CICO
blambo61
Posts: 4,372 Member
I'm starting this to discuss the complexities of the body turning CI into fat and the elimination of fat due to CO.
Since fat accumulation is a complex function of CI and fat dissapation is also a complex function of CO, the simple model of
fat rate = CI - CO is not a perfect model. It is a good simple model that is very useful but can be improved. Improvements to this model could lead to practices that could improve weight loss for those already having success with the CICO model and has the potential to greatly help those who have to eat so little or exercise so much to loose weight that they give up on their weight loss programs. The real model is:
fat rate = f (CI) - f(CO)
See the following for some more explanation:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml&ved=0ahUKEwiCjsuguNXJAhVC6GMKHV5ID-oQFggpMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEz3lfx_xLMrjH_Xx35QfTf-Lm0qg&sig2=sH-gj-NvQNx5gSLw_AOLXA
Would appreciate some discussion. Thanks. Lets all learn and have civil discussions if there are differences of opinions. Thanks.
Since fat accumulation is a complex function of CI and fat dissapation is also a complex function of CO, the simple model of
fat rate = CI - CO is not a perfect model. It is a good simple model that is very useful but can be improved. Improvements to this model could lead to practices that could improve weight loss for those already having success with the CICO model and has the potential to greatly help those who have to eat so little or exercise so much to loose weight that they give up on their weight loss programs. The real model is:
fat rate = f (CI) - f(CO)
See the following for some more explanation:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml&ved=0ahUKEwiCjsuguNXJAhVC6GMKHV5ID-oQFggpMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEz3lfx_xLMrjH_Xx35QfTf-Lm0qg&sig2=sH-gj-NvQNx5gSLw_AOLXA
Would appreciate some discussion. Thanks. Lets all learn and have civil discussions if there are differences of opinions. Thanks.
0
Replies
-
Why do we need to continue?0
-
-
-
Those that posted above this did so while I was still typing the original. Sorry for the confusion. Doing this on a phone and not so easy.0
-
CICO is a good simple model that doesn't need to be improved. It's useful because it's simple and accurate. If you try to overcomplicate it then it is no longer simple.
That article you posted basically says that CO can change. Yes, it can and does. CI can change as well. However, as long as CI<CO, weight will be lost. If it's not lost at the rate you expect then you are not obtaining accurate numbers either on CI or CO.1 -
CICO is a good simple model that doesn't need to be improved. It's useful because it's simple and accurate. If you try to overcomplicate it then it is no longer simple.
That article you posted basically says that CO can change. Yes, it can and does. CI can change as well. However, as long as CI<CO, weight will be lost. If it's not lost at the rate you expect then you are not obtaining accurate numbers either on CI or CO.
I don't believe in CICO. I do however in magical pink unicorns.0 -
Mine are purple but you go ahead on with yours. The more the merrier.CICO is a good simple model that doesn't need to be improved. It's useful because it's simple and accurate. If you try to overcomplicate it then it is no longer simple.
That article you posted basically says that CO can change. Yes, it can and does. CI can change as well. However, as long as CI<CO, weight will be lost. If it's not lost at the rate you expect then you are not obtaining accurate numbers either on CI or CO.
I don't believe in CICO. I do however in magical pink unicorns.0 -
The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
I don't think this disproves CICO, just proves that CO isn't constant, which I can't see as an argument anyone is making.0 -
thorsmom01 wrote: »
Did you mean for that to come off snarky? Really—it is not well understood by many. Is that surprising? Nutritional education (in many US public schools, at least) isn't so great. The percentage of overweight and obese people also sort of points in the direction of it potentially being "a hard concept to follow for some."
And, when people get to a point where they want to make an effort to manage their weight and/or their nutritional health, sometimes they turn to sources they don't realize shouldn't be trusted. Anecdotal example: a friend of mine raved about some diet from a website, recommended by someone who had lost over 100 lbs using it. (My 55 lb loss with CICO felt too out-of-reach to her, because she is afraid of counting calories.) Here's a real gem from the site's FAQ:
This friend isn't a stupid person, but clearly nutritional education is lacking, and I do think there are plenty of others in the same boat. Which, btw, is part of why so many topics are redundant on this forum. For that reason, and also because not every newbie who shows up thinks to start off in Search-mode.
0 -
thorsmom01 wrote:Because it's mfp... where cico needs to be explained and discussed and debated constantly.
