3 ms·
> What people may not realize is your body is quite "efficient" at running at various caloric amounts, and ±569 kJ/day (135 calories) may not do much. Source?
by qeternity 3y ago
> What people may not realize is your body is quite "efficient" at running at various caloric amounts, and ±569 kJ/day (135 calories) may not do much.
Source? I'm very much in the camp that diet has a huge impact on one's ability to control their eating, but I've never seen anything that suggests that calories in calories out doesn't apply (outside of extremes, like genuine starvation).
- bombcar 3y agoCalories in = calories out, but 135 calories is not much (that's what, a 30 minute slow walk for an average American)? So if you drop your intake by 135 calories you may just not walk as much and not even really notice it. Or your body may slow down metabolism a tiny bit, etc.
- lm28469 3y agoYeah but then again the average american walks ~3000 step a day, which is about 30min.
- nmarinov 3y agoTo add on to what bombcar said: I don't think the implication is CICO doesn't apply. In my experience (and also studies) change in calorie intake is correlated with change in activity i.e.: when you eat more you naturally move more. Not just exercising and walking but also jittering and cleaning that little bit harder and moving that little bit faster. Or the opposite, saving a little bit of energy. Instead of moving your whole head to look at something - just a glance and so on. CICO is still valid but the body adjusts beyond what we can _easily_ measure. It's a lot more complicated but the above is one simple example how it adjusts.
- bombcar 3y agoExactly. You have to combine a caloric drop with an intentional increase in activity and even then it can take awhile for the changes to start to add up to be noticeable.
- unmole 3y agoCalories in calories out always applies. But calories out is a moving target and is influenced by calories in.