CICO
Replies
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
Yeah. Keeping the masses quiet and uneducated by posting science and links.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »Adding a bunch of minute complications to something that already works might be a good way to discourage a whole lot of people.
The beauty of CICO is in its simplicity and accessibility.
Bears repeating.
If you want something else to take on board, here are my thoughts.
OP, You are reducing this to a matter of physical and mathematical functions, and I can tell you right now that food is a much more complicated subject than that.
We all have a relationship with food, and for those of us who have become overweight, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a dysfunctional one. That relationship can carry with it a host of lovely companions like guilt, denial, shame, scapegoating, self-loathing, and a host of other issues.
Unless and until a person is able to sift through all this baggage that comes along for the ride when it comes to food, every effort to get somewhere with dieting will ultimately fail.
Frankly, and I am being blunt here, OP... you are striking me as a person desperate for answers, but you are looking in the wrong place.
I agree that there are a lot of mental and psychological issues with loosing weight as you stated and I think you are wise to remember that.
There is some tie-in here with that though. If more understanding of the physical side were known and good easy recommendations made, then it could help those that struggle.
I probably should take this elsewhere. I will be blunt too. I don't think many people here understand a lot about math and what I'm saying so a lot of it falls on deaf ears. I do think that there are a lot of people here with some good physiology knowledge (a lot better than mine). But until the two get together, progress in what I've suggested won't get very far. I'm not desperate, just curious.
What you're suggesting aren't good and easy recommendations. It's the exact opposite of that. Everything you mentioned would require extensive medical testing for each individual person to get correct numbers.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.
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.
You believe something that is absolutely evolutionarily detrimental to survival somehow made it into modern times?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »Adding a bunch of minute complications to something that already works might be a good way to discourage a whole lot of people.
The beauty of CICO is in its simplicity and accessibility.
Bears repeating.
If you want something else to take on board, here are my thoughts.
OP, You are reducing this to a matter of physical and mathematical functions, and I can tell you right now that food is a much more complicated subject than that.
We all have a relationship with food, and for those of us who have become overweight, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a dysfunctional one. That relationship can carry with it a host of lovely companions like guilt, denial, shame, scapegoating, self-loathing, and a host of other issues.
Unless and until a person is able to sift through all this baggage that comes along for the ride when it comes to food, every effort to get somewhere with dieting will ultimately fail.
Frankly, and I am being blunt here, OP... you are striking me as a person desperate for answers, but you are looking in the wrong place.
I agree that there are a lot of mental and psychological issues with loosing weight as you stated and I think you are wise to remember that.
There is some tie-in here with that though. If more understanding of the physical side were known and good easy recommendations made, then it could help those that struggle.
I probably should take this elsewhere. I will be blunt too. I don't think many people here understand a lot about math and what I'm saying so a lot of it falls on deaf ears. I do think that there are a lot of people here with some good physiology knowledge (a lot better than mine). But until the two get together, progress in what I've suggested won't get very far. I'm not desperate, just curious.
What you're suggesting aren't good and easy recommendations. It's the exact opposite of that. Everything you mentioned would require extensive medical testing for each individual person to get correct numbers.
Plus I always love the "you don't get it because mathz" attitude.PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.
I was on an 11+ flight into the States yesterday.
I get what the OP is trying to address - I was certainly drawn to all the second order complexities of CICO and "what if" questions and I would love to write or see someone address concretely the "variabilities on a theme". It is a pretty large undertaking.
Well, without the Dunning Kruger effect of telling people that they don't understand because 'math is hard'. OP should try to drop that line.
As a question that the OP can address for us:
Background) The keto diet people have for years suggested that it has a "metabolic advantage" in terms of calories in and that this therefore allows people on keto to eat more calories as they will have less useful levels of energy available to the body for metabolic use.
Questions) Does this effect exist (hint, most likely) and if so, to what extent and can you describe it from the Hall or other metabolic models? What metabolic advantage would a substrate change of 100 g of carbs to 20 g of carbs in an isocalorie diet induce?
