -
JerSchmare wrote: »
If that’s what you took away, you missed the point. The article is saying that CI doesn’t equal CO the same for everyone. So, observing results, and adjusting CI, will always lead to the desired results. Therefore, CI=CO. It always works and the equation always works. But, the integers are not universal. Everyone has to adjust for their own results.
It’s really baffling that people throw out CICO because they don’t understand science. The equation always works.
If you want to get technical, the control volume to study this should be the fat cells, what goes in and comes out of them not what goes in the mouth and what is used up as energy by body demands. CI the mouth is not the same as calories stored or used by the body. There are losses along the way. Also CO of the fat cells isn't the same as energy available for the body to do work. There are losses along the way there too. Of course there is an energy equation that governs all of this, but it is not as how most people think of CICO. CICO is a worst case conservative estimate for fat gain/loss and will work but other things can augment it and make it better if the dynamics are understood.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
So enlighten us, how does one implement all those factors if not by, as is advised here, to start with a number and adjust via results? This is a classic case of majoring in the minors. Results are what matter. CICO works for everyone, whether you understand the minutiae or not.
Buy their advise and eat like they tell you to. They seem to think it makes a difference over just plain CICO. I think it does too. That's really not necessary cause CICO will work but I think their methods will work better.4 -
Great article....always nice to read something scientifically backed and not a bunch of fad diet mumbo jumbo....right on the money. Thanks for the post.0
-
It so funny, how for all these people (including Precision Nutrition to some extent), who want to EMPHASIZE the variables that play into CICO to the point that they feel it invalidates it (this doesn't count Precision Nutrition, blambo's reading of the article aside), most people manage to roughly lose weight at pretty much the expected rate if they take pains to be as accurate as possible in their calculations of both energy intake and expenditure.
Amazing how all these little piddling factors just don't amount to a hill of beans.7 -
Well, unless you eat that hill of beans.
But then, are you really absorbing all the calories in those beans?
And how does the major effect of all those eaten beans effect your life in general?
3 -
Well, unless you eat that hill of beans.
But then, are you really absorbing all the calories in those beans?
And how does the major effect of all those eaten beans effect your life in general?
Do you really want to know the answer to that last question? I mean beans earn their reputation, you know?3 -
Of course CICO works because it assumes all CI the mouth are used as meeting energy demands or fat storage even when they are not. That is a worst case estimate. Same thing with the CO side. The idea that CO is only due to bodies energy demands is worst case also. If you go by CICO, it will work. The only danger I see by looking at it that way is the possibility of driving down the metabolism low by always eating at a deficit.
To model what is happening to a dynamic system, you can't just average stuff over a day or a week to see what is happening, you need to model instantaneous effects. Eating the same calories over the whole day or eating them in a short window should have some different effects. If a person always consumes at an instantaneous rate that is less than the TDEE rate, that person is always in a deficit. If a person eats the same amount of calories as the example just mentioned but does it in a short window, then that person will have a short term temporary surplus. That should drive metabolism effects differently than the person that rarely or barely has a surplus. Anyone who has modeled dynamic systems looks at instantaneous effects because in real systems, everything has saturation and rate limits on what it can do. Those effects are significant in real-life dynamic systems.
Still haven't answered the question. How do you identify and implement all of the factors you want to hang your hat on as pivotal to weight management if not by self testing your own CICO balance?
That's it. That's what I asked. Tell me how to track and work out what my needs are to lose, maintain and gain.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
Still haven't answered the question. How do you identify and implement all of the factors you want to hang your hat on as pivotal to weight management if not by self testing your own CICO balance?
That's it. That's what I asked. Tell me how to track and work out what my needs are to lose, maintain and gain.
The answer is simple... you cant. We do not live in metabolic chambers. We cant measure to the minute level or anything else. Where he continues to fail on this argument, is that at best we can only estimate. What he also doesn't understand is that if you track the same way over a given time, one can form a rough estimate of tdee; its no different than how he eats 20:4 to lose weight and 16:8 to maintain. Its a basic natural mechanism to account for calories.
And lol at the wholw glucenogenisis argument thrown in there.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
Still haven't answered the question. How do you identify and implement all of the factors you want to hang your hat on as pivotal to weight management if not by self testing your own CICO balance?
That's it. That's what I asked. Tell me how to track and work out what my needs are to lose, maintain and gain.
I thought I did answer. I think CICO is the starting point. After that, you can use some things like fasting, LC, and other things mentioned in the article.
2 -
The answer is simple... you cant. We do not live in metabolic chambers. We cant measure to the minute level or anything else. Where he continues to fail on this argument, is that at best we can only estimate. What he also doesn't understand is that if you track the same way over a given time, one can form a rough estimate of tdee; its no different than how he eats 20:4 to lose weight and 16:8 to maintain. Its a basic natural mechanism to account for calories.
And lol at the wholw glucenogenisis argument thrown in there.
You are averaging everything into a bmr doing that. You can get an average doing that by your observation but that doesn't mean you can't change it by what and when you eat. Your dismissiveness on the gluconeogenesis is just that. Studies show it is 67% efficient. If your fasting for long periods (20:4) you do a lot more of it therefore you will burn more calories due to that vs directly using the calories as they come in.2 -
Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.
Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.
This is why it's being dismissed.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions