How is CICO flawed?

cico
(David Longlever Blaber) #1

New here but rather versed in nutrition and this new journey i’m on. I know that CICO isn’t completely true and that it’s more than just in and out that plays a part in weight loss. My question is this.

If you look at the mathematics. If you eat 2k calories per day and you burn 1k calories per day. Netting 1000 calories. How can you still not lose weight? I understand the metabolism slows but where does that energy come from? Is it torching lean mass (Even this would cause some weight loss right?). The energy you expel has to come from somewhere. I’ve googled and just cannot find an answer.

Thanks!

(Doug) #2

Hi David. Did you mean to have that be eating 1000 calories and burning 2000? That would certainly have weight being lost, although slowing one’s metabolism can and does occur with calorie-restriction.

I think ‘CICO’ is fine - we just need to remember that “calories out” includes those that are excreted and stored, in addition to the ones burned for energy.

With a caloric deficit, hopefully the energy is made up from burning one’s own fat stores. This is affected by how much fat we have, to start with, and what our hormonal situation is - lower insulin levels versus higher ones allow us to access our stored fat. Higher levels, as with prediabetes and Type 2 diabetes, affect a vast number of people - over half of Americans, for example.

(John) #3

I think the dichotomy comes from some people equating “CICO” with “all calories are the same” - which is not accurate. People will bring up the “100 calories of broccoli versus 100 calories of sugar” to explain why a calorie is not a calorie.

Also, the way your body uses fats, proteins, and carbs are different, and they even require different levels of energy just to process them. So 100 protein calories and 100 carb calories are definitely not the same. It takes more calories to process the protein eaten, and it is used more for body maintenance and muscle building and not so much as energy burned for activity. The exception is when you eat enough extra protein than your body needs, in which case it converts the protein to something useful (glucose).

So but let’s say you are eating a low carb, medium protein, relatively higher fat diet, and choosing healthy real foods to achieve that. THEN, within that context, CICO can come into play. Suppose you increase your CO by exercising more, without unconsciously eating more because the exercise increases your appetite. Then you would certainly expect to lose some weight.

Similarly, if you added another 500 fat calories on top of what you were eating (without increasing your exercise) you would expect to gain some weight as the body has all the fat it needs from your diet, plus some more for it to store.

There was an interesting experiment (https://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet) where a healthy-weight man chose to overeat a specific number of calories from fats over a period of time and gained about 4 pounds. CICO predicted 16 pounds. He repeated the same experiment with the same number of excess calories, but from carbs, and gained about 16 pounds, which was in line with the CICO numbers.

So while I think calories do matter, it seems to not just a pure CICO equation where all calories are identical, and the equation may only apply to otherwise healthy individuals with normal metabolisms.

(Robert C) #4

Proof CICO is flawed by counter example:

A non-fat adapted person on a standard American diet can eat 2000 calories a day and still gain weight but that same person (2 months later - after becoming fat adapted on strict keto) can eat 2500 calories a day and either maintain or lose weight (with all other things remaining the same - exercise, stress, sleep etc.).

(David Longlever Blaber) #5

No I meant my numbers. So old thoughts was that on a 2k diet you burn 500 calories a day you lose 1 lb per week (500x7=3500=1lb). You basically go into a negative energy balance and expel more energy than brought in. My question is if this is true then where is the energy coming from if you make the negative balance even greater but still don’t lose weight. Do workouts suffer and people don’t realize it so they burn less? Can the body regulate to not allow calorie burning even when demanded (Exercise)?

I hope I’m making sense.

(Robert C) #6

Body regulates temperature, movement etc. when calories are restricted daily - lowering metabolism.
You idea works the first few weeks but then fails and leaves you in a worse position (where your original calorie intake now adds weight).

(David Longlever Blaber) #7

So basically the body has a huge range of survivability when it comes to calorie restriction? It can change body functions to preserve calories and to keep functioning even when lowered CI?

Big Idea is you can restrict calories, increase calories out and still not lose weight because the body lowers temperature, slows gastric function and basically hibernates… Correct?

(GINA ) #8

If you spend time on a low calorie diet you get cold, tired and your hair falls out.

Your body doesn’t spend as much energy keeping you warm, or supplying you with the energy to get up and do things, or doing ‘replacements and upgrades’ to cells like hair (and who knows what else that you don’t see or easily notice like hair).

It takes a while and comes on slowly, so many people don’t notice all at once. If a person goes from eating a steady stream of SAD junk and sitting on the couch to eating healthier food and starting to get some exercise they will feel better at first so they don’t want to blame the diet when they eventually slow down.

(Robert C) #9

Exactly - initially no (all diets work) - finally yes (all diets fail).