Bonus question) How effective is this diet recommendation in a household that has preferentially a Mediterranean-style diet with strong social and economic factors influencing diet choice?0 -
Am I allowed to eat popcorn while I wait for the answer to a keto question?0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Am I allowed to eat popcorn while I wait for the answer to a keto question?
Dairy-free popcorn?0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.
there is also an interesting lecture by K Hall that was posted already here on MFP:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/31774486#Comment_31774486
(your comments weren't exactly enthusiastic)
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I sincerely appreciate the ad hominem type attack. It is an indication of the willingness of a person to judge, attempt to berate, and distract from the information a person is providing. It's a great distraction for those who wish to employ it, but often doesn't work when dealing with people who aren't greatly influenced by such personal attacks. You or anyone else can use this method all you want, and it won't offend me, nor will I report it or respond with a personal attack. Knock yourselves out.
I actually agree with your statements above that "Knowledge is good. Knowledge is great", yet in the quote below the context you are providing seems to differ somewhat with that.PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm not seeing where these supposed nuances of difference are supposed to be helpful.
Can we have some practical information illustrating your point instead of yet another post telling us how non-linear CICO is?
I said it in the last thread, you are majoring in the minors and none of this means one whit in the face of practicability and a sustainable way of eating for the average person.
Prove me wrong.
It would seem to me that if people are judging the OPs desire for knowledge as not helpful, practical, or sustainable, then they are not in fact encouraging the spread of knowledge that some might desire to have.
There have been quite a few links provided if he is fact "barking up the wrong tree", so I'll assume that many do have productive input that relates to what the OP is seeking.
As for any assumption of my limited knowledge, much like the personal nature of the statements, assumptions don't bother me at all. I'll openly state that if anyone wants to quote anything I've stated and disprove it they are welcome. Based on the assumptions that should be easy pickings.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
I think the confusion on the above really comes down to semantics. Though I've never dug deep into how many studies word it, I think that averages and data trends come into play on the throughput. As an example, there is already a "cheat factor" with labels to compensate for the portions of proteins not absorbed. I'd have to think that any testing already factors this. But it might still be considered "calories in" by some, and "calories out" (in waste" by others.
But overall great post. In the OPs case I can see how his personal experience with losing faster than predicted has led him to looking for greater understanding of the entire process.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I sincerely appreciate the ad hominem type attack. It is an indication of the willingness of a person to judge, attempt to berate, and distract from the information a person is providing. It's a great distraction for those who wish to employ it, but often doesn't work when dealing with people who aren't greatly influenced by such personal attacks. You or anyone else can use this method all you want, and it won't offend me, nor will I report it or respond with a personal attack. Knock yourselves out.
I actually agree with your statements above that "Knowledge is good. Knowledge is great", yet in the quote below the context you are providing seems to differ somewhat with that.PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm not seeing where these supposed nuances of difference are supposed to be helpful.
Can we have some practical information illustrating your point instead of yet another post telling us how non-linear CICO is?
I said it in the last thread, you are majoring in the minors and none of this means one whit in the face of practicability and a sustainable way of eating for the average person.
Prove me wrong.
It would seem to me that if people are judging the OPs desire for knowledge as not helpful, practical, or sustainable, then they are not in fact encouraging the spread of knowledge that some might desire to have.
There have been quite a few links provided if he is fact "barking up the wrong tree", so I'll assume that many do have productive input that relates to what the OP is seeking.
As for any assumption of my limited knowledge, much like the personal nature of the statements, assumptions don't bother me at all. I'll openly state that if anyone wants to quote anything I've stated and disprove it they are welcome. Based on the assumptions that should be easy pickings.
Lol, spends post attacking people, gets upset when called arrogant.Gianfranco_R wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.
there is also an interesting lecture by K Hall that was posted already here on MFP:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/31774486#Comment_31774486
(your comments weren't exactly enthusiastic)
thanks fro posting his talk.
