Science undecided of CICO?

Replies

• Posts: 7,122 Member
edited June 2018
This is totally a bot.

I hope so.

Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.

The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.

TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.

The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.

Hate to nitpick but standard deviation doesn't mean maximum and minimum. Stdev represents the deviation from average that captures the majority of the population...something like 70% in a normal distribution. So in a normal distribution a stdev of 10% and a mean of 100 would mean 70% fell between 90 and 110 but 30% were outside that range. There are certainly members within that sample that have values considerably higher or lower than the standard deviation.

So if the standard deviation was 10% on BMR you could expect within a normal distribution some 0.1% of the population would have BMRs more than 30% off the average for that weight.
• Posts: 5,728 Member
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
This is totally a bot.

I hope so.

Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.

The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.

TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.

The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.

Hate to nitpick but standard deviation doesn't mean maximum and minimum. Stdev represents the deviation from average that captures the majority of the population...something like 70% in a normal distribution. So in a normal distribution a stdev of 10% and a mean of 100 would mean 70% fell between 90 and 110 but 30% were outside that range. There are certainly members within that sample that have values considerably higher or lower than the standard deviation.

So if the standard deviation was 10% on BMR you could expect within a normal distribution some 0.1% of the population would have BMRs more than 30% off the average for that weight.

Thanks. I figured you'd clarify for us.

I was primarily interested in correcting the claim that the variation was 100 calories vs 5-15%(depending on study parameters). But I sort of knew I hadn't used stdev exactly correctly.
• Posts: 7,122 Member
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
This is totally a bot.

I hope so.

Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.

The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.

TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.

The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.

Hate to nitpick but standard deviation doesn't mean maximum and minimum. Stdev represents the deviation from average that captures the majority of the population...something like 70% in a normal distribution. So in a normal distribution a stdev of 10% and a mean of 100 would mean 70% fell between 90 and 110 but 30% were outside that range. There are certainly members within that sample that have values considerably higher or lower than the standard deviation.

So if the standard deviation was 10% on BMR you could expect within a normal distribution some 0.1% of the population would have BMRs more than 30% off the average for that weight.

Thanks. I figured you'd clarify for us.

I was primarily interested in correcting the claim that the variation was 100 calories vs 5-15%(depending on study parameters). But I sort of knew I hadn't used stdev exactly correctly.

Fair enough but to clarify did the source you were pulling from state that BMR has a stdev of 10% or was it that you remembered that the maximum variance was 10% from the mean and you just called it stdev?
• Posts: 5,728 Member
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
This is totally a bot.

I hope so.

Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.

The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.

TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.

The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.

Hate to nitpick but standard deviation doesn't mean maximum and minimum. Stdev represents the deviation from average that captures the majority of the population...something like 70% in a normal distribution. So in a normal distribution a stdev of 10% and a mean of 100 would mean 70% fell between 90 and 110 but 30% were outside that range. There are certainly members within that sample that have values considerably higher or lower than the standard deviation.

So if the standard deviation was 10% on BMR you could expect within a normal distribution some 0.1% of the population would have BMRs more than 30% off the average for that weight.

Thanks. I figured you'd clarify for us.

I was primarily interested in correcting the claim that the variation was 100 calories vs 5-15%(depending on study parameters). But I sort of knew I hadn't used stdev exactly correctly.

Fair enough but to clarify did the source you were pulling from state that BMR has a stdev of 10% or was it that you remembered that the maximum variance was 10% from the mean and you just called it stdev?

I was being sloppy, and I apologize.

As I recall, 5-15% was the expected variation with additional outliers a bit further out, so closer to stdev than maximum, and it varied across several studies that I was reading last year with most closer to 10% than 5 or 15. I also don't recall if the sample sizes were even large enough to meaningfully predict a stdev.

I'd have to dig up the sources and grind through them to give a thoroughly vetted answer.
• Posts: 7,122 Member
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
This is totally a bot.

I hope so.

Just in case they aren't, All1971 isn't arguing against CICO at all (agreed there is no CICO Model). They are arguing against the CO estimation formulas. Everyone says those BMR estimates are just that... estimates. The BMR formula is a starting point that every single person has to adjust. There is no CICO Model that says the BMR formula is an exact calculation of calories out. No one says that. All1971 is arguing with people that don't exist.

