4 ms·

> Two similar people can consume precisely the same number of calories and have the same level of physical fitness and physical activity and have different outc

> Two similar people can consume precisely the same number of calories and have the same level of physical fitness and physical activity and have different outcomes. You are trying to find a loophole here that doesn't exist. If two people burn the same amount of energy E_O ("out") and take in the same amount of energy E_I ("in") with E_I < E_O, then both of them must take those calories from somewhere else in their body and must therefore undergo weight loss. There is no way around that. Now, notably you didn't specify E_O, you only said > the same level of physical fitness and physical activity which can mean a lot of things. All the supposed loopholes work in exactly the same way: It might not be entirely clear what the values of E_I and E_O are, so "calories in, calories out must be wrong". (Which, again, is impossible because it's just conservation of energy, i.e. a law of physics.) In any case, just like you can bound E_I from above by counting calories, there are ways to constrain E_O from below: If both people have the same mass (say 100kg) and walk up the staircase in one of the towers of Cologne cathedral (~150m), then they will both have spent at least E_O >= 100kg * 150m * 10m/s² = 150,000 J.

vorpalhex 4y ago
The resting burn rate of two people of identical mass is different.
- spiderice 4y ago
  How can you possibly read GP's comment and think they don't realize this? Stop nitpicking. Calories In vs Calories Out is correct. Period. It doesn't matter if Calories out is hard to calculate.
  - criddell 4y ago
    Are you saying Harvard professor Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford [1] is incorrect? [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Appeals to authority are a poor tactic
      - criddell 4y ago
        Maybe, but in this case I don't think it's fallacious. She publishes, is cited all over the place, teaches at a well regarded school, and has explicitly and plainly said CICO is wrong when it comes to weight loss. This[1] is a good summary of a talk she gave about a year ago and in it she talks a bit about the non-CICO factors in weight gain or loss. Here's one example: “The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications."
        alldayeveryday 4y ago
        > She is the director of diversity and inclusion for the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard (NORCH) Why did I know this before I even looked? >“The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications." Yeah, so all that effects is CO (calories burned). This does not disprove CICO. I see Fatima has a limited grasp of logic.
        criddell 4y ago
        > all that effects is CO (calories burned) Not necessarily. In this case I think she is referring to calories that are not absorbed but are excreted.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written.
    - codethief 4y ago
      > What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written. Please do point out which part of my comment is incorrect. > Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What does "naively doing calories in vs calories out" mean exactly? I agree that some people do it naively but where exactly was my comment naive? > Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Yes, the metabolic factor affects the numeric value of E_I and E_O (I never disputed that), but once you have determined their value (or bounded them as in my comment – which, as demonstrated, is orders of magnitude easier), the statement "weight loss occurs if E_O > E_I" remains correct.
  - elenaferrantes 4y ago
    "Calories In vs Calories Out is correct". Maybe it’s correct but I doubt it’s useful. How do you explain that people who do not count calories maintain their weight ?
- codethief 4y ago
  Where in my comment did I use or refer to the resting burn rate? This is precisely the point: If you can bound the total calories burned (E_O) from below (by means of the laws of physics), individual variations of metabolism don't matter – the calories must have been burnt by the person in question no matter what.
agos 4y ago
it's not that the values E_I and E_O might not be clear, it's most certainly not clear and surely not easy to estimate for people trying to lose weight
- codethief 4y ago
  As I indicated in my comment, you don't need to know precise values, you just need to be able to bound them.

vorpalhex 4y ago

The resting burn rate of two people of identical mass is different.

spiderice 4y ago
How can you possibly read GP's comment and think they don't realize this? Stop nitpicking. Calories In vs Calories Out is correct. Period. It doesn't matter if Calories out is hard to calculate.
- criddell 4y ago
  Are you saying Harvard professor Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford [1] is incorrect? [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Appeals to authority are a poor tactic
    - criddell 4y ago
      Maybe, but in this case I don't think it's fallacious. She publishes, is cited all over the place, teaches at a well regarded school, and has explicitly and plainly said CICO is wrong when it comes to weight loss. This[1] is a good summary of a talk she gave about a year ago and in it she talks a bit about the non-CICO factors in weight gain or loss. Here's one example: “The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications."
      - alldayeveryday 4y ago
        > She is the director of diversity and inclusion for the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard (NORCH) Why did I know this before I even looked? >“The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications." Yeah, so all that effects is CO (calories burned). This does not disprove CICO. I see Fatima has a limited grasp of logic.
        criddell 4y ago
        > all that effects is CO (calories burned) Not necessarily. In this case I think she is referring to calories that are not absorbed but are excreted.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written.
  - codethief 4y ago
    > What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written. Please do point out which part of my comment is incorrect. > Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What does "naively doing calories in vs calories out" mean exactly? I agree that some people do it naively but where exactly was my comment naive? > Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Yes, the metabolic factor affects the numeric value of E_I and E_O (I never disputed that), but once you have determined their value (or bounded them as in my comment – which, as demonstrated, is orders of magnitude easier), the statement "weight loss occurs if E_O > E_I" remains correct.
- elenaferrantes 4y ago
  "Calories In vs Calories Out is correct". Maybe it’s correct but I doubt it’s useful. How do you explain that people who do not count calories maintain their weight ?
codethief 4y ago
Where in my comment did I use or refer to the resting burn rate? This is precisely the point: If you can bound the total calories burned (E_O) from below (by means of the laws of physics), individual variations of metabolism don't matter – the calories must have been burnt by the person in question no matter what.

agos 4y ago

it's not that the values E_I and E_O might not be clear, it's most certainly not clear and surely not easy to estimate for people trying to lose weight

codethief 4y ago
As I indicated in my comment, you don't need to know precise values, you just need to be able to bound them.