I agree that his first model is silly. No one proposed that someone would disappears from infinite and continuous loss. This is why all the BMR models are not linear. But his point is that models need to evolve and that too makes sense.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you hadn't shown up, I was going to Beetlejuice you in here. I couldn't find those links last night.
there is also an interesting lecture by K Hall that was posted already here on MFP:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/31774486#Comment_31774486
(your comments weren't exactly enthusiastic)
No they weren't. Because it's a stupid analogy. Projected linear application of the 3500 calorie rule in THEORY is different than what would actually happen. He misspoke in the lecture.
What's the purpose of singling me out for this? I'm flattered you remembered a post of mine from that long ago.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Am I allowed to eat popcorn while I wait for the answer to a keto question?
Dairy-free popcorn?
Nah, I eat all the dairy.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I sincerely appreciate the ad hominem type attack. It is an indication of the willingness of a person to judge, attempt to berate, and distract from the information a person is providing. It's a great distraction for those who wish to employ it, but often doesn't work when dealing with people who aren't greatly influenced by such personal attacks. You or anyone else can use this method all you want, and it won't offend me, nor will I report it or respond with a personal attack. Knock yourselves out.
I actually agree with your statements above that "Knowledge is good. Knowledge is great", yet in the quote below the context you are providing seems to differ somewhat with that.PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm not seeing where these supposed nuances of difference are supposed to be helpful.
Can we have some practical information illustrating your point instead of yet another post telling us how non-linear CICO is?
I said it in the last thread, you are majoring in the minors and none of this means one whit in the face of practicability and a sustainable way of eating for the average person.
Prove me wrong.
It would seem to me that if people are judging the OPs desire for knowledge as not helpful, practical, or sustainable, then they are not in fact encouraging the spread of knowledge that some might desire to have.
There have been quite a few links provided if he is fact "barking up the wrong tree", so I'll assume that many do have productive input that relates to what the OP is seeking.
As for any assumption of my limited knowledge, much like the personal nature of the statements, assumptions don't bother me at all. I'll openly state that if anyone wants to quote anything I've stated and disprove it they are welcome. Based on the assumptions that should be easy pickings.
Words, words, words. You pretty much said nothing. Let's get back on track.
Can you answer Evgeni's question? It was a good one. It would provide the sort of knowledge the OP is looking for.
I'll give you a hint. I can answer it. In ballpark figures. But I'll wait for those of you to whom it seems to matter to come up with the answer since you're the ones invested in the pursuit of greater knowledge.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Lol, spends post attacking people, gets upset when called arrogant.
If you really think that the assumptions of unqualified people on the internet upset me, you don't know me at all. Being I've been around online communications before most people heard whispers of the internet, I've long ago learned that egos will often fly, almost as frequently as judgement and people who use no reasonable basis for dialogue/discussion/debate. I saw people trying to "win the internet" back before most had access to it.
But as I've said before, if passing judgement on others people know little about makes some feel good, they can direct it all at me for all I care. Those people who choose to engage in a discussion/dialogue/debate will always command a great deal more respect, regardless of the outcome.
Being you had actually engaged the OPs original intent, I thought you were one of the few on the boards on a regular basis that chose the road of reasoned. But maybe not.
0 -
Ad hominem does not simply mean calling names - it is an actual informal logic error that involves claiming an argument is invalid because of the person making it. So ad hominem would be saying "you're wrong because you're arrogant."robertw486 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I sincerely appreciate the ad hominem type attack. It is an indication of the willingness of a person to judge, attempt to berate, and distract from the information a person is providing. It's a great distraction for those who wish to employ it, but often doesn't work when dealing with people who aren't greatly influenced by such personal attacks. You or anyone else can use this method all you want, and it won't offend me, nor will I report it or respond with a personal attack. Knock yourselves out.
I actually agree with your statements above that "Knowledge is good. Knowledge is great", yet in the quote below the context you are providing seems to differ somewhat with that.PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm not seeing where these supposed nuances of difference are supposed to be helpful.
Can we have some practical information illustrating your point instead of yet another post telling us how non-linear CICO is?
I said it in the last thread, you are majoring in the minors and none of this means one whit in the face of practicability and a sustainable way of eating for the average person.