(David Longlever Blaber) #10

There is the answer. Thank you for helping!

(Adam Kirby) #11

Here is the list of assumptions made by the CICO theory.

  • Metabolic rate is fixed based on a few factors and can be accurately calculated.

  • Calories Out is independent of Calories In.

  • Food calories are accurately reported on packaging.

  • “Burn fat” is the only response the body is capable of in a calorie deficit.

  • The body must store “excess” calories as fat, it has no method to waste them or spend them in other ways.

None of these are true. That’s where CICO fails, it’s a big bundle of easily disproven assumptions.

Where CICO is accurate is to describe the entire human body metabolism as a closed system. It’s just, yanno, not useful in the slightest.

(Doug) #12

Adam, I think that is attributing a lot of things to CICO that shouldn’t be there. Getting hot after eating a lot, and getting cooler when eating less was certainly a familiar thing to me, long before I had any dietary concerns to speak of.

Certainly do agree that the assumption of, for example, “cutting 500 calories per day will necessarily mean a 1 lb weight loss per week,” will be often wrong.

(Doug) #13

John, that is interesting indeed. I’m thinking that lower insulin levels from eating the fat, versus eating the carbohydrates, had him less in “fat storage mode.” There may be more to it than that, but it’d be one straightforward difference.

I’m still surprised that with the added carbs, he gained as much as would be predicted - I’d think the body would rev itself up, run hotter, etc. - enough to at least offset some of the expected weight gain. I never tracked calories, but in looking back, I had many 8000 or more calorie days, including a lot of carbs, like 4 breakfast biscuits in the morning, and 2 large pizzas in the evening. There were many weeks when I should have gained 5 lbs, yet I only averaged that on a yearly basis.

(Doug) #14

Gina, how long do you think it takes to slow down? From things like the experience of “Biggest Loser” contestants and Ancel Keys’ ‘starvation experiment,’ it looks to me that by 5 or 6 months it can be expected. I don’t think it happens in just a few days - I’ve had 1 to 3 days of just eating 400-600 calories, and have actually felt hotter than normal, sweaty pillow at night, etc. It felt like, “Hey, this is working for me…”

I do think that dieting by caloric restriction is bad, in general. I wonder when the slowdown really kicks in.

(Bob M) #15

Did you listen to the last podcast by the 2 keto dudes with Stephen Phinney? They discussed an RCT with 12 people, where the BMR (basal metabolic rate) decreased very quickly (within a week? within days?) when on a low calorie (800 cals/day) diet.

(Doug) #16

Bob, no, but good mention - sounds right on.

I would love to test myself on this. Problem is that a test unit is expensive, around $3000 or more even for a used one, and there is some consumable stuff involved as well.

(Allie) #17

Just the way the calorie was made up as a method of tracking energy is enough to convince me it’s flawed.

(Bob M) #18

My opinion is that CICO is both flawed and not flawed. To lose weight, you need to take in fewer calories than you burn and to gain weight, you need to take in more calories than you burn. That’s about the ONLY not flawed part of CICO.

For instance, in the Phinney podcast, they discuss that one group that was exercising was burning about 800 calories in exercise per day while eating about 800 calories. Meanwhile, the non-exercising group was eating about 800 calories. They both lost similar amounts of weight, although the BMR for the exercising group went down more. True CICO does not consider BMR.

True CICO does not consider insulin. If insulin is high, it causes energy to be stored. It’s the fat man paradox, which Gary Taubes pointed out (or at least that was the first time I heard of it); The fat man is really starving in many ways, as most or all of his energy is immediately shuttled into fat storage.

In short, CICO says nothing about WHY you get fat or thin; it only describes HOW it happens.

(less is more, more or less) #19

[I added emphasis]

Dr. Westman is keen on reminding his patients that “calories matter.” Do note, however, he also recommends we don’t track everything we eat. He sees these trackers as more confusing than helpful. As a reformed tracker, whom no longer tracks what he eats, but still captures biometrics, such as blood pressure and body fat, I can see where Dr. Westman is coming from now.

Here’s the rub with “daily calories consumed and burned.” By shifting to fat-adaptation, we are able to take energy stores from a long time ago and burn it. Tracker apps presume you’re debit/credit cycle is no greater than one day. Yet, as the 2KetoDudes rightfully brag, with LCHF, you’re burning that donut from 2009. Do you see the problem with this?

Then there’s the additional aspect of how hormones affect our metabolism. That a calorie equals a calorie is insufficient, not unlike the deprecation of Newtonians mechanics after quantum mechanics is introduced.

#20

As if there’s even been an agreement on “healthy food”… :frowning: