Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Why do people deny CICO ?

Options
1…4445474950…73

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Whatever it is I assume height is being used with some sort of population average to make assumptions about muscle content. Sort of like Height to weight gives you BMI which makes assumptions about your percent bodyfat based on population averages. I think people understand that, the question for me is more esoteric...does height itself matter at all for CO or is it just a corollary for something else like muscle content?

    (P.S. Following is not debate/criticism of your comment - intended as casual follow-on conversation.)

    I'd been wondering if this sub-conversation was taking into account the statistical nature of the standard CO estimates. I see that you, at least, were.

    I haven't dug into the statistical underpinnings of the calorie estimation formulas at any level of detail (soooo boring! ;) ) but have idly wondered to what extent "average" but suboptimal behavior skews the outcomes for people who are not as average.

    That improbable 5'3" jacked 200-pound guy would get poor estimates from calculators, of course, and the reason would involve somehow the undeniable fact that most 5'3" 200-pound men are seriously fat so they drive the stats behind the formula.

    My understanding is that the formula is skewed toward people with healthy body fat percentages, so it likely tends to overestimate calorie burn for people with obese levels of body fat. This is why when I started I estimated my body fat and then took a big range on either side and looked at the likely BMR/TDEE under the BF% model (Katch-McArdle) and compared it to MFP's numbers. It's also why I don't get too hung up on the fact that someone obese gets a TDEE of, say, 2200 on a calculator when only 5'3, chances are that person's real TDEE is lower.

    Obviously, some people have higher than predicted TDEEs too, even taking body fat into account. This (again! and I know you agree) is why calculators are only a starting point, adjusting is needed, however you cut calories, if results aren't as planned, and having a lower or higher TDEE than a calculator says you should has zero to do with the merits of CICO.

    Of course.

    What I'm saying, I think, is that it would be interesting to have a better understanding of other things that skew the formula with respect to other differences in the underlying population, the limitations of the model - what the likely sources of variation are, where they enter the model (partly a function of the structure of the model), etc.

    Just, y'know, not quite interesting enough to actually invest the effort in figuring it out. ;)

    I took my Nth college statistics class during summer semester. It was about something that amounted to estimating the error in the estimated error of the estimates of the characteristics of the population based on the data from the sample - statistics about statistics about statistics about samples of populations. It was summer. The sun was shining. It was lovely outside, as I could see through the big windows in my statistics class. I was maybe 20 years old. I dropped the class. ;)

    Apologies for the digression.

    Yeah, that would be interesting.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    abbynormal52 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    abbynormal52 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    abbynormal52 wrote: »
    Caralarma wrote: »
    So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong

    I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.

    Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?

    And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?

    Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.

    Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")

    This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.

    Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".

    Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.

    You seemed to think there was something you were referring to as "simply CICO" which was "not enough" for you, which is why I thought (and still think) you were referring to calorie counting.

    Many people deny calories are what matter for weight loss. Just a few posts ago someone suggested that doing keto meant someone could eat way over their assumed maintenance level (or I think that was the point) and lose weight. Similarly, there are endless posts about "if I'm within my calories but eat a pizza or a donut, will I lose?" In those threads, there often are people who insist that in fact they CANNOT lose, even at a level they normally lose at (like 1200) if they eat ANY [insert food here]. So yeah, denying CICO is common.

    There are also endless diet gurus claiming that calories don't matter. Most (not all) of them actually admit they do, but still say not to think about them, follow their program, but some actually insist that calories do not matter for weight loss (Taubes is trying to disprove that they do, I think, although he's struck out badly so far).

    As for nutrition and health, obviously those are important, no one has said otherwise. Again, this idea that some focus only on calories and absolutely nothing else (not satiety, not how to make not going over calories easier) is kind of a strawman, don't you think? But what determines weight loss (or gain or maintenance) is calorie balance.

    CICO is a shorthand for saying "calorie balance is what determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain."

Categories