Prove me wrong.
It would seem to me that if people are judging the OPs desire for knowledge as not helpful, practical, or sustainable, then they are not in fact encouraging the spread of knowledge that some might desire to have.
There have been quite a few links provided if he is fact "barking up the wrong tree", so I'll assume that many do have productive input that relates to what the OP is seeking.
As for any assumption of my limited knowledge, much like the personal nature of the statements, assumptions don't bother me at all. I'll openly state that if anyone wants to quote anything I've stated and disprove it they are welcome. Based on the assumptions that should be easy pickings.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Lol, spends post attacking people, gets upset when called arrogant.
If you really think that the assumptions of unqualified people on the internet upset me, you don't know me at all. Being I've been around online communications before most people heard whispers of the internet, I've long ago learned that egos will often fly, almost as frequently as judgement and people who use no reasonable basis for dialogue/discussion/debate. I saw people trying to "win the internet" back before most had access to it.
But as I've said before, if passing judgement on others people know little about makes some feel good, they can direct it all at me for all I care. Those people who choose to engage in a discussion/dialogue/debate will always command a great deal more respect, regardless of the outcome.
Being you had actually engaged the OPs original intent, I thought you were one of the few on the boards on a regular basis that chose the road of reasoned. But maybe not.
On a side note, I miss the times when there were less people around. The education level was definitely higher, so the level of the debates.
0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »In the simplest terms I can think of, many people want things to be beyond their control. They want it to be so amazing and complicated that it's unreachable. Look, they've spent thousands of dollars on supplements, trainers, nutritionists, boot camp, gyms, and doctors. No matter what they do, they can't "loose" the "wait". So, it must be beyond them. Even when they try to count calories, they just seem to gain. (Even though they don't weigh their food and they log about every third day). It just doesn't work, no matter how hard they try. They just can't loose the wait.
So, they do research. They start finding blogs and articles that agree with their findings that no matter how hard they try, they can't loose the wait. They find these things that say it's not their fault, it's sugar. Or, it's because calorie counting doesn't work. And they'll be these references to the food babe blog. Then they try this whacky diet where they finally loose the wait. And they are so happy. But, they get really hungry one day and eat everything in sight. Then, they feel like they suck. They continue thus and add all the wait back. But, they know that that program worked and they are convinced CICO does not work, because 1) food babe knows about toxinz, 2) CICO doesn't work, 3) the other crazy diet works, but you just gotta stick to it.
And that's about how it goes.
Then, they read the Bob Harper book, and stop eating food after 7pm, stop eating carbs at 3pm, and still don't loose the wait.
Final conclusion: they find set-point theory on a Google search. It's like gold. All responsibility has been taken out of their hands. Nothing works. It's just how you are.
This exactly. People want an excuse.0 -
And my concern is, it's almost that time of year when more newbies wander in than ever. Many are looking for a quick fix for a problem that has spent years in development, have no idea how to separate fact from fiction from broscience from woo and are hoping to find a reason why their weight isn't their fault.
Threads like this only serve to confuse folks who need to understand the basics and then build from there. CICO does work. It's worked for many of us, myself included. Tracking is often necessary. I got this way by not understanding how much I was eating and how little I was moving. Implying metabolic issues or other factors are the woo people want to believe that makes them not try as hard, because, well, it's not their fault. And this from someone who has those conditions, who blamed them, and then realized it was me. Only me. Not my "metabolism."
Related, but still an aside ... And the woman with the rare disease referenced a few pages earlier, the "ugliest woman in the world," is Lizzie Velasquez. She has no body fat and such a fragile skeleton that walking can break bones in her foot. There are only a handful of people known in the world who have the same symptoms. The disease is thought to be related to progeria. I follow her on Twitter. You can find her here: https://twitter.com/littlelizziev- Her film on bullying premiered at SXSW to rave reviews last spring. If anyone is looking to help their school with this issue, visit her website www.imwithlizzie.com
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Lol, spends post attacking people, gets upset when called arrogant.
If you really think that the assumptions of unqualified people on the internet upset me, you don't know me at all. Being I've been around online communications before most people heard whispers of the internet, I've long ago learned that egos will often fly, almost as frequently as judgement and people who use no reasonable basis for dialogue/discussion/debate. I saw people trying to "win the internet" back before most had access to it.
But as I've said before, if passing judgement on others people know little about makes some feel good, they can direct it all at me for all I care. Those people who choose to engage in a discussion/dialogue/debate will always command a great deal more respect, regardless of the outcome.
Being you had actually engaged the OPs original intent, I thought you were one of the few on the boards on a regular basis that chose the road of reasoned. But maybe not.
Why not both?
I'd rather focus on the actual subject of weight loss, physiology, exercise, etc. on the site but I'm certainly not beyond being amused by cat gifs and everything that is silly - especially by the irony of someone "taking the high road" and then using the not so subtle digs above.0 -
CICO.
Visit thee BLOG: http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/
Blog's author sums it up so well at the end of the article...
The Big Point… Just In Case You Missed It
If you’re not losing weight, there’s likely a thousand different possible aspects of your diet and workout you might consider as the culprit. And of those thousand, you’d be wasting your time and energy giving a crap about 999 of them.
Instead, the true culprit is calories and the fact that you’re either eating too many of them or not burning enough of them. Even if you think you are… you’re just not.
If you were, you’d be losing weight.
So before you start focusing on the hilarious garbage, meaningless nonsense, and countless myth-based excuses that most people tend to focus on as possible reasons for why they’re not losing weight, step back for a second and take a closer look at exactly how many calories you’re eating and exactly how many calories you’re burning.
100% of the time, that’s where your problem (and solution) will be found.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »CICO.
Visit thee BLOG: http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/
Blog's author sums it up so well at the end of the article...
The Big Point… Just In Case You Missed It
If you’re not losing weight, there’s likely a thousand different possible aspects of your diet and workout you might consider as the culprit. And of those thousand, you’d be wasting your time and energy giving a crap about 999 of them.
Instead, the true culprit is calories and the fact that you’re either eating too many of them or not burning enough of them. Even if you think you are… you’re just not.
If you were, you’d be losing weight.
So before you start focusing on the hilarious garbage, meaningless nonsense, and countless myth-based excuses that most people tend to focus on as possible reasons for why they’re not losing weight, step back for a second and take a closer look at exactly how many calories you’re eating and exactly how many calories you’re burning.
100% of the time, that’s where your problem (and solution) will be found.
So you have completely ignored my comments that if somone isn't losing that they are probably not logging correctly (CICO is the bases) and that I'm not trying to make up excuses. You seem to also have ignored citations where it seems to shown certain things can make a difference.
Why is it hilarious nonsense, just because you say so? That's a strong debate point! If you have no suggestions for things that can help as has been explained then please don't bother. I have not said one thing WILL mater but have only suggested some things MIGHT matter. If you have some info on that then fine but being dismissive and verbally attacking isn't debate or even part of a reasonable discussion.0 -
OP, this is what I find questionable about your original post and would like to discuss:Improvements to this [CICO] 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.
Based on the link in the OP and some of the follow-up discussion, you appear to have been referring to the fact that there is decrease in one's maintenance calories when one loses weight for 2 reasons: (1) you are smaller and will likely have somewhat less LBM (although one can try to keep the loss of LBM at a minimum); and (2) there is likely to be some kind of metabolic adaptation.
I agree that those are true, although I don't agree that they aren't typically accounted for in discussions of CICO here.
What I'm not seeing -- and perhaps you can help me -- is how focusing on these is going to "greatly improve weight loss" either for those having success or those struggling (and this started when you posted on someone's thread who was struggling).
I also think that psychological/lifestyle/nutrition factors have to be taken into account and, as I said upthread, those typically will outweight the quite minor calorie burn/absorption differences that come from the types of things that you seem interested in. For example, that I would hate eating only one meal a day or only every other day would make that impossible for me to sustain, and saying that I would have lost 95 lbs in 11 months rather than the 13 months it took me would hardly make it worthwhile (even if true, which I doubt). Similarly, that one can eat more calories if you eat 80% protein doesn't matter if you'd dislike your diet or if the diet would be nutritionally sub-par or not a healthy diet longterm (which I personally believe it would be the case typically).