Apparently it's a hard concept to follow for some.
Yes, because it's not only common sense, it's basic math.justrollme wrote:it is not well understood by many. Is that surprising?
If you pour more water out of a bucket than you're adding from the spigot, the water level in the bucket will drop.
Then again, there are people who believe that if you pour more water in than you're taking out,
the water level will still drop. (Eat more calories, keep exercise the same, lose more weight.)
.
Parents, grandparents, family, etc. should be teaching kids how to take care of themselves, in many ways.Nutritional education (in many US public schools, at least) isn't so great. The percentage of overweight and obese people also sort of points in the direction of it potentially being "a hard concept to follow for some."
Schools need to be teaching the basics of education (3 Rs + citizenship / civics), instilling a love of learning, and
later they need to teach how to learn so kids can continue a lifetime of learning on their own.
Schools, government, etc. does not need to (and should not) be a nanny or a substitute for the family.0 -
The img tag didn't make it come through as a picture, so I turned it into a URL.justrollme wrote:when people get to a point where they want to make an effort to manage their weight and/or their nutritional health, sometimes they turn to sources they don't realize shouldn't be trusted. Anecdotal example: a friend of mine raved about some diet from a website, recommended by someone who had lost over 100 lbs using it. (My 55 lb loss with CICO felt too out-of-reach to her, because she is afraid of counting calories.) Here's a real gem from the site's FAQ:
http://i.imgur.com/2SBJeDF.png
This friend isn't a stupid person, but clearly nutritional education is lacking, and I do think there are plenty of others in the same boat.
http://i.imgur.com/2SBJeDF.png
That's really some whacky "logic" there...
You can gain weight eating 1600 calories of "unclean" / junk food,
but will lose weight eating 2000 calories of "clean" food.
0 -
thorsmom01 wrote:Because it's mfp... where cico needs to be explained and discussed and debated constantly.
Apparently it's a hard concept to follow for some.
Yes, because it's not only common sense, it's basic math.justrollme wrote:it is not well understood by many. Is that surprising?
If you pour more water out of a bucket than you're adding from the spigot, the water level in the bucket will drop.
Then again, there are people who believe that if you pour more water in than you're taking out,
the water level will still drop. (Eat more calories, keep exercise the same, lose more weight.)
.
Parents, grandparents, family, etc. should be teaching kids how to take care of themselves, in many ways.Nutritional education (in many US public schools, at least) isn't so great. The percentage of overweight and obese people also sort of points in the direction of it potentially being "a hard concept to follow for some."
Schools need to be teaching the basics of education (3 Rs + citizenship / civics), instilling a love of learning, and
later they need to teach how to learn so kids can continue a lifetime of learning on their own.
Schools, government, etc. does not need to (and should not) be a nanny or a substitute for the family.
I agree with most of what you've said, but also must point out that sometimes family doesn't teach their children because they simply do not know what they do not know. I'm not comfortable with letting schools and government off the hook. Schools already offer the education in health and/or science classes, I'm just pointing out that many don't do a good enough job of it. (Some do, I'm sure, but I don't think enough of them do.) My parents were both raised by non-English-speaking immigrants, all hard-working, all devoted to family, and not at all well-educated in nutrition. My parents are a high school grad and a GED-earner, and they are also very hard-working, caring and devoted people who are not well-educated in nutrition. So, in my case, family did not prevent or help to solve my problems with a lack of nutrition education by providing it for me. Not because they didn't want to do so, but because they did not know to do so.
As far as the basic math part...well, yes and no? It's all estimations, with plenty of variables.0 -
Hey guys,
This discussion apparently went a little off-the-rails from the beginning. I've done a little clean-up and am re-opening the discussion, but I'd like you to keep our community guidelines in mind while you're posting. Especially this one:2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
I hope y'all are having a fantastic weekend,
JustSomeEm0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
Does MFP recalculate, or merely suggest you should rerun goals ? I think the latter.
0 -
Fat loss = Fat oxidation - Fat intake - Fat production
I'm a substrate partitioning guy rather than a burn it all and dissipate the energy guy.0 -
yes it was absolutely meant the way you took it. And it was responding to another conversation in this thread which has been cleaned up, so your reading into something that you can only see parts of.justrollme wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »
Did you mean for that to come off snarky? Really—it is not well understood by many. Is that surprising? Nutritional education (in many US public schools, at least) isn't so great. The percentage of overweight and obese people also sort of points in the direction of it potentially being "a hard concept to follow for some."
