4 ms·

It seems like everything in that article reinforces CICO. Is there something that diverges from the CICO model that I might be missing? E.G. it’s examples of t

It seems like everything in that article reinforces CICO. Is there something that diverges from the CICO model that I might be missing? E.G. it’s examples of the Maasai and Inuit eating higher calories make a lot of sense when you consider their exposure to temp extremes and additional cal burn coming from thermoregulation (along with probably elevated levels of daily activity). Most of the nuance I’ve seen around CICO that holds isn’t that CICO isn’t true, it’s that the intake and output are hard to calculate when you look at nutrient absorption and lifestyle

nikkwong 4y ago
CICO may be scientifically valid but it's useless in practical terms. People who tend to be constipated absorb much more energy from their food and those with fast digestive tracts absorb much less. Everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, so, from person to person, you would never have a practical way to assess what the CI or the CO is in the CICO model.
- trentgreene 4y ago
  Au contraire, it's very useful. If you want someone to lose weight, calculate their BMR + their rough activity based cal burn, and give 'em a 15% deficit. They'll lose weight. Not just water and glycogen. They will burn fat. If you want someone to gain weight, do the same calc, tell 'em to eat 100 more calories. Not gaining? 200. Really not gaining? Wow, fast metabolism, shock 'em with 500 extra. Anecdata, but the only time I saw someone not slowly gain on 200 extra, there ended up being a lot of walking we weren't accounting for in our maintenance cal calculation. Our O in CICO was off. For reference, 200 cals is like a 16 oz of coke, or 2-3 apples. Decently precise. The variance between a fast and slow metabolizer isn't 20% of daily calorie burn, maybe 10% on the high end. Guesstimation, probably more like 5%. Well within the tolerances that are used for weight modulation (up or down). If it weren't the case, why are so many body builders (natty or enhanced) able to run repeated bulking and cutting cycles? Are they genetic outliers? Can you calculate it 100%? Nope -- so many variables, probably tons we don't even know about yet. But it's accurate enough to be very effective, and very simple to implement.
  - nikkwong 4y ago
    Mark Pimentel's lab which studies disorders of the gut has hypothesized that people with extremely slow transit times can absorb 2-3x the amount of energy from food in comparison to people with regular transit times. I think there is a high amount of variability; and importantly in the context of losing weight, people who are overweight often have slow intestinal transit due to their dysregulated gut microflora. I'm sort of with you, but it sounds more to me like: start eating less, and you'll lose weight; eat more, and you'll gain weight. There's just too many variables here that change how food is metabolized and digested; including the microbiome which CICO ignores.
    - trentgreene 4y ago
      You got a source for that study? A cursory google didn’t reveal anything and 2-3x is suspect. To your second point, wouldn’t the microbiome (and slow digestion) just be another input into CICO?
    - fsckboy 4y ago
      is it just caloric absorption, or are various essential nutrients also absorbed more and less? asking because coffee can speed up my transit time dramatically, and I'm always down for cutting calories!
      - nikkwong 4y ago
        AFAIK this has not been studied, but I would assume that nutrient absorption could feasibly vary with motility speed just like energy absorption. For example people with chronic diarrhea are usually deficient in several B vitamins especially B12, although their poor absorption may not be only due to rapid transit time and could stem from other gut issues. Rapid transit time is certainly a factor though.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    you are ignoring what he said. I don't know if it's true, but he's saying CI is not simply a function of how much you put in your mouth, but how much of that your body absorbs. the other answers here are more detailed, I just wanted to state it simply.

nikkwong 4y ago

CICO may be scientifically valid but it's useless in practical terms. People who tend to be constipated absorb much more energy from their food and those with fast digestive tracts absorb much less. Everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, so, from person to person, you would never have a practical way to assess what the CI or the CO is in the CICO model.

trentgreene 4y ago
Au contraire, it's very useful. If you want someone to lose weight, calculate their BMR + their rough activity based cal burn, and give 'em a 15% deficit. They'll lose weight. Not just water and glycogen. They will burn fat. If you want someone to gain weight, do the same calc, tell 'em to eat 100 more calories. Not gaining? 200. Really not gaining? Wow, fast metabolism, shock 'em with 500 extra. Anecdata, but the only time I saw someone not slowly gain on 200 extra, there ended up being a lot of walking we weren't accounting for in our maintenance cal calculation. Our O in CICO was off. For reference, 200 cals is like a 16 oz of coke, or 2-3 apples. Decently precise. The variance between a fast and slow metabolizer isn't 20% of daily calorie burn, maybe 10% on the high end. Guesstimation, probably more like 5%. Well within the tolerances that are used for weight modulation (up or down). If it weren't the case, why are so many body builders (natty or enhanced) able to run repeated bulking and cutting cycles? Are they genetic outliers? Can you calculate it 100%? Nope -- so many variables, probably tons we don't even know about yet. But it's accurate enough to be very effective, and very simple to implement.
- nikkwong 4y ago
  Mark Pimentel's lab which studies disorders of the gut has hypothesized that people with extremely slow transit times can absorb 2-3x the amount of energy from food in comparison to people with regular transit times. I think there is a high amount of variability; and importantly in the context of losing weight, people who are overweight often have slow intestinal transit due to their dysregulated gut microflora. I'm sort of with you, but it sounds more to me like: start eating less, and you'll lose weight; eat more, and you'll gain weight. There's just too many variables here that change how food is metabolized and digested; including the microbiome which CICO ignores.
  - trentgreene 4y ago
    You got a source for that study? A cursory google didn’t reveal anything and 2-3x is suspect. To your second point, wouldn’t the microbiome (and slow digestion) just be another input into CICO?
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    is it just caloric absorption, or are various essential nutrients also absorbed more and less? asking because coffee can speed up my transit time dramatically, and I'm always down for cutting calories!
    - nikkwong 4y ago
      AFAIK this has not been studied, but I would assume that nutrient absorption could feasibly vary with motility speed just like energy absorption. For example people with chronic diarrhea are usually deficient in several B vitamins especially B12, although their poor absorption may not be only due to rapid transit time and could stem from other gut issues. Rapid transit time is certainly a factor though.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  you are ignoring what he said. I don't know if it's true, but he's saying CI is not simply a function of how much you put in your mouth, but how much of that your body absorbs. the other answers here are more detailed, I just wanted to state it simply.