I find it odd that another poster seems bent on finding the raising of such concerns in response to your post as anti-knowledge, but whatever. I am curious about your own response.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »CICO.
Visit thee BLOG: http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/
Blog's author sums it up so well at the end of the article...
The Big Point… Just In Case You Missed It
If you’re not losing weight, there’s likely a thousand different possible aspects of your diet and workout you might consider as the culprit. And of those thousand, you’d be wasting your time and energy giving a crap about 999 of them.
Instead, the true culprit is calories and the fact that you’re either eating too many of them or not burning enough of them. Even if you think you are… you’re just not.
If you were, you’d be losing weight.
So before you start focusing on the hilarious garbage, meaningless nonsense, and countless myth-based excuses that most people tend to focus on as possible reasons for why they’re not losing weight, step back for a second and take a closer look at exactly how many calories you’re eating and exactly how many calories you’re burning.
100% of the time, that’s where your problem (and solution) will be found.
So you have completely ignored my comments that if somone isn't losing that they are probably not logging correctly (CICO is the bases) and that I'm not trying to make up excuses. You seem to also have ignored citations where it seems to shown certain things can make a difference.
Why is it hilarious nonsense, just because you say so? That's a strong debate point! If you have no suggestions for things that can help as has been explained then please don't bother. I have not said one thing WILL mater but have only suggested some things MIGHT matter. If you have some info on that then fine but being dismissive and verbally attacking isn't debate or even part of a reasonable discussion.
Those words above are quoted from the author of the blog.
Balancing one's checkbook correctly is key to tracking finances in and out. Ditto on the intake of calories vs. the burn of calories.
Losing weight? Then the CO is greater than the CI. Gaining weight? Then the CI is greater than the CO. Maintaining weight? Then the CI matches the CO.
I would agree with the blog's author that focusing on all the little "what if's" defeats the purpose and totally complicates matters. And no, I haven't read everything you have written in this thread and the other thread where the OP wondered why she had stalled after her initial 25 pound loss.
Create a deficit to lose weight. Create a surplus to gain weight. Match the CI to the CO to maintain weight.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »OP, this is what I find questionable about your original post and would like to discuss:Improvements to this [CICO] 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.
Based on the link in the OP and some of the follow-up discussion, you appear to have been referring to the fact that there is decrease in one's maintenance calories when one loses weight for 2 reasons: (1) you are smaller and will likely have somewhat less LBM (although one can try to keep the loss of LBM at a minimum); and (2) there is likely to be some kind of metabolic adaptation.
I agree that those are true, although I don't agree that they aren't typically accounted for in discussions of CICO here.
What I'm not seeing -- and perhaps you can help me -- is how focusing on these is going to "greatly improve weight loss" either for those having success or those struggling (and this started when you posted on someone's thread who was struggling).
I also think that psychological/lifestyle/nutrition factors have to be taken into account and, as I said upthread, those typically will outweight the quite minor calorie burn/absorption differences that come from the types of things that you seem interested in. For example, that I would hate eating only one meal a day or only every other day would make that impossible for me to sustain, and saying that I would have lost 95 lbs in 11 months rather than the 13 months it took me would hardly make it worthwhile (even if true, which I doubt). Similarly, that one can eat more calories if you eat 80% protein doesn't matter if you'd dislike your diet or if the diet would be nutritionally sub-par or not a healthy diet longterm (which I personally believe it would be the case typically).
I find it odd that another poster seems bent on finding the raising of such concerns in response to your post as anti-knowledge, but whatever. I am curious about your own response.
I'm wondering what can increase CO in addition to exercise and what can inhibit fat storage when CI > CO. I'm interested in more than the bodies use of less calories in adaptation although that is interesting in itself and I have to ask if that can be messed with so we don't adapt so much.