And, when people get to a point where they want to make an effort to manage their weight and/or their nutritional health, sometimes they turn to sources they don't realize shouldn't be trusted. Anecdotal example: a friend of mine raved about some diet from a website, recommended by someone who had lost over 100 lbs using it. (My 55 lb loss with CICO felt too out-of-reach to her, because she is afraid of counting calories.) Here's a real gem from the site's FAQ:
This friend isn't a stupid person, but clearly nutritional education is lacking, and I do think there are plenty of others in the same boat. Which, btw, is part of why so many topics are redundant on this forum. For that reason, and also because not every newbie who shows up thinks to start off in Search-mode.
But yes, people should really know that that weight loss would require them to eat less. Sometimes people really do know it deep down Inside but still go looking for a quick fix or gimmick in hopes of " better or faster results"0 -
justrollme wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote:Because it's mfp... where cico needs to be explained and discussed and debated constantly.
Apparently it's a hard concept to follow for some.
Yes, because it's not only common sense, it's basic math.justrollme wrote:it is not well understood by many. Is that surprising?
If you pour more water out of a bucket than you're adding from the spigot, the water level in the bucket will drop.
Then again, there are people who believe that if you pour more water in than you're taking out,
the water level will still drop. (Eat more calories, keep exercise the same, lose more weight.)
.
Parents, grandparents, family, etc. should be teaching kids how to take care of themselves, in many ways.Nutritional education (in many US public schools, at least) isn't so great. The percentage of overweight and obese people also sort of points in the direction of it potentially being "a hard concept to follow for some."
Schools need to be teaching the basics of education (3 Rs + citizenship / civics), instilling a love of learning, and
later they need to teach how to learn so kids can continue a lifetime of learning on their own.
Schools, government, etc. does not need to (and should not) be a nanny or a substitute for the family.
I agree with most of what you've said, but also must point out that sometimes family doesn't teach their children because they simply do not know what they do not know. I'm not comfortable with letting schools and government off the hook. Schools already offer the education in health and/or science classes, I'm just pointing out that many don't do a good enough job of it. (Some do, I'm sure, but I don't think enough of them do.) My parents were both raised by non-English-speaking immigrants, all hard-working, all devoted to family, and not at all well-educated in nutrition. My parents are a high school grad and a GED-earner, and they are also very hard-working, caring and devoted people who are not well-educated in nutrition. So, in my case, family did not prevent or help to solve my problems with a lack of nutrition education by providing it for me. Not because they didn't want to do so, but because they did not know to do so.
As far as the basic math part...well, yes and no? It's all estimations, with plenty of variables.
I'd rather call it an approximation for most people. The difference between the two is that an estimate can be way off while an approximation is by definition close to the actual value, which most calorie counts are. And the variables that play into that, again for most people at least, don't factor in enough to make it inaccurate and can be mostly ignored.
We had that a lot in physics class back in school. Like the good old "You're standing up in a topless car going 100 km/h and throw a ball backwards at 30 km/h. How fast does it move in relation to an outside observer?" Answer: 70 km/h as it is moving 100 in one direction and 30 in the other. That's a simple answer gotten by simple substraction and we didn't need anything more than that.
It is also not exactly correct. The actual formula incorporates the speed of light, as nothing can go faster than that. Going the speed of light and turning on a flashlight does not result in 2x speed of light.
But for that normal example, the variation caused by using the correct formula as opposed to the simple one is so small, you can ignore it, which is mostly true for all that TEF difference, absorption difference, cooking difference and whatever you can think of in the CICO too. If such differences were anything but small and insignificant for the vast majority, TDEE calculators would be utterly useless or wouldn't exist at all because no one would have been able to make a satisfying calculation.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
Does MFP recalculate, or merely suggest you should rerun goals ? I think the latter.
It depends on how you set it up. If you use the MFP defaults, it continuously recalculates. If you customize any part of it, it will prompt you to recalculate after each 10 lb. you lose.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
Does MFP recalculate, or merely suggest you should rerun goals ? I think the latter.
It depends on how you set it up. If you use the MFP defaults, it continuously recalculates. If you customize any part of it, it will prompt you to recalculate after each 10 lb. you lose.
I must try this on a shadow account. In previous discussions it appeared that on the app some people "logged" their weight by re running goals.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
Does MFP recalculate, or merely suggest you should rerun goals ? I think the latter.
It depends on how you set it up. If you use the MFP defaults, it continuously recalculates. If you customize any part of it, it will prompt you to recalculate after each 10 lb. you lose.
I must try this on a shadow account. In previous discussions it appeared that on the app some people "logged" their weight by re running goals.
I am not sure if the app is different than the website. I only use the website.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
Does MFP recalculate, or merely suggest you should rerun goals ? I think the latter.
It depends on how you set it up. If you use the MFP defaults, it continuously recalculates. If you customize any part of it, it will prompt you to recalculate after each 10 lb. you lose.
Ahh this totally explains why it hasn't recalculated anything for me since I set a custom goal, I've only lost about 8lbs since then. Thanks, I was just wondering about that!0 -
I'd like to thank the OP for the link and I liked using the BWP. I'm not sure it uses anything all that different from other online calculators though for when it comes to estimating a calorie intake to lose weight - age, height, general activity, weight and so on. But it was cool to see the projected weight loss on a graph when I switched to expert mode. I've bookmarked it, anyway
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If CI < CO, then you will lose weight because something must be metabolized to produce the energy needed. But will it be fat loss or muscle loss? What can be done to increase the CO (in addition to exercise) that could speed up the weight loss?
If CI > CO, will you gain fat? How much fat? Is there anything that you can do that can minimize the storage of fat when you are in this state?
The linear CICO model does not answer the questions I just asked. A more detailed model could. Does that matter? Yes, I would like to lose faster and I’m sure a lot of others do too. Also for those who really struggle, it might make a big difference to them as I put forth in my original post.
I’m not looking for gimmicks, shortcuts, quick fixes, wanting it to be beyond our control, or place the blame elsewhere (I do know some people do try to do this so that is a valid point). I also don’t believe in pink or purple unicorns and actually do understand math. I’ve made a living doing work that requires math (I’m an engineer) and have modeled other physical system’s dynamics in the past to gain a better understanding of the systems.
What I’m suggesting isn’t an attempt to disprove CICO. It is an attempt to better model it. Can it make a difference? Some have said that the effects will be too small. If so, please provide a reference to a study. The linear CICO model is very simple and isn’t a hard concept to understand. I want to understand the non-linear nature of the real model more to investigate if the effects are significant and if they can be taken advantage of in a reasonable way. That should not be a hard concept to understand also.
Maybe this has all been discussed and I should have done a search, but I didn’t think there was harm in opening a new discussion since no one is being forced to read it or to reply to it. I appreciate real contributions to the discussion. Thanks.0 -
The number of times you've conceded to CICO just to then go onto further rants that require taking the outliers on a bell curve into a lab setting to address would be funny if you didn't appear so serious about it.0
-
If CI < CO, then you will lose weight because something must be metabolized to produce the energy needed. But will it be fat loss or muscle loss? What can be done to increase the CO (in addition to exercise) that could speed up the weight loss?
If CI > CO, will you gain fat? How much fat? Is there anything that you can do that can minimize the storage of fat when you are in this state?
The linear CICO model does not answer the questions I just asked. A more detailed model could. Does that matter? Yes, I would like to lose faster and I’m sure a lot of others do too. Also for those who really struggle, it might make a big difference to them as I put forth in my original post.
I’m not looking for gimmicks, shortcuts, quick fixes, wanting it to be beyond our control, or place the blame elsewhere (I do know some people do try to do this so that is a valid point). I also don’t believe in pink or purple unicorns and actually do understand math. I’ve made a living doing work that requires math (I’m an engineer) and have modeled other physical system’s dynamics in the past to gain a better understanding of the systems.
What I’m suggesting isn’t an attempt to disprove CICO. It is an attempt to better model it. Can it make a difference? Some have said that the effects will be too small. If so, please provide a reference to a study. The linear CICO model is very simple and isn’t a hard concept to understand. I want to understand the non-linear nature of the real model more to investigate if the effects are significant and if they can be taken advantage of in a reasonable way. That should not be a hard concept to understand also.
Maybe this has all been discussed and I should have done a search, but I didn’t think there was harm in opening a new discussion since no one is being forced to read it or to reply to it. I appreciate real contributions to the discussion. Thanks.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
There. Even has an eye catching name for you.
One of my favorite parts: same calorie intake but substituting 75 grams of carbs with 75 grams of protein (which is a huge dietary change), resulted in 21 calories extra burned.
You're looking at those magnitudes of numbers here.
There is no "tweaking" that's going to make a lick of a difference to any normal functioning person. And people aren't even sure anymore if there's tweaks for not normal functioning persons either looking at another follow up to a thread about IR I saw yesterday. It does not make you lose muscle more than is needed, it does not make you gain more muscle than is needed. It takes as much out of any food it can to excrete as little energy as possible.
Your body is an extremely efficient machine capable of dealing with just about anything edible you put in there, functioning almost identically over a wide range of different dietary intakes from low carb to high carb, low fat high fat, low protein high protein. The things that are essential to your body's proper function make up no more than 500-900 calories per day depending how tall and heavy you are, leaving a huge margin of choice of intake, which is obvious seeing how we're able to survive just about anywhere on this planet regardless of what kinds of food are available.
If someone more skillful at talking wants to chime in to this go ahead, I don't know in how many other ways I can reiterate the same point anymore. Your body is really good at what it does, any outside change you put it under is unlikely to make it have a noticably different outcome.0 -
You're so busy trying to "fine tune" something that already works that you're missing the forest for the trees.
In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.1 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »You're so busy trying to "fine tune" something that already works that you're missing the forest for the trees.
In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It's called "majoring in the minors".
One doesn't need to have detailed knowledge of internal combustion engines, suspension/steering components, restraint systems/occupant kinematics, etc. to drive a car. Similarly, one doesn't need to have detailed knowledge of cellular metabolism/respiration, hormonal/endocrine systems, etc. to lose weight. It's interesting stuff for sure, and the human body is a very complicated organism - nothing wrong with educating oneself and learning as much as one may be interested in learning, but it doesn't negate the fundamental principle of losing weight.0 -
If CI < CO, then you will lose weight because something must be metabolized to produce the energy needed. But will it be fat loss or muscle loss? What can be done to increase the CO (in addition to exercise) that could speed up the weight loss?
If CI > CO, will you gain fat? How much fat? Is there anything that you can do that can minimize the storage of fat when you are in this state?
The linear CICO model does not answer the questions I just asked. A more detailed model could. Does that matter? Yes, I would like to lose faster and I’m sure a lot of others do too. Also for those who really struggle, it might make a big difference to them as I put forth in my original post.
I’m not looking for gimmicks, shortcuts, quick fixes, wanting it to be beyond our control, or place the blame elsewhere (I do know some people do try to do this so that is a valid point). I also don’t believe in pink or purple unicorns and actually do understand math. I’ve made a living doing work that requires math (I’m an engineer) and have modeled other physical system’s dynamics in the past to gain a better understanding of the systems.
What I’m suggesting isn’t an attempt to disprove CICO. It is an attempt to better model it. Can it make a difference? Some have said that the effects will be too small. If so, please provide a reference to a study. The linear CICO model is very simple and isn’t a hard concept to understand. I want to understand the non-linear nature of the real model more to investigate if the effects are significant and if they can be taken advantage of in a reasonable way. That should not be a hard concept to understand also.
Maybe this has all been discussed and I should have done a search, but I didn’t think there was harm in opening a new discussion since no one is being forced to read it or to reply to it. I appreciate real contributions to the discussion. Thanks.
CICO's simplicity is a huge advantage. Much of what makes food choices difficult is not a lack of information, but an overwhelming amount of information. Calorie counting simplifies this down to one number, and while it is simplified, it's also quite accurate.
If you really want a better model, do calorie counting plus protein counting plus progressive resistance training. Higher protein is associated with better preservation of lean mass, better satiety, and potentially a slight bonus from the thermic effect of food.
Any benefits from going more complicated than that are trivial in the grand scheme of things.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
Does MFP recalculate, or merely suggest you should rerun goals ? I think the latter.
It depends on how you set it up. If you use the MFP defaults, it continuously recalculates. If you customize any part of it, it will prompt you to recalculate after each 10 lb. you lose.
I must try this on a shadow account. In previous discussions it appeared that on the app some people "logged" their weight by re running goals.
I am not sure if the app is different than the website. I only use the website.
There is nothing called "check in" on the app so will test it0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions