CICO
Replies
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
What she said doesn't hold up. It's not a new story around these parts. And it's not true. There's very little (not even statistically significant) individual variation.
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
I do not concur. I have known people who force fed themselves (me) and couldn't gain weight.
I'll just leave this little tidbit here for you to read: bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
Do you not see the logic fail in your post?
No, please show me.
You magically created a new calories out via excretion .... still a CO ... although not one that happens in humans as you "believe ".
There are simply too many others to highlight and it isn't worth the effort to separate from your walls of text.
Excreting cals out isnt a function of exercise AND doesn't contribute to weight gain. My point is that a cal surplus may not result in a weight gain.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
Do you not see the logic fail in your post?
No, please show me.
You magically created a new calories out via excretion .... still a CO ... although not one that happens in humans as you "believe ".
There are simply too many others to highlight and it isn't worth the effort to separate from your walls of text.
I also said it MAY be due to that. You said that, "not one that happens..". The burden of proof is upon you!0 -
I usually enjoy topics that are just for the sake of discussion. But something seems off here.
@blambo61, you emphasize your background in mathematics, mention your grad work and experience, and stress how interested you are in modeling CICO. At the same time, you add that few people here really understand math (there are more of us here than you think) and get a bit snarky about people disagreeing with you or questioning you. All of this, yet you don't bother to take a minute to reference research that is readily available.
I'm not even talking about a full lit search using journal access tools. There is a solid foundation of modeling work that's been done on CICO, and some of it is currently open source and available via the very basic search that anyone with an internet connection is capable of. So what's the deal? You're familiar with how to do this stuff - if you were simply someone with zero background and some healthy curiosity about modeling CICO, I wouldn't be saying this.
If the topic is truly important to you, and you wanted an authentic conversation as opposed to just watching people flail with a complex topic, then you'd put a modicum of effort into your initial premise. Just tossing the topic out with no real foundation makes it seem like you aren't genuinely interested in a conversation about it.
I am intetested and have done some searches. I have not meant to be snarky but have also not allowed myself to be beat up by others who have been snarky in my opinion. I would think there would be people here that would state, " I've read such and such helps" but have seen little to none if that and have mostly only heard people saying there are no improvements that can be made or significant ones that can be made. I would gladly like ideas of things that might help.
I am getting tired of the tone of comments here also and the lack of useful comments so I will proably be done with this soon.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
robertw486 wrote: »@blambo61
For the record, I completely understand your wanting to nail things down to the more complex systems and drivers involved. Being that I simply read your posts rather than try to read between the lines and imply things, I won't even suggest that you need to justify any reason to figure things out better. You can do it for whatever reason you want, and it's obvious that you're not readily influenced by majority opinion that there is no need.
But as you can clearly see, most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them. Well, with the exception that most of them log and track their food. And might use TDEE or other calculators outside of the MFP app/program. Ooops, and possibly think that the only way to gain muscle is through a structured lifting program. Oh, and track macro's, especially the extra protein for lifting brah! Don't forget about understanding weight fluctuations, sodium consumption, and water retention. Maybe that better be charted. And for some I think they must limit their study of actual science to a single or at least few sources. Otherwise it would probably be hard to attach and absolute value to something that even the in depth studies and science community experts can't agree on.
Because, you see, that is SIMPLE. And here I thought eating less and moving more to lose weight was simple, and working out more to gain muscle was simple, both without any logging.
But I suspect that a great deal of the desire to mute your thread is due to the fact that many people simply only accept what they want to accept, and many here seem to think that the only method that is simple is the method they use. Some of these same people will attempt to judge what you do as right or wrong, twist your words, question your intentions for seeking greater knowledge, and judge your relationship with food. Maybe because people like to play internet psychologist, maybe because they struggle with their own relationships. But in any case, they are attaching their perceived baggage as your own.
As for myself, though I enjoy understanding more about the physiology, chemistry, and biology involved, I simple do so in the specific areas that I feel are desires of my own, and much as yourself for reasons purely my own. And that includes quite a bit beyond CICO, well up into the unknowns such as the psychology of things.
