4 ms·

It’s not that simple, although it may seem that way for some people. Twice I have been on very extreme calorie counting regimens for months at a time combined

It’s not that simple, although it may seem that way for some people. Twice I have been on very extreme calorie counting regimens for months at a time combined with substantial weight lifting and cardio. Both times I have observed that if I reduce calories the first thing that happens is I start to feel colder in the same environments. My body adjusts to my new caloric intake by reducing my metabolic rate it seems. I learned about the idea of a “set point” fifteen years ago and I believe it’s related to what I’ve observed. I have friends who can do something as simple as cutting out a morning cappuccino and they lose weight as a result. If I do that, there is no measurable difference unless I cut much deeper and substantially increase activity at the same time. Then the weight comes off for a bit and then plateaus again, sometimes for weeks or until I make another adjustment. One of the times I went through this weight loss regimen I had an air displacement plethysmograph near the end of the weight loss that concluded I had 178lbs lean body mass. I had likely bulked up a little through all the weightlifting I was doing but have always had a fair bit of muscle so you might expect my resting calorie burn to be very stable and for small adjustments in calories to not impact resting metabolic rate, but that’s not what I observed in practice.

syzarian 4y ago
If metabolic rate changes due to caloric restriction then this doesn’t negate the view that basic physics dictates that calories in minus calories out determines weight loss. It just means that a corresponding change to calories out can occur with caloric restriction. It is a physical reality that calories in minus calories out determines weight loss. It is also a reality that adhering to this might be very difficult for reasons you suggested.
- aantix 4y ago
  If you want to increase muscle mass, why don’t you just keep lifting increasingly heavier weights? If you want to lose weight, just keep eating increasingly less calories. Because that trivializes the problem. There’s physiological pushback on many dimensions.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    I suggest a better response to CICO is not that this isn’t true but that it is hard for a variety of reasons. One’s response to CICO ought not be to deny basic physics. There was a comment that it is basic physics that CICO is true and it got pushback. My post was to point out that the pushback against that comment were wrong in the sense of not actually disputing CICO. The responses should have been of the form, “Absolutely but this is very hard for some people for the following reasons…”. That changes to one part of the equation can have unintended consequences that change the other part.
    - kritiko 4y ago
      Here’s a quote from Kevin Hall, who does metabolic studies at Harvard: >The problem is that CICO as the law of energy conservation is NOT a model of obesity. It's conflated with the straw-man "Conventional Model" described by Ludwig: independent, unregulated intake and expenditure implying that getting fat and treating obesity are all about willpower
    - cico3646373 4y ago
      It's not so much that I would dispute the physics, but I personally wonder about digestion. This strict cico model seems to make the assumption that every digestive system extracts the same amount of energy from the same foods, which I find unlikely but am certainly not an expert. If I eat a bunch of grass, I am pretty sure I'll probably get sick and have some unpleasant bowel movements but I won't draw many calories from the grass. Unlike a cow. Personally though, I find it rather easy to maintain a particular weight. I just wear pants with the right waist size and if they feel tight I take it easy on eating for a day or two. I have had the same weight +/- 1.5kg for 20 years. Losing weight beyond my comfortable baseline is exceedingly difficult though.
      - asdff 4y ago
        That's not really how I interpret it at least. I think its assumed there is no one with a perfectly efficient digestive system, and that there is variance in efficiency based on a plethora of factors. However, that efficiency rate hardly matters. You are in effect a car. Some people are hybrids, super efficient perhaps, while others are SUVs guzzling gas to go the same distance. That being said one thing is true for all of these cars: if you put in 9 gallons instead of 10 gallons into the tank, you will go for less miles than if you put in 10 gallons. In other words, if you are being accurate about measuring your calories in (the gas) and you are measuring your weight (miles driven), you can adjust the input calories to effect your output weight. Exercise then is like driving in low gear with the engine at a high RPM; you are burning more calories in a given amount of time just like you'd be burning more gas in a given distance running at a higher RPM.
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  Nobody is contesting the physical reality of CICO; what they are contesting is that the "calories out" section of the diet is as easily controlled as previously thought. I'm supposedly on a 1500 calorie deficit, eating ~1300-1500 calories a day and burning ~3000, according to my fitbit. But I'm only losing about 0.5lbs per week. My conclusion is that I'm really only burning 2000 calories despite HIIT 3x/week, strength training 4x/week, and cardio 6x/week. If it weren't for all this training I would likely be gaining weight on what would otherwise be a reduced calorie diet for someone my size per every major TDEE calculation
  - Frost1x 4y ago
    >Nobody is contesting the physical reality of CICO; what they are contesting is that the "calories out" section of the diet is as easily controlled as previously thought. I'm not so sure about that, I see a lot of claims otherwise on this article's thread which blows my mind a bit. It's definitely an issue calculating and managing the calories out portion and for some people, it may not be an effective model to manage weight with diet and exercise, but I'm reading a lot of "this model is wrong" which is a little baffling to me. Is it possible the caloric measurements are off? Absolutely, we may not even be considering all metabolic pathways, but hopefully a lot of its getting covered. CICO should be used as anchor points to help you guide your diet and find what works for you because everyone is a little different. Don't like a lot of vegetables, coffee make you sleepy and lazy? Hate cardio but love weight lifting or vice versa? Try something else, but CICO can help you make a better grounded basis of comparison here to find what mixture works best for your body to manage weight and get or keep the body composition you desire. Does the model simply not work for your lifestyle? Try something else! But is it wrong? Eh, I don't think so.
    - elenaferrantes 4y ago
      CICO while thermodynamically true, is not _that_ useful because no one really control CI nor CO …
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    Both your calories in numbers and calories out are subject to extreme estimation error. Also body composition changes can make “weight loss” difficult as you replace fat with muscle. You can also get a gross estimate of muscle/water/fat mass to see those changes (or go get a very accurate measurement a few times in a facility equipped for such things).
- hooverd 4y ago
  What people do believe is that you can neatly tabulate calories in and calories out.
  - asdff 4y ago
    Tabulating calories in and weight out is a lot easier, especially if you eat healthy and simple foods.

syzarian 4y ago

If metabolic rate changes due to caloric restriction then this doesn’t negate the view that basic physics dictates that calories in minus calories out determines weight loss. It just means that a corresponding change to calories out can occur with caloric restriction. It is a physical reality that calories in minus calories out determines weight loss. It is also a reality that adhering to this might be very difficult for reasons you suggested.

aantix 4y ago
If you want to increase muscle mass, why don’t you just keep lifting increasingly heavier weights? If you want to lose weight, just keep eating increasingly less calories. Because that trivializes the problem. There’s physiological pushback on many dimensions.
- syzarian 4y ago
  I suggest a better response to CICO is not that this isn’t true but that it is hard for a variety of reasons. One’s response to CICO ought not be to deny basic physics. There was a comment that it is basic physics that CICO is true and it got pushback. My post was to point out that the pushback against that comment were wrong in the sense of not actually disputing CICO. The responses should have been of the form, “Absolutely but this is very hard for some people for the following reasons…”. That changes to one part of the equation can have unintended consequences that change the other part.
  - kritiko 4y ago
    Here’s a quote from Kevin Hall, who does metabolic studies at Harvard: >The problem is that CICO as the law of energy conservation is NOT a model of obesity. It's conflated with the straw-man "Conventional Model" described by Ludwig: independent, unregulated intake and expenditure implying that getting fat and treating obesity are all about willpower
  - cico3646373 4y ago
    It's not so much that I would dispute the physics, but I personally wonder about digestion. This strict cico model seems to make the assumption that every digestive system extracts the same amount of energy from the same foods, which I find unlikely but am certainly not an expert. If I eat a bunch of grass, I am pretty sure I'll probably get sick and have some unpleasant bowel movements but I won't draw many calories from the grass. Unlike a cow. Personally though, I find it rather easy to maintain a particular weight. I just wear pants with the right waist size and if they feel tight I take it easy on eating for a day or two. I have had the same weight +/- 1.5kg for 20 years. Losing weight beyond my comfortable baseline is exceedingly difficult though.
    - asdff 4y ago
      That's not really how I interpret it at least. I think its assumed there is no one with a perfectly efficient digestive system, and that there is variance in efficiency based on a plethora of factors. However, that efficiency rate hardly matters. You are in effect a car. Some people are hybrids, super efficient perhaps, while others are SUVs guzzling gas to go the same distance. That being said one thing is true for all of these cars: if you put in 9 gallons instead of 10 gallons into the tank, you will go for less miles than if you put in 10 gallons. In other words, if you are being accurate about measuring your calories in (the gas) and you are measuring your weight (miles driven), you can adjust the input calories to effect your output weight. Exercise then is like driving in low gear with the engine at a high RPM; you are burning more calories in a given amount of time just like you'd be burning more gas in a given distance running at a higher RPM.
MacsHeadroom 4y ago
Nobody is contesting the physical reality of CICO; what they are contesting is that the "calories out" section of the diet is as easily controlled as previously thought. I'm supposedly on a 1500 calorie deficit, eating ~1300-1500 calories a day and burning ~3000, according to my fitbit. But I'm only losing about 0.5lbs per week. My conclusion is that I'm really only burning 2000 calories despite HIIT 3x/week, strength training 4x/week, and cardio 6x/week. If it weren't for all this training I would likely be gaining weight on what would otherwise be a reduced calorie diet for someone my size per every major TDEE calculation
- Frost1x 4y ago
  >Nobody is contesting the physical reality of CICO; what they are contesting is that the "calories out" section of the diet is as easily controlled as previously thought. I'm not so sure about that, I see a lot of claims otherwise on this article's thread which blows my mind a bit. It's definitely an issue calculating and managing the calories out portion and for some people, it may not be an effective model to manage weight with diet and exercise, but I'm reading a lot of "this model is wrong" which is a little baffling to me. Is it possible the caloric measurements are off? Absolutely, we may not even be considering all metabolic pathways, but hopefully a lot of its getting covered. CICO should be used as anchor points to help you guide your diet and find what works for you because everyone is a little different. Don't like a lot of vegetables, coffee make you sleepy and lazy? Hate cardio but love weight lifting or vice versa? Try something else, but CICO can help you make a better grounded basis of comparison here to find what mixture works best for your body to manage weight and get or keep the body composition you desire. Does the model simply not work for your lifestyle? Try something else! But is it wrong? Eh, I don't think so.
  - elenaferrantes 4y ago
    CICO while thermodynamically true, is not _that_ useful because no one really control CI nor CO …
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Both your calories in numbers and calories out are subject to extreme estimation error. Also body composition changes can make “weight loss” difficult as you replace fat with muscle. You can also get a gross estimate of muscle/water/fat mass to see those changes (or go get a very accurate measurement a few times in a facility equipped for such things).
hooverd 4y ago
What people do believe is that you can neatly tabulate calories in and calories out.
- asdff 4y ago
  Tabulating calories in and weight out is a lot easier, especially if you eat healthy and simple foods.