The problem is that a person's BMR does not vary by more than 100 calories from the charts, even for someone with thyroid issues. The bot is purposefully confusing BMR with TDEE.

TDEE can vary from person to person of similar build/weight/activity by about 500 calories due to NEAT. I don't think the bot cares.

The stdev is 10%, not 100 calories, which mean its can be as high as 200 or 250 calories. Additionally, that's just the stdev, outliers can be even further off.

Hate to nitpick but standard deviation doesn't mean maximum and minimum. Stdev represents the deviation from average that captures the majority of the population...something like 70% in a normal distribution. So in a normal distribution a stdev of 10% and a mean of 100 would mean 70% fell between 90 and 110 but 30% were outside that range. There are certainly members within that sample that have values considerably higher or lower than the standard deviation.

So if the standard deviation was 10% on BMR you could expect within a normal distribution some 0.1% of the population would have BMRs more than 30% off the average for that weight.

Thanks. I figured you'd clarify for us.

I was primarily interested in correcting the claim that the variation was 100 calories vs 5-15%(depending on study parameters). But I sort of knew I hadn't used stdev exactly correctly.

Fair enough but to clarify did the source you were pulling from state that BMR has a stdev of 10% or was it that you remembered that the maximum variance was 10% from the mean and you just called it stdev?

I was being sloppy, and I apologize.

As I recall, 5-15% was the expected variation with additional outliers a bit further out, so closer to stdev than maximum, and it varied across several studies that I was reading last year with most closer to 10% than 5 or 15. I also don't recall if the sample sizes were even large enough to meaningfully predict a stdev.

I'd have to dig up the sources and grind through them to give a thoroughly vetted answer.

Eh you don't need to. I was just curious because if the stdev of BMR is 10% across the population then there probably would be some pretty significant outliers....ie people whose weight would give a BMR formula calculation of 1500 based on the population average but whose BMR is actually more like 1050 (3-sigma). That would be suprising to me, I would have expected it to be much tighter than that.
• Posts: 1,212 Member
edited June 2018
Discussing what component of TDEE is affected the most by losing fat:

"And this actually happens with a recent study (mimicking the Minnesota study for 3 weeks) found a loss of organ mass in the first week of dieting that explained most of the drop in RMR (18). There was still an adaptive component, mind you, it was simply smaller than had been seen previously. Given the importance of LBM in determining RMR, it's usually been felt (and at least some studies find) that preventing LBM while dieting is the best way to limit the a reduction in metabolic rate (adaptive or otherwise).

While there is at least some truth to this, the fact is that RMR tends to drop in response to large-scale fat and weight loss even if LBM is maintained (19). And this is due to the fact that body fat is sending the primary signal to the brain in terms of how it should adapt to dieting. Looking at the magnitude of the drop, a primary factor is still BF%.

In the Category 3 individual losing a moderate amount of weight, the total adaptiverop may be no more than 150-250 calories. Of this decrease, perhaps 10-15% is due to the changes in RMR and this amounts to roughly 15-40 calories per day, an insignificantly small number. Even the dieter who experiences a 500 calorie total decrease will still only see the RMR drop making up 50-70 calories per day. "

The Women’s Book Lyle McDonald
• Posts: 27,199 Member
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
All1971 wrote: »
Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?

According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,

On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)

According to the gravity model - your daily strength training with weights should be the weight you are lifting times the amount of times you are lifting it. My point is that weight that you should lift when you start seems to do a poor job of predicting the weight someone should lift overtime when one is doing strength training. The formulas used to calculate what a progressive program load should look like have been shown to be not that accurate. If the progressive load formula is an inaccurate variable in the gravity model then the whole gravity model has a flaw.

We need the 'Awesome' button back.

