Reply to Economist article: Death of the Calorie

Forum Index » Diet, Nutrition & Weight Loss

Reply to "Economist article: Death of the Calorie "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in [/quote]

And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.[/quote]

This really captures the stupidity of CICO.  Every body is different, and responds differently to a host of factors - including diet.  There is no one size fits all.[/quote]

CICO is meant to be applied on an INDIVIDUAL basis.  No one who says CICO works thinks that every person needs the same CI or has the same CO as every other person…

Larla A. and Larla B. each weigh 140 pounds.  They each get around the same amount of physical activity per day.  Larla A. consumes approximately 1800 calories per day and maintains her weight.  Larla B. consumes approximately 1600 calories per day to maintain her weight.

Larla B. starts eating like Larla A. (1800 calories per day) and begins to slowly gain weight.  Larla B. decides that because they have the same general lifestyle and were about the same size, CICO “doesn’t work” because she gains and Larla A. doesn’t when consuming the same number of calories.

But Larla B. is wrong.  For whatever reason, Larla B.’s calories OUT variable is lower than Larla A.’s, therefore Larla B. is overeating (CIb > COb) and Larla A. is eating at maintenance (CIa = COa), despite the fact that they are eating the same thing.  
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics