4 ms·

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

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).
- caeril 4y ago
  This is generally the correct answer. Online TDEE calculators almost always overestimate expenditure, as do smartwatches. On the intake side, people lie to themselves constantly. First, they generally don't actually weigh their portions. In the rare event they really are weighing their food, they'll "accidentally" load up 4.3oz of something, then input it into their tracker as 4oz. Then they'll neglect to log their sauces and condiments, because it's "only" 20kcal for a tablespoon. These discrepancies add up. Invariably, these ridiculous claims come down to people being liars, not just to others, but to themselves.
yamtaddle 4y ago
I did a strict 1400 calorie per day diet for a few months in college. Zero cheating. Also kicked up aerobic activity a ton. Losses were at like 5-10% the rate they "should have" been. Totally worthless. Meanwhile weight lifting has always worked for me a large multiple as well as it "should", for weight loss, if you go by calculators that try to figure how many calories an activity burns. I reckon that in both cases those two approaches must be having large (and opposite) effects on my resting metabolic rate.
- asdff 4y ago
  Aerobic activity is not all the same either. Some people run for a mile and think that's good, they are maybe burning only 300 calories doing that though. They hike for 4 miles and its another couple hundred, or its blown with the granola bars. If you bike for an hour at less than 10mph you are burning like 300 calories, but if you bike for an hour at like 16-20mph then you are burning like 1000 calories.
  - sasawpg 4y ago
    Unlikely you'll be burning 1000kCal at 16-20mph unless you're going up a steady incline and keeping that speed (i.e. high power). That is a bit of an exaggeration. The remainder of your point stands - cycling is a great way to burn a lot of calories.
    - asdff 4y ago
      You'd have to be pushing 250-300 watts an hour to burn that much, but people do burn that much in an hours time if you look around a few bike forums. If you have time to do a long and leisurely ride, 3 hours or so, the length of the new Avatar movie, you'd probably knock out at least 1000 calories imo. Whats nice about a road bike in particular for caloric burning, at least in my experience, is that it makes you want to push the bike and go as fast as you can and keep snapping up through your gears and catch up to the cars (passing them even when they hit traffic or you are descending).
      - 4y ago

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).

caeril 4y ago
This is generally the correct answer. Online TDEE calculators almost always overestimate expenditure, as do smartwatches. On the intake side, people lie to themselves constantly. First, they generally don't actually weigh their portions. In the rare event they really are weighing their food, they'll "accidentally" load up 4.3oz of something, then input it into their tracker as 4oz. Then they'll neglect to log their sauces and condiments, because it's "only" 20kcal for a tablespoon. These discrepancies add up. Invariably, these ridiculous claims come down to people being liars, not just to others, but to themselves.

yamtaddle 4y ago

I did a strict 1400 calorie per day diet for a few months in college. Zero cheating. Also kicked up aerobic activity a ton. Losses were at like 5-10% the rate they "should have" been. Totally worthless. Meanwhile weight lifting has always worked for me a large multiple as well as it "should", for weight loss, if you go by calculators that try to figure how many calories an activity burns. I reckon that in both cases those two approaches must be having large (and opposite) effects on my resting metabolic rate.

asdff 4y ago
Aerobic activity is not all the same either. Some people run for a mile and think that's good, they are maybe burning only 300 calories doing that though. They hike for 4 miles and its another couple hundred, or its blown with the granola bars. If you bike for an hour at less than 10mph you are burning like 300 calories, but if you bike for an hour at like 16-20mph then you are burning like 1000 calories.
- sasawpg 4y ago
  Unlikely you'll be burning 1000kCal at 16-20mph unless you're going up a steady incline and keeping that speed (i.e. high power). That is a bit of an exaggeration. The remainder of your point stands - cycling is a great way to burn a lot of calories.
  - asdff 4y ago
    You'd have to be pushing 250-300 watts an hour to burn that much, but people do burn that much in an hours time if you look around a few bike forums. If you have time to do a long and leisurely ride, 3 hours or so, the length of the new Avatar movie, you'd probably knock out at least 1000 calories imo. Whats nice about a road bike in particular for caloric burning, at least in my experience, is that it makes you want to push the bike and go as fast as you can and keep snapping up through your gears and catch up to the cars (passing them even when they hit traffic or you are descending).
    - 4y ago