What I meant by "greatly improve weight loss" for those who struggle is that for those people, they might give up and discovering things for them might be the only way that they will end up loosing weight (a lot of it due to the mental thing causing them to give up). I'm sure anyone, if they can mentally tuff through it and don't eat anything or if they can exercise for hours will loose weight. I don't think that is sustainable for a lot of people and will result in burnout and probably deficiencies in proper nutrients and also injury. I don't think I explained what I meant by that statement very well before but this is what I mean.
I think there are a lot of people that have plateaus that are not totally explained by the linear - static model of CICO.
One of the things I am really interested in looking into more is the non-linear dynamic effect of rate limiting of the bodies ability to store fat when CI > CO (I'm not counting excretion which doesn't go into storing fat). If enzymes are required to store fat are produced only so fast (or are limited in how much can be prodeced which is a saturation limit), then it seems logical that once the rate limit/saturation limit of enzyme production is reached and the body is storing fat as fast as it can, or a much as it can, then all the excess cal will not turn to fat but will be excreted.
I've been on a 21:3 IF diet for 14 weeks and have lost 32 lbs. I think there is a possibility that what I'm doing might result in the body not being able to handle the cals I dump on it in the 3-hour window and therefore doesn't produce some fat that it could if the cals where consumed over a longer period of time. If you look at a dynamic model, I should gain some fat after I eat my cals and then during the next 21 hours, I would loose fat to power my energy needs with the net effect being a small loss in fat (if my maint cals are above 2100 cals not including exercise). If my body can't produce the fat up front but still burns the same cals the next 21 hours, then I will loose more weight because the body was rate/saturation limited in storing fat. I'm sure that my CI is >>> CO right after I have eaten. If I put in 2100 cals in 3 hours that is a 700 cal/hour rate for 3 hours. Can my body keep up with that? If I ate 2100 cals over 3 meals evenly and took 1-hr per meal, that would still be a 700 cals/hour intake rate but only for 1-hr at a time. I think the body would be able to keep up with that better than trying to keep up with it for 3-hrs at a time.
So if rate limiting is significant in loosing weight because the body can't keep up then a 21:3 type diet could make a significant difference in weight loss as compared to eating the same calories over an extended period of time.
Then there is the practicality of if it does work, is that acceptable for people. I've found it to be much more acceptable for me than eating small meals. Once I start eating I get hungry and want to keep eating. If I don't continue eating I get real and hurtful hunger pangs. Also never getting to fill up goes against my eating habits and mentality and is stressful to me. If I fast, I don't even get very hungry. If I do get hungry later in the day, then I can do a small snack to get me by to my normal evening eating window so for me (and I'm sure not everyone) this is practical and much easier than the many small meals approach. I get to eat tell satiated which allows me to keep doing this for forever as long as I need to do it. I still use a CICO approach and count my cals but I'm wondering if the small eating window is helping me especially since I've lost faster than what MFP has predicted I would. When I reach my goal weights, I plan on eating more cals to maintain weight, but it will be done still in the shortest window possible because besides the possible limiting effects I've mentioned, I think there are other benefits that might also exist such as improved immune system (makes a long term weight loss program more feasible if you don't get sick often), the possibility that fasting also allows you to dip into fat reserves more (think of a continuous dynamic model of what is happening at every second and not an overall static model of what has happened for the day).
My motivation is to help people including myself to lose weight. I'ts pretty obvious a lot of people even on here who count calories have a hard time sticking to their diets (I would have a very hard time doing small meals and calorie counting for ever) and have yo-yo'ed many times. I think what I am looking into is very practical, and also could be very significant for those who have a hard time loosing weight or for sticking with maintenance for a long time.
There is a whole forum dedicated to interim fasting way of dieting (IF forum). Also see the 5:2 forum (that plan preaches fasting twice a week and not 5 times a week hence 5:2) and the OMAD (one meal a day) forum which preaches diets that go all the way to fasting 23 hours and eating within one hour (still getting sufficient calories in). I do a 21:3 like I mentioned and eat 1800 to 2400 cals in that 3 hour window (5:30 to 8:30 at night) which is wonderful! And one other note on practicality (I've been slammed non-stop on this thread about practicality) is that my food planning is cheap and extremely easy to do which also helps sustainability of what I'm doing.