I would think that the model formulas you are seeking would be very difficult due to variables, and would require an almost lab animal type environment to really properly test. And I'm sure at some point all of the advances will explain these things currently not explained. But I doubt even science can do so without a decent margin of error involved.
And for now, this "special snowflake" is going to help my daughter bake a cake. Because I've seen it implied here that lack of rewarding food could lead to a decay in my mental state and cause an unhealthy relationship with food. Which I find ridiculous personally. But I like cake.
That wasn't passive aggressive or sarcastic at all.
For the record, some of us are having an adult conversation. No need to insult everyone just because I happen to believe some things you don't.
It was in no way passive, it was a blunt statement concerning the double standards by which many here IMO use their personal preferences regarding weight control to judge another as right or wrong. If the shoe fits... not my issue.
But I've yet to see the OP state that anyone else is not entitled to use whatever method works for them. Or have him claim a persons relationship with food is unhealthy. Or see him state that the method you use doesn't matter because he doesn't use the same method. Or tell someone that they are probably malnourished because someone on a forum assumed there was no medical professional involved in their diet. Or ask someone to justify their personal preferences.
Having also seen the cleaned up parts of the thread, it seems most people are going to efforts to make sure the OP can't have an adult conversation. And if you feel that by me interjecting my opinions the conversation become less adult, I'd suggest that maybe you review the fact that I've openly stated and supported others doing whatever works for them. For one person it might be weighing and logging input more accurately, for another it might be accurate exercise logging, and for some it might be both. The OP has no requirement or obligation to explain his reasoning any more than another user has an obligation to explain why they might weigh their food. Which is an obligation of none IMO.brianpperkins wrote: »Robert,
It seems you are deliberately misrepresenting what people say so that you can then argue against the lie you create.
Being I've made a single post prior to this, you should be able to readily quote where I've attached any individual to any statement and dispute it. I'd have no problem with that, nor any problem making clarifications to any statement I've made.
But I'll leave you with this, starting with something you stated directed at the OP.brianpperkins wrote: »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.
Both you and me agree that exercise burns calories. Yet I've seen both of us on threads looking for better studies on the calorie burns for specific exercises at specific rates, etc. If we apply the standard you state above directed at the OP, we shouldn't be involved in such debates, because it doesn't matter. We already know that exercise burns calories, and we already know that contributes to calories out. Some will accept whatever error the tracking method has, others will reject that and seek more accurate information.
But in much the same way as the OP is seeking information on the big picture, both me and you have obviously spent more time worrying about the calories out part of the equation. Are we as wrong as you and many seem to think the OP is for wanting more information?0 -
Robert,
I can readily point out your misrepresentations. Your earlier post is filled with them. They started with "most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them." Everything you attributed to others was a subsequent misrepresentation.
With this, I'm done feeding into your flame baiting behaviors. Couching it in a white knight aura doesn't change what you're doing.0 -
I usually enjoy topics that are just for the sake of discussion. But something seems off here.
@blambo61, you emphasize your background in mathematics, mention your grad work and experience, and stress how interested you are in modeling CICO. At the same time, you add that few people here really understand math (there are more of us here than you think) and get a bit snarky about people disagreeing with you or questioning you. All of this, yet you don't bother to take a minute to reference research that is readily available.
I'm not even talking about a full lit search using journal access tools. There is a solid foundation of modeling work that's been done on CICO, and some of it is currently open source and available via the very basic search that anyone with an internet connection is capable of. So what's the deal? You're familiar with how to do this stuff - if you were simply someone with zero background and some healthy curiosity about modeling CICO, I wouldn't be saying this.
If the topic is truly important to you, and you wanted an authentic conversation as opposed to just watching people flail with a complex topic, then you'd put a modicum of effort into your initial premise. Just tossing the topic out with no real foundation makes it seem like you aren't genuinely interested in a conversation about it.
I am intetested and have done some searches. I have not meant to be snarky but have also not allowed myself to be beat up by others who have been snarky in my opinion. I would think there would be people here that would state, " I've read such and such helps" but have seen little to none if that and have mostly only heard people saying there are no improvements that can be made or significant ones that can be made. I would gladly like ideas of things that might help.
