3 ms·
There is a serious problem with counting both in and out calories, to the point that makes this useless in general - e.g. in serious studies they lock you in a
by beagle3 8y ago
There is a serious problem with counting both in and out calories, to the point that makes this useless in general - e.g. in serious studies they lock you in a room with controlled air and temperature in order to measure carbon out (or fit a respiration mask to do that). Anything less involved has error in the tens of percents.
Furthermore - on phone now, can’t find ref - but mass general IIRC had a study where people where being significantly over fed (with a feeding tube) yet lost weight; google Robert Israel and Michel Cabanac for more info.
CICO is an often useful approximate description - but it is not (other than tautologically useless) a law.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoYou're not describing a failure of the calories in/out, you're describing a failure to measure the caloric requirements correctly. How do you find that? Eat less, measure your weight. Titrate as required. Worked for me, works for many.
- beagle3 8y agoWhy do you call it ci/co then? Call it “weight in / weight out” - it better describes your system, in which calories (and their elusive measurement) is a red herring.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoBecause in order to determine how much I eat I'm going to calculate it with calories.
- beagle3 8y ago“Eat less” is fine, but reference to calories is mostly useless given that your ability to measure them going in or going out has an overall 50% error. The fallacy is that those numbers are anything but a very vague approximation.