I'm interested in other effects also besides fasting and rate/saturation limiting effects on fat storage. I've seen people swear by using apple cider vinegar that it helps with CO. Does it? I think it's worth looking into as well as other things.0 -
I'm wondering what can increase CO in addition to exercise and what can inhibit fat storage when CI > CO.
In order - you could increase CO with non-exercise activity like moving more, or by stimulants. Nothing will inhibit fat storage if you actually have a calorie surplus.I think there are a lot of people that have plateaus that are not totally explained by the linear - static model of CICO.
Not all weight is fat. Ansel Keys' research had stalls, but these were stalls in weight loss, not fat loss. Water retention was the difference.I think there is a possibility that what I'm doing might result in the body not being able to handle the cals I dump on it in the 3-hour window and therefore doesn't produce some fat that it could if the cals where consumed over a longer period of time.
You should hope not. That would be very bad for your health - you'd end up hyperglycemic and could experience complications.
Even if it did, it wouldn't help you - it would only take longer to store the same amount of fat. Once it's in your blood stream, barring severe hyperglycemia or kidney damage, there's nowhere else for it to go.0 -
Edited because I was wrong.
0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »I think there is a possibility that what I'm doing might result in the body not being able to handle the cals I dump on it in the 3-hour window and therefore doesn't produce some fat that it could if the cals where consumed over a longer period of time.You should hope not. That would be very bad for your health - you'd end up hyperglycemic and could experience complications.
Even if it did, it wouldn't help you - it would only take longer to store the same amount of fat. Once it's in your blood stream, barring severe hyperglycemia or kidney damage, there's nowhere else for it to go.
A pertinent fact here is that the OP has clearly stated that he doesn't actually count calories, since it's "a pain."
I didn't say I dont count my cals. I've stated the opposite multiple times. Also my diary is open. Why do you want to attack?0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »I think there is a possibility that what I'm doing might result in the body not being able to handle the cals I dump on it in the 3-hour window and therefore doesn't produce some fat that it could if the cals where consumed over a longer period of time.You should hope not. That would be very bad for your health - you'd end up hyperglycemic and could experience complications.
Even if it did, it wouldn't help you - it would only take longer to store the same amount of fat. Once it's in your blood stream, barring severe hyperglycemia or kidney damage, there's nowhere else for it to go.
A pertinent fact here is that the OP has clearly stated that he doesn't actually count calories, since it's "a pain."
I didn't say I dont count my cals. I've stated the opposite multiple times. Also my diary is open. Why do you want to attack?
You know what, that was my mistake, I misread something earlier in the thread. My sincere apologies.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »
I'm wondering what can increase CO in addition to exercise and what can inhibit fat storage when CI > CO.
In order - you could increase CO with non-exercise activity like moving more, or by stimulants. Nothing will inhibit fat storage if you actually have a calorie surplus.I think there are a lot of people that have plateaus that are not totally explained by the linear - static model of CICO.
Not all weight is fat. Ansel Keys' research had stalls, but these were stalls in weight loss, not fat loss. Water retention was the difference.I think there is a possibility that what I'm doing might result in the body not being able to handle the cals I dump on it in the 3-hour window and therefore doesn't produce some fat that it could if the cals where consumed over a longer period of time.
You should hope not. That would be very bad for your health - you'd end up hyperglycemic and could experience complications.
Even if it did, it wouldn't help you - it would only take longer to store the same amount of fat. Once it's in your blood stream, barring severe hyperglycemia or kidney damage, there's nowhere else for it to go.
Does it all get in the blood stream? I don't totally buy it would just take longer. Food is with you for a finite time. Another non-enzyme possible contributer to rate/saturation limiting could be mecanical. Cals in the middle of a feces aren't going to be used. The more in there at one time the less of a percentage used due to not complete mechanical mixing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions