6 ms·

Our metabolism is amazing and complex but CICO is a matter of thermodynamics. People get burned when measuring the “out” part because our bodies want to hold o

by Jaxkr 1y ago

Our metabolism is amazing and complex but CICO is a matter of thermodynamics. People get burned when measuring the “out” part because our bodies want to hold on to as much energy as possible.

jghn 1y ago
Not just out, both directions can be tricky to measure. It is hard to say for certain how many potential kcal you're consuming are actually absorbed by the body. If you see whole corn kernels in the toilet, those kcal didn't count :) But yes. CICO is and always has been absolutely true. People are just overly reductive in how they measure both sides, and then claim that CICO is garbage.
- nahkoots 1y ago
  Often, the whole kernels you see in the toilet aren't actually filled with corn.
- ses1984 1y ago
  My brother: those kernels are filled with poop. It’s ok to assume that you absorb 100% of what you eat, unless you see evidence to the contrary, and no corn kernel poop doesn’t count. Frequent diarrhea, weight loss, skin rash, and basically any symptom of vitamin or mineral deficiency.
  - DebtDeflation 1y ago
    >It’s ok to assume that you absorb 100% of what you eat That's not really true. If you've ever done the keto diet, you know that your body expels unburned ketones through your breath, sweat, and urine. Protein can be used to repair structures rather than burned or stored for energy. There's also something called the "thermic effect of feeding". Your body requires more energy to process protein (20-30% of calories consumed) than it does carbs (5-10%) than it does fats (0-3%).
    - codingdave 1y ago
      > you know that your body expels unburned ketones In other words, "calories out".
      - anonymars 1y ago
        Great, but parent is responding to > It’s ok to assume that you absorb 100% of what you eat
        ses1984 1y ago
        It didn’t get converted to ketones and expelled in your poop. Your gut absorbed it. That is literally what digestive absorption is about. Expelling ketones is not digestive malabsorption.
        anonymars 1y ago
        There are many ways for food to not be 100% absorbed, which I think can most easily be demonstrated by eating a bag of nuts and waiting a day or two I don't think it's unreasonable to think that different bodies absorb food in different ways (or proportions), particularly given what we've seen about the gut microbiome Apparently even just changing the time of food intake can affect obesity (in rats) if this study is to be believed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22608008/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22608008/ In response to, "but those are rats", I think it's a lot easier to cast doubt on "100% of food is always absorbed" vs "I don't think that always holds true" I mean, heck: if there are no residual calories in human waste, how can it burn?
        ses1984 1y ago
        My original point: it's ok to assume you absorb 100%. About the rat thing: the cico hypothesis point of view might look at whether meal timing affecting energy expenditure first, rather than assuming meal timing change digestive absorption. There is not much point in getting in the weeds about how much you absorb, unless you're running trials on yourself like changing when you eat, or what you eat, and leaving all other things equal like calorie intake and expenditure. The best dieting strategies I've seen track calories in and weight change. From their you derive calorie expenditure, and it really doesn't matter if you burned it or pooped it out, does it?
  - alecst 1y ago
    Here's evidence to the contrary: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-02-04/calorie-counts-nutrition-labels-wrong https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-02-04/calorie-cou...
    - ses1984 1y ago
      It’s not like almonds have x calories for a certain group and y calories for another. Being wrong about the number of calories in almonds doesn’t count as evidence that skinny people are skinny because they poop out undigested calories. Also, I’m not saying digestive malabsorption is impossible, just that you shouldn’t assume it unless you have strong evidence to the contrary that doesn’t have another simpler explanation.
- swat535 1y ago
  In my experience, the most reliable way to understand your body's calorie needs is through consistent measurement: 1. Log everything you eat each day. 2. Weigh yourself first thing the next morning, before eating. 3. Track the trend (did you gain, lose, or maintain?) Over time, clear patterns emerge. You start to see exactly how your intake maps to weight changes, and you can fine-tune accordingly. It’s not guesswork, it’s feedback. What surprised me most was how little food I actually needed. Even with regular strength training, a modest surplus was enough to support muscle growth.
  - themaninthedark 1y ago
    From the fine article: >"People often lose muscle and gain body fat as they age—even when their body weight remains the same,"
- mariusor 1y ago
  Aren't calorie numbers on foods just made up numbers anyway? I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that a body's method of metabolizing food is not the same as oxygen burning it. They might offer a standardized number, and a basis for comparison, but other than that it's not reflective of anybody's reality.
- dzhiurgis 1y ago
  You need to get orders of magnitude right at first. I find keeping a punned tab with any AI works pretty well. Drop 5 words with every meal or snack and thats it.
matthewdgreen 1y ago
CICO is more of an upper bound, but people like to incorrectly use it as a lower bound. Meaning that it's true that you can't burn more calories than you eat, but you can certainly eat many more calories than you store as fat. (Hell, CICO isn't even valid for something as "simple" as an electric vehicle. My EV's end-to-end efficiency is quite a bit different depending on whether I'm charging from 120V or 240V, the outside temperature at charging time, the outside temperature at driving time, and a handful other factors like state-of-charge. The human body is even more complicated.)

