3 ms·

> it likely is just as simple as their metabolism is such that they burn more calories than the average person. Population variation will always lead to some p

> it likely is just as simple as their metabolism is such that they burn more calories than the average person. Population variation will always lead to some people with outliers both in high expenditure and low expenditure. That's the point though. I'm saying that we burn calories at different rates. We burn fat at different rates. We have different rates of addiction, cravings, etc. Just saying CICO is the same boring and borderline inaccurate language that has led to nearly zero change in the population at large. may as well just tell them to use physics correctly to lose the weight, because it's the same effective language. To even determine CICO is fraught with difficulty and inaccuracy in both CI and CO. You can hand make everything, weigh every ingredient, and even then you struggle to determine how much you're CO. At best you'll have an estimated CO but then what do you do when your weight isn't changing? you have to start adjusting the math because clearly you're not burning as much as you think you are. This is made much, much worse with the fact that we don't actually burn that many calories with exercise. And even with what is burned, the rate of burn changes drastically based on your current weight and how long you've been losing weight. The fact is, the point is, CICO ignores all the real challenges and thereby all the real problems people need to understand and face.

Kirby64 2y ago
> The fact is, the point is, CICO ignores all the real challenges and thereby all the real problems people need to understand and face. I think we'll have to disagree here. At the end of the day CICO is the formula. That obviously doesn't account for the human factor in regards to the adherenace rate, but it does, fully encompass the 'if you were a robot and were fully adherent how do you lose/gain weight' method. > To even determine CICO is fraught with difficulty and inaccuracy in both CI and CO. You can hand make everything, weigh every ingredient, and even then you struggle to determine how much you're CO. At best you'll have an estimated CO but then what do you do when your weight isn't changing? you have to start adjusting the math because clearly you're not burning as much as you think you are. I won't say it's 'easy', but it's also not particularly hard either with the multitude of widely available food databases for measuring calories in. As for calories out, it's arguably even simpler: measure your weight every day, take the average across the week, and watch your weight trend week over week. Calories out can be calculated simply by comparing calories in vs. weight lost/gained... and extrapolating. It's simple math, and very effective in my experience. > This is made much, much worse with the fact that we don't actually burn that many calories with exercise. And even with what is burned, the rate of burn changes drastically based on your current weight and how long you've been losing weight. Essentially irrelevant if you follow my above suggestion for how to measure calories out. It's just part of the bucket of calories burned, so as long as you're reasonably consistent with the amount of exercise you do then your averaged weight will account for any exercise based caloric expenditure.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > CICO is the formula This is like trying to solve aerodynamics with Newtonian physics only. It’s not useful. CICO ignores the variability of base metabolism.
  - Kirby64 2y ago
    What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight? The intake is easy to measure. The outtake is empirically knowable by change in weight over time. It’s really that simple.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight? Metabolic syndrom is characterised by the basal metabolic rate reducing in response to reduced calorie intake or increased caloric expenditure. In most of us this is good. It gets the immune system to quit mucking around, for instance. In the obese, however, it can sometimes mean their bodies will literally stop doing essential shit before it will concede and begin burning fat. It will then do everything it can to refill those fat cells. You can model a human thermodynamically. But to my knowledge, this isn't used in medicine because it isn't practical. (I'm saying this, by the way, as someone who can eat anything and laze around and not gain weight because my metabolism is tuned the other way.) CICO reminds me of something we do in finance: burying the complexity in a magic variable. For CICO, it's the CO. Because if you decompose it into its active and inactive components. Exercise is the former. But the latter absolutely dominates that term.
      - Kirby64 2y ago
        > In the obese, however, it can sometimes mean their bodies will literally stop doing essential shit before it will concede and begin burning fat. It will then do everything it can to refill those fat cells. I’m sure there’s some people that this might apply to, but I suspect it’s a much (much) smaller subset than people that are actually obese. For the rest, just decrease your intake until you lose weight. Not much else. > You can model a human thermodynamically. But to my knowledge, this isn't used in medicine because it isn't practical. (I'm saying this, by the way, as someone who can eat anything and laze around and not gain weight because my metabolism is tuned the other way.) Exactly what variables are missing then? We can agree that exercise, although certainly burns some calories, is not really the lever you want to pull if you actually want to lose weight by itself. What other variable besides changing how much food you eat would you suggest?

Kirby64 2y ago

> The fact is, the point is, CICO ignores all the real challenges and thereby all the real problems people need to understand and face. I think we'll have to disagree here. At the end of the day CICO is the formula. That obviously doesn't account for the human factor in regards to the adherenace rate, but it does, fully encompass the 'if you were a robot and were fully adherent how do you lose/gain weight' method. > To even determine CICO is fraught with difficulty and inaccuracy in both CI and CO. You can hand make everything, weigh every ingredient, and even then you struggle to determine how much you're CO. At best you'll have an estimated CO but then what do you do when your weight isn't changing? you have to start adjusting the math because clearly you're not burning as much as you think you are. I won't say it's 'easy', but it's also not particularly hard either with the multitude of widely available food databases for measuring calories in. As for calories out, it's arguably even simpler: measure your weight every day, take the average across the week, and watch your weight trend week over week. Calories out can be calculated simply by comparing calories in vs. weight lost/gained... and extrapolating. It's simple math, and very effective in my experience. > This is made much, much worse with the fact that we don't actually burn that many calories with exercise. And even with what is burned, the rate of burn changes drastically based on your current weight and how long you've been losing weight. Essentially irrelevant if you follow my above suggestion for how to measure calories out. It's just part of the bucket of calories burned, so as long as you're reasonably consistent with the amount of exercise you do then your averaged weight will account for any exercise based caloric expenditure.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> CICO is the formula This is like trying to solve aerodynamics with Newtonian physics only. It’s not useful. CICO ignores the variability of base metabolism.
- Kirby64 2y ago
  What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight? The intake is easy to measure. The outtake is empirically knowable by change in weight over time. It’s really that simple.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight? Metabolic syndrom is characterised by the basal metabolic rate reducing in response to reduced calorie intake or increased caloric expenditure. In most of us this is good. It gets the immune system to quit mucking around, for instance. In the obese, however, it can sometimes mean their bodies will literally stop doing essential shit before it will concede and begin burning fat. It will then do everything it can to refill those fat cells. You can model a human thermodynamically. But to my knowledge, this isn't used in medicine because it isn't practical. (I'm saying this, by the way, as someone who can eat anything and laze around and not gain weight because my metabolism is tuned the other way.) CICO reminds me of something we do in finance: burying the complexity in a magic variable. For CICO, it's the CO. Because if you decompose it into its active and inactive components. Exercise is the former. But the latter absolutely dominates that term.
    - Kirby64 2y ago
      > In the obese, however, it can sometimes mean their bodies will literally stop doing essential shit before it will concede and begin burning fat. It will then do everything it can to refill those fat cells. I’m sure there’s some people that this might apply to, but I suspect it’s a much (much) smaller subset than people that are actually obese. For the rest, just decrease your intake until you lose weight. Not much else. > You can model a human thermodynamically. But to my knowledge, this isn't used in medicine because it isn't practical. (I'm saying this, by the way, as someone who can eat anything and laze around and not gain weight because my metabolism is tuned the other way.) Exactly what variables are missing then? We can agree that exercise, although certainly burns some calories, is not really the lever you want to pull if you actually want to lose weight by itself. What other variable besides changing how much food you eat would you suggest?