I've been thinking that for the last few pages
• Posts: 29,626 Member
These guys usually do a good job; I haven't done anything to validate, so FWIW:

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

• Posts: 5,728 Member
AnnPT77 wrote: »
These guys usually do a good job; I haven't done anything to validate, so FWIW:

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

Thanks Ann.
Recent findings In humans, the coefficient of variation in the components of total daily energy expenditure is around 5-8% for resting metabolic rate, 1-2% for exercise energy expenditure, and around 20% for diet-induced thermogenesis. The coefficient of variance for 24 h energy expenditure measured using a room calorimeter for resting metabolic rate is around 5-10%. Thus, these measures are all rather reproducible. Total daily energy expenditure varies several-fold in humans, not due to variation in resting metabolic rate, diet-induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis, but rather, due to variations in nonexercise activity. A variety of factors impact nonexercise activity, including occupation, environment, education, genetics, age, gender, and body composition, but little is known about the magnitude of effect.

This lines up nicely with what's commonly criticized as MFP received wisdom.

1. TDEE/BMR/NEAT estimates need to be adjusted for and can vary from person to person
2. ACCURATE exercise estimations can be trusted almost completely
3. food estimates have a great deal of room for error(and apparently it's not just weighing/logging causing it)

• Posts: 58 Member
Caralarma wrote: »

If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.

You would lose weight because you aren't eating carbs... kidding! People like to complicate weight loss and blame it on certain food groups because they can't accept that they just need to put the damn fork down

ROFL at first I thought you were serious about the not eating carbs part lol.

But yeah, it's hard to accept that the reason why most people can't lose weight is because they're eating too much.
• Posts: 29,626 Member
edited June 2018
All1971 wrote: »
AnnPT77 wrote: »
CICO is not a model. It's just the energy balance equation.

An energy balance equation IS a scientific model. From Wikipedia...

"A scientific model seeks to represent empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical and objective way. All models are in simulacra, that is, simplified reflections of reality that, despite being approximations, can be extremely useful.[4] Building and disputing models is fundamental to the scientific enterprise. Complete and true representation may be impossible, but scientific debate often concerns which is the better model for a given task, e.g., which is the more accurate climate model for seasonal forecasting.[5]...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

LOL!

You're still missing the point. You've continue to claim that the model/equation includes variables not named in the equation. You've further seemed to argue that by its very nature the model/equation contends that those unshown but included variables are rigid, invariant, and predictable by formula.

I'll happily leave it to other readers to decide who's making the best overall argument on the substance.

Edited: Trying to sort out messed-up quote tags.
• Posts: 29,626 Member
AnnPT77 wrote: »
These guys usually do a good job; I haven't done anything to validate, so FWIW:

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

Thanks Ann.
Recent findings In humans, the coefficient of variation in the components of total daily energy expenditure is around 5-8% for resting metabolic rate, 1-2% for exercise energy expenditure, and around 20% for diet-induced thermogenesis. The coefficient of variance for 24 h energy expenditure measured using a room calorimeter for resting metabolic rate is around 5-10%. Thus, these measures are all rather reproducible. Total daily energy expenditure varies several-fold in humans, not due to variation in resting metabolic rate, diet-induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis, but rather, due to variations in nonexercise activity. A variety of factors impact nonexercise activity, including occupation, environment, education, genetics, age, gender, and body composition, but little is known about the magnitude of effect.

This lines up nicely with what's commonly criticized as MFP received wisdom.

1. TDEE/BMR/NEAT estimates need to be adjusted for and can vary from person to person
2. ACCURATE exercise estimations can be trusted almost completely
3. food estimates have a great deal of room for error(and apparently it's not just weighing/logging causing it)

I'm not a statistician, but #2 is not how I'd interpret what they're saying as a practical matter, if I'm understanding your #2 statement. I would have read what they're saying as amounting to something more like "when 2 different people and do the very same exercise at the same intensity (power metered), they will burn within 1-2% of the same number of calories" (for some exercises that would require the people to be of the same personal characteristics, or it's different exercise?), or maybe just asserting that the same exercise for the same person doesn't vary much in calorie expenditure.

I think maybe #3 is why folks are wanting to see protein held constant when comparing weight loss on high fat vs. high carb diets . . . not that those are the only sources of variation in TEF, as far as I understand it (and I don't understand it much ).

Someone else probably has a better understanding - like the actual science folks here.