by Jaxkr 1y ago

Our metabolism is amazing and complex but CICO is a matter of thermodynamics. People get burned when measuring the “out” part because our bodies want to hold on to as much energy as possible.

jghn 1y ago

Not just out, both directions can be tricky to measure. It is hard to say for certain how many potential kcal you're consuming are actually absorbed by the body. If you see whole corn kernels in the toilet, those kcal didn't count :) But yes. CICO is and always has been absolutely true. People are just overly reductive in how they measure both sides, and then claim that CICO is garbage.

nahkoots 1y ago
Often, the whole kernels you see in the toilet aren't actually filled with corn.
ses1984 1y ago
My brother: those kernels are filled with poop. It’s ok to assume that you absorb 100% of what you eat, unless you see evidence to the contrary, and no corn kernel poop doesn’t count. Frequent diarrhea, weight loss, skin rash, and basically any symptom of vitamin or mineral deficiency.
- DebtDeflation 1y ago
  >It’s ok to assume that you absorb 100% of what you eat That's not really true. If you've ever done the keto diet, you know that your body expels unburned ketones through your breath, sweat, and urine. Protein can be used to repair structures rather than burned or stored for energy. There's also something called the "thermic effect of feeding". Your body requires more energy to process protein (20-30% of calories consumed) than it does carbs (5-10%) than it does fats (0-3%).
  - codingdave 1y ago
    > you know that your body expels unburned ketones In other words, "calories out".
    - anonymars 1y ago
      Great, but parent is responding to > It’s ok to assume that you absorb 100% of what you eat
      - ses1984 1y ago
        It didn’t get converted to ketones and expelled in your poop. Your gut absorbed it. That is literally what digestive absorption is about. Expelling ketones is not digestive malabsorption.
        anonymars 1y ago
        There are many ways for food to not be 100% absorbed, which I think can most easily be demonstrated by eating a bag of nuts and waiting a day or two I don't think it's unreasonable to think that different bodies absorb food in different ways (or proportions), particularly given what we've seen about the gut microbiome Apparently even just changing the time of food intake can affect obesity (in rats) if this study is to be believed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22608008/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22608008/ In response to, "but those are rats", I think it's a lot easier to cast doubt on "100% of food is always absorbed" vs "I don't think that always holds true" I mean, heck: if there are no residual calories in human waste, how can it burn?
        ses1984 1y ago
        My original point: it's ok to assume you absorb 100%. About the rat thing: the cico hypothesis point of view might look at whether meal timing affecting energy expenditure first, rather than assuming meal timing change digestive absorption. There is not much point in getting in the weeds about how much you absorb, unless you're running trials on yourself like changing when you eat, or what you eat, and leaving all other things equal like calorie intake and expenditure. The best dieting strategies I've seen track calories in and weight change. From their you derive calorie expenditure, and it really doesn't matter if you burned it or pooped it out, does it?
- alecst 1y ago
  Here's evidence to the contrary: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-02-04/calorie-counts-nutrition-labels-wrong https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-02-04/calorie-cou...
  - ses1984 1y ago
    It’s not like almonds have x calories for a certain group and y calories for another. Being wrong about the number of calories in almonds doesn’t count as evidence that skinny people are skinny because they poop out undigested calories. Also, I’m not saying digestive malabsorption is impossible, just that you shouldn’t assume it unless you have strong evidence to the contrary that doesn’t have another simpler explanation.
swat535 1y ago
In my experience, the most reliable way to understand your body's calorie needs is through consistent measurement: 1. Log everything you eat each day. 2. Weigh yourself first thing the next morning, before eating. 3. Track the trend (did you gain, lose, or maintain?) Over time, clear patterns emerge. You start to see exactly how your intake maps to weight changes, and you can fine-tune accordingly. It’s not guesswork, it’s feedback. What surprised me most was how little food I actually needed. Even with regular strength training, a modest surplus was enough to support muscle growth.
- themaninthedark 1y ago
  From the fine article: >"People often lose muscle and gain body fat as they age—even when their body weight remains the same,"
mariusor 1y ago
Aren't calorie numbers on foods just made up numbers anyway? I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that a body's method of metabolizing food is not the same as oxygen burning it. They might offer a standardized number, and a basis for comparison, but other than that it's not reflective of anybody's reality.
dzhiurgis 1y ago
You need to get orders of magnitude right at first. I find keeping a punned tab with any AI works pretty well. Drop 5 words with every meal or snack and thats it.

matthewdgreen 1y ago

CICO is more of an upper bound, but people like to incorrectly use it as a lower bound. Meaning that it's true that you can't burn more calories than you eat, but you can certainly eat many more calories than you store as fat. (Hell, CICO isn't even valid for something as "simple" as an electric vehicle. My EV's end-to-end efficiency is quite a bit different depending on whether I'm charging from 120V or 240V, the outside temperature at charging time, the outside temperature at driving time, and a handful other factors like state-of-charge. The human body is even more complicated.)