I am getting tired of the tone of comments here also and the lack of useful comments so I will proably be done with this soon.
Here is a link with a lot of the general information you may or may not already know. But I looked for this on in particular to give you an idea of some of the formulas involved for the weight prediction app they developed. It gives you an idea of how quickly things can become complex.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302369/
Buried down in there is the pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
Go to the "About the model" section and it gives a fairly in depth explanation of how they modeled all the various formulas used to make the app.
But as I see it the major flaws will still exist. As an example, even if a person weighs food, that weight is affected by humidity. And the composition of the food is based on an average sampling, not an exact. And on the entire process through the body, starting with how well it's chewed, there are variables.
And then from there you have the same issues with nailing down the calories out side of the equation. Possibly not quite at complex if you lived in a lab, but in real life just as complex.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »...But as I see it the major flaws will still exist. As an example, even if a person weighs food, that weight is affected by humidity. And the composition of the food is based on an average sampling, not an exact. And on the entire process through the body, starting with how well it's chewed, there are variables...
And you seriously see those as "major flaws"? How much difference do you suppose the humidity in the air would make? Or how well food is chewed? We're talking infinitesimally minor differences here.robertw486 wrote: »...And then from there you have the same issues with nailing down the calories out side of the equation. Possibly not quite at complex if you lived in a lab, but in real life just as complex.
Which simply shows (as many have said ad nauseum) that CICO is not an exact science. It in no way invalidates or diminishes the importance of CICO.
There is no way possible to know exactly how many calories you're taking in or expending. It's all estimations. That's why the feedback loop is an important part of it. Gaining weight when you're trying to lose? Your "in" is higher than your "out", regardless of how/why it's happening. Fix it. Losing weight when you're trying to gain? Your "out" is higher than your "in" regardless of how/why it's happening. Fix it.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Robert,
I can readily point out your misrepresentations. Your earlier post is filled with them. They started with "most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them." Everything you attributed to others was a subsequent misrepresentation.
With this, I'm done feeding into your flame baiting behaviors. Couching it in a white knight aura doesn't change what you're doing.
And yet, on the first page alone, I could quote multiple sources telling the OP that what he seeks doesn't matter, because they think so. If you take away the thread drift areas, the few reasoned responses giving him feedback, and the further statements on what it more important, essentially all that is left is people opposing sharing any greater amounts of information.
So once again, if you feel interjecting my observations is flame baiting, you're welcome to stay or bail. But I think this points out another example of the dual standards many used. And I intentionally used an example that both you and I do the same with seeking information about calories out, just to remove it as a judgement of yourself that I don't impose on myself.
For the record, the white knight phrase has already been used though. I'd prefer someone at least cry derp or something. I'm not opposed to people that choose to judge and stereotype, I'd just prefer they at least be creative while doing so. Otherwise they are just IMO caving to the norm of the masses on the board.1 -
I don't think it's really fair or reasonable to take offense at the tone of comments given that (a) a general weight loss support forum isn't really the best place to initiate a conversation about mathematical modeling and (b) the comments I can see (I know some were moderated out) were offered in the spirit of debate and discussion. There are some extremely well-informed and interesting folks on this site. I may not always agree with some of them, but that's not a bad thing.
Anyway, if you have journal access privileges anywhere, try this (as well as any other articles by these particular authors):
Chow, CC; Hall, KD, Short and Long Term Energy Intake Patterns and Their Implications for Human Body Weight Regulation. Physiology and Behavior, July 2014.
