Sunday, 19 August 2012

CICO fails again - ( more ELMM nonsense )

Body fat loss and compensatory mechanisms in response to different doses of aerobic exercise - a randomized controlled trial in overweight sedentary males.

CICO = calories in calories out
ELMM = eat less move more

The amount of weight loss induced by exercise is often disappointing.

Nay, its because CICO is complete bullshit.

Eighteen participants were randomized to a continuous sedentary control group, 21 to a moderate (300 kcal/day) and 22 to a high dose (600 kcal/day) exercise group for 13 weeks, corresponding to approximately 30 and 60 minutes of daily aerobic exercise, respectively.

Right ok, so we have 1 group doing moderate exercise, and 1 group doing heavy exercise, and by the masterful universal laws of calories in and calories out and thermodynamics etc etc, the higher exercise group burn more calories and thus should have lower fat mass in the end. Right??! Surely thats irrefutable?

fat mass (MOD: -4.0kg, P<0.001 and HIGH: -3.8kg, P<0.001) decreased similarly in both exercise groups.

Actually according to the above numbers , 4kg is more than 3.8kg and therefore the people performing the "least" amount of exercise lost more fat mass. DUDE WTF? ELMM CICO!

Energy balance was 83% more negative than expected in MOD, while it was 20% less negative than expected in HIGH. No statistically significant changes were found in energy intake or non-exercise physical activity that could explain the different compensatory responses associated with 30 vs. 60 min of daily aerobic exercise.

The group doing more exercise did not eat more calories to compensate.

In conclusion a similar body fat loss was obtained regardless of exercise dose

Summary :-

Dont waste your time trying to lose weight by moving more than 30 minutes per day. All movement over 30 minutes per day = violates first law of thermodynamics.


  1. All lifting weights got me as a young person was severe Degenerated Disk Disease, torn elbows, and lots of inflammation. Unhealthy.

    1. Oh? :(

      I am actually a big proponent of weight lifting/ resistance training for health and to improve body composition, I got good results myself when I was doing it but I eventually ran into problems with insomnia and then got too lazy to exercise. If it wasnt for my job id still be going to the gym now I think, even though they are a bit expensive.

    2. Well i was influenced by an incompetent trainer , the "more is better" type. He was an actual body builder, but was more about clocking billable hours i think. Plus carelessly let my form suffer. Remember the t-bar, and upside down butterflys? Advanced work even for men, but he had dreams of promoting me in the world of bodybuilding,,,,,couple that with a drug habit he nursed and... oh dear kindke,,, TMI!!! SORRY?

  2. "movement over 30 minutes per day = violates first law of thermodynamics"

    ROFLOL, kicking my feet in the air....

    actually, i get a bit of benefit by walking the dog late in the afternoon -- minimizes my appetite for dinner, so i get more fat combustion all night. i THINK the minimalist Tabata sprints on the stationary bike is also good ... but how do you tell?

    1. Tess you must have watched this?

      I think what I meant to say in my comment above is that I am big in favour of anaerobic exercise "in general". It greatly improves muscle mass, and improves overall glucose tolerance. Aerobic exercise, on the other hand, I think is a waste of time.

      But then again, im sure some exercise is better than none, for a given individual. A person who exercises always tends to look better than the same person who doesnt. Especially if its anaerobic exercise.

    2. yes, that was very interesting -- especially the bit about genes determining whether or not one is an "exercise responder." i'm not sure if i agree with "the chair is a killer" though. don't most of the hunter-gatherer studies indicate that people do a lot of lounging when they're not pursuing important activities?