If you don't have access to full text journal articles, then this blog is a fun and accessible discussion of the same topic, and it references Chow and Hall's work (note: the blog may seem a little intimidating for those who really dislike math, but hang in there - the author does a good job of explaining concepts):
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/blog/math_time_and_obesity-156333
Thanks, I will look at that.0 -
Layne Norton posted this today on his Facebook page...it somewhat applies
Ladies, I'm seeing a lot of BS out there regarding contest prep techniques and approaches as people begin to gear up for contest prep post holidays. Contest prep is not supposed to be easy, it will be hard. However, I see a lot of people who go through unnecessary suffering because they aren't educated on scientific approaches to contest prep. If you don't understand science based prep you place yourself under undo suffering and health risks. Take my friend and client bikini pro Laurin Conlin IFBB Pro she was allowed to eat whatever foods she wanted so long as she hit her protein, carb, fat, and fiber requirement... There were no demonized foods. That said, she chose to eat more fiber dense, nutrient rich foods because they were more filling. You see flexible dieting gets a bad rap from people who don't even understand how it works. If your calories are reduced you will choose to select your calories from more filling foods. It's like a budget. If you have a small budget (i.e. Low calories because of slower metabolism) you can't afford to spend a big chunk of your budget on a sports car (i.e. Junk food) because you won't be able to meet your budget doing that. But if you have a large budget (faster metabolism) and you are able to meet your budget goals and still have some left over, then you can buy that sports car (i.e. You can spend a bit on some fun foods). Flexible dieting in this way is self regulating. Anyone who claims its nothing but eating junk doesn't actually understand what it is. Further Laurin shown here did not deplete water or water. She did not use any diuretics and never wore a silly squeem. If you understand science based prep and fat loss techniques you minimize unnecessary suffering and health risks
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
What she said doesn't hold up. It's not a new story around these parts. And it's not true. There's very little (not even statistically significant) individual variation.
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
I do not concur. I have known people who force fed themselves (me) and couldn't gain weight.
You were burning more than you were eating. Simple.
Or I was excreting it.
They should really study you. You might be the answer to our world's obesity crisis.
Little snarky but not bad.
Gah. No matter what I say I sound like a jerk. But I'm serious - if you really excrete fat and can lose or maintain without having to exercise or moderate your eating, you're an anomaly.
Haven't you seen people like that? What if someone is deficient in the enzymes to store fat? Wouldn't they have a hard time putting it on and consequently they would stay thin?
It would realistically be impossible to "see people like that," because you would have to calculate their TDEE and track all their intake to prove that. With that said, I've never seen science to back this up. I would think a deficit in enzymes of fat storage would lead to a condition requiring hospitalization and diagnosis so such a thing would show up in science.
It does. Cystic fibrosis. Those kiddos have to take enzymes with their meals in order to absorb the food and they have to eat as much as they possibly can to support growth and development.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I usually enjoy topics that are just for the sake of discussion. But something seems off here.
@blambo61, you emphasize your background in mathematics, mention your grad work and experience, and stress how interested you are in modeling CICO. At the same time, you add that few people here really understand math (there are more of us here than you think) and get a bit snarky about people disagreeing with you or questioning you. All of this, yet you don't bother to take a minute to reference research that is readily available.
I'm not even talking about a full lit search using journal access tools. There is a solid foundation of modeling work that's been done on CICO, and some of it is currently open source and available via the very basic search that anyone with an internet connection is capable of. So what's the deal? You're familiar with how to do this stuff - if you were simply someone with zero background and some healthy curiosity about modeling CICO, I wouldn't be saying this.
If the topic is truly important to you, and you wanted an authentic conversation as opposed to just watching people flail with a complex topic, then you'd put a modicum of effort into your initial premise. Just tossing the topic out with no real foundation makes it seem like you aren't genuinely interested in a conversation about it.
I am intetested and have done some searches. I have not meant to be snarky but have also not allowed myself to be beat up by others who have been snarky in my opinion. I would think there would be people here that would state, " I've read such and such helps" but have seen little to none if that and have mostly only heard people saying there are no improvements that can be made or significant ones that can be made. I would gladly like ideas of things that might help.
I am getting tired of the tone of comments here also and the lack of useful comments so I will proably be done with this soon.
Here is a link with a lot of the general information you may or may not already know. But I looked for this on in particular to give you an idea of some of the formulas involved for the weight prediction app they developed. It gives you an idea of how quickly things can become complex.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302369/
Buried down in there is the pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
Go to the "About the model" section and it gives a fairly in depth explanation of how they modeled all the various formulas used to make the app.
But as I see it the major flaws will still exist. As an example, even if a person weighs food, that weight is affected by humidity. And the composition of the food is based on an average sampling, not an exact. And on the entire process through the body, starting with how well it's chewed, there are variables.
And then from there you have the same issues with nailing down the calories out side of the equation. Possibly not quite at complex if you lived in a lab, but in real life just as complex.
Thanks0 -
robertw486 wrote: »...But as I see it the major flaws will still exist. As an example, even if a person weighs food, that weight is affected by humidity. And the composition of the food is based on an average sampling, not an exact. And on the entire process through the body, starting with how well it's chewed, there are variables...
And you seriously see those as "major flaws"? How much difference do you suppose the humidity in the air would make? Or how well food is chewed? We're talking infinitesimally minor differences here.robertw486 wrote: »...And then from there you have the same issues with nailing down the calories out side of the equation. Possibly not quite at complex if you lived in a lab, but in real life just as complex.
Which simply shows (as many have said ad nauseum) that CICO is not an exact science. It in no way invalidates or diminishes the importance of CICO.
There is no way possible to know exactly how many calories you're taking in or expending. It's all estimations. That's why the feedback loop is an important part of it. Gaining weight when you're trying to lose? Your "in" is higher than your "out", regardless of how/why it's happening. Fix it. Losing weight when you're trying to gain? Your "out" is higher than your "in" regardless of how/why it's happening. Fix it.
CICO has no feedback loops in the model (as most have described it here). In reality there are many feedback loops.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »...But as I see it the major flaws will still exist. As an example, even if a person weighs food, that weight is affected by humidity. And the composition of the food is based on an average sampling, not an exact. And on the entire process through the body, starting with how well it's chewed, there are variables...
And you seriously see those as "major flaws"? How much difference do you suppose the humidity in the air would make? Or how well food is chewed? We're talking infinitesimally minor differences here.
The intake and digestive process variables in the study I last linked states variances of 2-10%. That is I would assume after accounting for "lab quality" controlled foods. Error added to error = more error. Regardless of what induces the error, the combined total error is what it is.Which simply shows (as many have said ad nauseum) that CICO is not an exact science. It in no way invalidates or diminishes the importance of CICO.
There is no way possible to know exactly how many calories you're taking in or expending. It's all estimations. That's why the feedback loop is an important part of it. Gaining weight when you're trying to lose? Your "in" is higher than your "out", regardless of how/why it's happening. Fix it. Losing weight when you're trying to gain? Your "out" is higher than your "in" regardless of how/why it's happening. Fix it.
Neither myself or the OP have ever suggested that CICO is invalidated at any time. We've simply engaged the process of more fully understanding CICO.
And in my case, I've openly stated that the most simple method for me involves zero food logging. Based on that I could readily argue that anyone that has to log food for weight loss is making it more complex than needed. But being mindful that what I need and what another need for data, motivation, or psychological reasoning that inspire them to lose weight might be different things, I don't care if they choose to be a rolling lab experiment. I simple choose not to judge someone doing it different than me as being wrong because it's not the same.0 -
Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok makes sense. I just notice some ppl get really heated on these threads - and insist it's all very simple CICO - which it is in a way - but I think maybe ppl reading get confused as there seems to be these variables. So it may come off discouraging to those wondering why they haven't lost when they are convinced they've been logging right and they are asking for an explanation and they get told they must be logging wrong because it's simple CICO. All I can contribute is from my own experience my weight loss has been pretty wonky at times and I've felt so impatient at times waiting for a lb to drop off - but ultimately hang in there because overall it works.
This is the right attitude, and there are many things that affect lbs lost in a week, like water weight fluctuations. That's not contrary to CICO, though, and I don't think anyone would say that if you don't lose for a week or three it's due to eating too much necessarily. That gets assumed when people are talking longer term results different than what they were aiming for. If you look at the threads you will see many, many examples of people saying they started working out more/lifting being told their weight gain is likely water retention.0 -
Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
Promoting a user eating 800-1000 calories at 5'6" and 200 lbs is a demonstration that you don't understand how this works. She's not only under eating and likely malnourished, but clearly not logging properly because at 5'1" and 114 lbs, I can lose at more than 1200 calories.
Your most likely right about her. I do think some people will not put on fat though even if they overeat.
Some people have a very hard time putting on weight due to a combination of appetite and natural increase in NEAT with an increase in calories. That's not the same as saying they won't put on fat if CI>CO.
It's also not especially relevant to the vast majority of us who do not have an issue with appetite outpacing NEAT.
When I was young (growing or just active), I could eat whatever I wanted without gaining. Part of this was that high cal food that I liked was less available to me -- I ate based on when meals were available at home or (later) at the school I was going to, I didn't buy snacks.
In my mid to late 20s I got increasingly less active and worked at a job where I got to go to fancy restaurants and drink lots of wine and I spent more of my leisure time at parties or bars drinking beer than running. Shock, I started gaining weight, despite my silly idea from the past that I was a person who could eat whatever I wanted and not gain.
Now I eat more sensibly, but in my mid 40s and as a relatively smaller person, yeah, I have to consciously remain active and say no to many of the high cal restaurant options and snacks offered to me on a daily basis (and the culture of eating constantly and indulgently has gotten a lot worse even in the past 20 years IMO) to avoid gaining weight. I do not believe this means that my physiology has changed or that CICO does not apply. Same with the fact that a growing teen or man could eat more than me and not gain -- that's, instead, precisely what CICO would predict.0 -
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
Please, for the umpteenth time I haven't said anything about breaking CICO.
^^^ nuf' said
No, people don't excrete fat to prevent weight gain in a caloric surplus. If this was possible, some weight loss company would have figured out how and made billions, literally billions, by now.
The fact is that people who are larger are in denial, that they actually DO either eat more, move less, or a combination of the two, than their smaller friend / cousin / co-worker.
Also, the constant complicating of things does no favours for the average user. They need one thing... solid advice that works, and is easy to follow. Figure out your approximate maintenance calories, use a food scale, log accurately, and monitor your rate of loss. If you're not losing at your expected rate, it is probably not because poor you, there's something wrong with you that makes it harder, it's more likely that you're over-estimating your workouts (extremely common), used the wrong activity level (don't include any workouts you are logging or that your fitbit calculates) or that your logging is off (not weighing everything, incorrect data base entries, etc). If you're still not losing, see a doctor, and if hypothyroid etc is ruled out, then you go back to the chart already posted. This is not rocket science. The process itself is easy. The implementation... that depends on the user.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
Obesity prone and resistant rats - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2260721
Ditto people - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522883
Plus a number of studies observing differential ability to oxidise fat and carbohydrate leading to long term fat accumulation in humans.0 -
Haven't you seen people like that? What if someone is deficient in the enzymes to store fat? Wouldn't they have a hard time putting it on and consequently they would stay thin?
"Steatorrhea
Steatorrhea is the result of fat malabsorption.
The hallmark of steatorrhea is the passage of pale, bulky, and malodorous stools.
Such stools often float on top of the toilet water and are difficult to flush. Also, patients find floating oil droplets in the toilet following defecation. "0 -
HippySkoppy wrote: »I must be getting old but I'm struggling SO much to follow this train of thought and the trend that the other thread has taken.....
Is OP looking for the "Holy Grail" of micro-managing the macro principle of CI-CO so ALL possible variables of every individual can be assessed and then addressed in a tailor made programme that has laser point accuracy???
For what it is worth despite wild differences in my body's ability to perform at 'optimum' levels the CI-CO has held true and never lost validity.
Seems to me that (and please help a girl out here if I've got this totally wrong) for someone who had success despite age and health issues which compromise all of my systems then looking for reasons outside of inaccurate logging 1st seems to have put the cart before the horse.
I started losing weight in my late 40's, once I dropped the excuse that anti-depressant meds. caused me to gain weight and it would be so forever more....I soothed myself with the idea that it 'really' wasn't the fact that I didn't adjust my thinking and planning to be aware of the increased appetite the meds. caused and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.
Then, I soothed my shattered nerves with the tales and predictions of inevitable weight gain from menopause, plus no gall bladder making weight loss impossible, these are just a glimpse of the 'variables' I grasped onto for dear life before I was ready to take responsibility for myself.
The last few years have seen me go from extremely active to very sedentary (so that must mean I'm going to gain), taking steroids (well I am certainly doomed now because - STEROIDS people!!!!).....Massive doses of HEAVY drug therapy that Meh causes weight gain or loss (roll the dice on this one).
Over this time too I have changed my way of eating often in an effort to combat the illnesses (with no change to my symptoms that I can detect....) I have multiple malabsorption issues and intolerances so I do have a restricted diet within these parameters....in a panicked state I started to by into "Woo" by going from vegetarian to Paleo (Yeah I know, don't hate me) back to semi-vegetarian.....fun times (Not). Now I eat whatever my body can deal with so my form of IIFYM....I dabbled in IF, 5:2 as well........so many many unnecessary complications.
If anyone was going to be a perfect outlier or lab-rat for how important and significant medical conditions, age, ability to exercise. and the influence of medication has on the usefulness of CI-CO - I must be up there with the best of them.
OK I will concede that you need to get any medical issues sorted ie get treated if you have thyroid issues, get treatment and your diet sorted if you have gut issues but in the long run once these are controlled then the underlying principle is as sound as a bell.
My numbers have not changed since I 1st started here on MFP in 2011 (without the Lupus and steroids) just the lingering weight of stuffing my face from anti-depressants and denial.....I still lose at the same level of CI verses CO as before.....despite lack of exercise.
I worry that there is now becoming too much focus on the minutiae of weight loss biological differences....and I confess I'm lost as too why anyone would want too make it more complicated than it need be....just adds to stress IMHO.
@HippySkoppy awesome post0 -
Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
Your beliefs are unfounded
Your mathematical background is leading you astray
Just to be clear, and without meaning to be rude, you are just plain wrong and this thread seems rather pointless
Go build your model, make it work for the vast majority on your bell curve ...I think you'll find that a challenge ...I think you'll find each person has their own interplay. However it's minor and does not discount, replace or improve significantly on CI<CO0 -
I wish someone would bring ME banana nut muffins at work...0
-
As I have skimmed this thread I have totally missed any reference to muffins ..however I think this @jennifer_417 should be this thread's epitaphjennifer_417 wrote: »I wish someone would bring ME banana nut muffins at work...0 -
As I have skimmed this thread I have totally missed any reference to muffins ..however I think this @jennifer_417 should be this thread's epitaphjennifer_417 wrote: »I wish someone would bring ME banana nut muffins at work...
That would be because I posted this comment in the entirely wrong thread...I think it's my turn to need coffee....and with that, I will let this thread take its last painful gasp.0 -
Don't kill the epitaph
jennifer_417 wrote: »I wish someone would bring ME banana nut muffins at work...
0 -
I don't think it's really fair or reasonable to take offense at the tone of comments given that (a) a general weight loss support forum isn't really the best place to initiate a conversation about mathematical modeling and (b) the comments I can see (I know some were moderated out) were offered in the spirit of debate and discussion. There are some extremely well-informed and interesting folks on this site. I may not always agree with some of them, but that's not a bad thing.
Anyway, if you have journal access privileges anywhere, try this (as well as any other articles by these particular authors):
Chow, CC; Hall, KD, Short and Long Term Energy Intake Patterns and Their Implications for Human Body Weight Regulation. Physiology and Behavior, July 2014.
If you don't have access to full text journal articles, then this blog is a fun and accessible discussion of the same topic, and it references Chow and Hall's work (note: the blog may seem a little intimidating for those who really dislike math, but hang in there - the author does a good job of explaining concepts):
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/blog/math_time_and_obesity-156333
Thanks, I will look at that.
I see Caitlin has posted some of the research on this with the Hall et al.
Late to the discussion but a few things to add.
OP you are right in considering that CICO is complex and that the a more exact model would have time dependancies, substrate dependencies and feedback loops. It also has hysteresis, etc.
If you are interested in the actual model I'd suggest that you read KD Hall's two other paper on the subject:
https://demystifyingmedicine.od.nih.gov/DM14/2014-02-04/AnnuRevNutr-y2012v32p35.pdf
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/298/3/E449.long
They cover the mode extensively and deal with the math to a point detailed well beyond that needed to manage weight loss.
By the way a statement like "I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that." is incorrect.
CO includes calorie excretion so if calories are excreted then CO goes up. What you probably mean in that type of statement is metabolic energy use such as the Thermal Effect of Food (TEF), non-exercise adaptive thermogenesis (NEAT) and exercise adaptive thermogenesis (EAT).
But as has also been pointed out in the thread - the majority of secondary dependancies are either small or difficult to manage and in general there are no great shortcuts; the CICO model used by most is sufficient.
Maybe you can improve factors by 3%, 5% or even 15% playing around with things like exercise timing, substrates, sleep, etc... but given the general biological variability you still can succeed well and fast if you hit the majors:
1) Focus on a calorie deficit 5%-15% of TDEE
2) Try to be consistent with your macros, eat variety for micronutrients
3) address the major lifestyle factors: sleep, water, exercise, active lifestyle, stress
You'll find that while eat less, move more is truth - the psychology of managing that successfully is also critical.
0 -
... this blog is a fun and accessible discussion of the same topic, and it references Chow and Hall's work (note: the blog may seem a little intimidating for those who really dislike math, but hang in there - the author does a good job of explaining concepts):
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/blog/math_time_and_obesity-156333
Thanks for sharing this link - very much enjoyed reading this blog!
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »@blambo61
For the record, I completely understand your wanting to nail things down to the more complex systems and drivers involved. Being that I simply read your posts rather than try to read between the lines and imply things, I won't even suggest that you need to justify any reason to figure things out better. You can do it for whatever reason you want, and it's obvious that you're not readily influenced by majority opinion that there is no need.
But as you can clearly see, most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them. Well, with the exception that most of them log and track their food. And might use TDEE or other calculators outside of the MFP app/program. Ooops, and possibly think that the only way to gain muscle is through a structured lifting program. Oh, and track macro's, especially the extra protein for lifting brah! Don't forget about understanding weight fluctuations, sodium consumption, and water retention. Maybe that better be charted. And for some I think they must limit their study of actual science to a single or at least few sources. Otherwise it would probably be hard to attach and absolute value to something that even the in depth studies and science community experts can't agree on.
Because, you see, that is SIMPLE. And here I thought eating less and moving more to lose weight was simple, and working out more to gain muscle was simple, both without any logging.
But I suspect that a great deal of the desire to mute your thread is due to the fact that many people simply only accept what they want to accept, and many here seem to think that the only method that is simple is the method they use. Some of these same people will attempt to judge what you do as right or wrong, twist your words, question your intentions for seeking greater knowledge, and judge your relationship with food. Maybe because people like to play internet psychologist, maybe because they struggle with their own relationships. But in any case, they are attaching their perceived baggage as your own.
As for myself, though I enjoy understanding more about the physiology, chemistry, and biology involved, I simple do so in the specific areas that I feel are desires of my own, and much as yourself for reasons purely my own. And that includes quite a bit beyond CICO, well up into the unknowns such as the psychology of things.
I would think that the model formulas you are seeking would be very difficult due to variables, and would require an almost lab animal type environment to really properly test. And I'm sure at some point all of the advances will explain these things currently not explained. But I doubt even science can do so without a decent margin of error involved.
And for now, this "special snowflake" is going to help my daughter bake a cake. Because I've seen it implied here that lack of rewarding food could lead to a decay in my mental state and cause an unhealthy relationship with food. Which I find ridiculous personally. But I like cake.
Gosh, you couldn't be more arrogantly wrong.
Knowledge is good. Knowledge is great.
No one is trying to mute blambo. We're only trying to tell him he's barking up the wrong tree in his pursuit of knowledge.
Your presumption of limited knowledge here just shows how limited yours is.1
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