CICO, It's a math formula

Options
1…89111314…31

Replies

  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    adipace815 wrote: »
    This is such a fundamentally easy concept to see and understand- yet it is blown up all over the place in the discussion boards. I just shake my head when I see someone asking for help because they are not losing weight and have someone reply that they have to eat more.

    seriously ...it is like nail over chalkboards when I hear someone say "the CICO way of eating is eating pizza all day and losing weight which is not healthy" or some variant of that...which is the genesis for my post...

    And if it is? I can eat pizza all day if I want BUT there is more to Calories-in Calories-out. If you do NOT want to eat pizza all day, you also can do that...although I won't understand. Lol.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,988 Member
    Options
    Ruatine wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
    Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories

    I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
    Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

    While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.

    Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.


    Why are you derailing this thread into a topic it's not? ndj's post was not about why people overeat, of which there are many reasons. His post was about the fact that every way of eating comes down to balancing calories eaten to calories expended, regardless of how you reach it. Also, see @Tacklewasher's post above. CICO does not equal calorie counting.

    To be fair, the OP does not pose a question or explicitly suggest a single point for discussion. It makes a minimum of four separate points (or seven separate points if you split out what appear to be intended as elaborations on more general points), including two separate points labeled "finally." You have to expect that people will wander down different paths when so many are presented.

    (I'm not saying I don't find Gale's theme that knowing about CICO solves nothing unless you address every factor on both sides of the equation, plus any psychological or behavioral issues that affect adherence, to be a tiresome example of majoring in the minors. But he's attacking the basic premise of the OP, and if that's derailing, the large majority of threads on MFP are derailed by the third post.)
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,988 Member
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
    Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories

    I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
    Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

    While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.

    Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.


    Why are you derailing this thread into a topic it's not? ndj's post was not about why people overeat, of which there are many reasons. His post was about the fact that every way of eating comes down to balancing calories eaten to calories expended, regardless of how you reach it. Also, see @Tacklewasher's post above. CICO does not equal calorie counting.

    To be fair, the OP does not pose a question or explicitly suggest a single point for discussion. It makes a minimum of four separate points (or seven separate points if you split out what appear to be intended as elaborations on more general points), including two separate points labeled "finally." You have to expect that people will wander down different paths when so many are presented.

    (I'm not saying I don't find Gale's theme that knowing about CICO solves nothing unless you address every factor on both sides of the equation, plus any psychological or behavioral issues that affect adherence, to be a tiresome example of majoring in the minors. But he's attacking the basic premise of the OP, and if that's derailing, the large majority of threads on MFP are derailed by the third post.)

    The thing is, he's disputing the indisputable. It's his modus operandi.

    Absolutely. I'm just saying that a better response than "you can't even talk about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise" would be to say "here's why your statements about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise miss the point." Fight bad facts and bad logic with good facts and good logic, not by saying "you can't make that argument here." Or ignore him. There's even a button for that. :smile:
  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
    Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories

    I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
    Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

    While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.

    Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.


    Why are you derailing this thread into a topic it's not? ndj's post was not about why people overeat, of which there are many reasons. His post was about the fact that every way of eating comes down to balancing calories eaten to calories expended, regardless of how you reach it. Also, see @Tacklewasher's post above. CICO does not equal calorie counting.

    To be fair, the OP does not pose a question or explicitly suggest a single point for discussion. It makes a minimum of four separate points (or seven separate points if you split out what appear to be intended as elaborations on more general points), including two separate points labeled "finally." You have to expect that people will wander down different paths when so many are presented.

    (I'm not saying I don't find Gale's theme that knowing about CICO solves nothing unless you address every factor on both sides of the equation, plus any psychological or behavioral issues that affect adherence, to be a tiresome example of majoring in the minors. But he's attacking the basic premise of the OP, and if that's derailing, the large majority of threads on MFP are derailed by the third post.)

    The thing is, he's disputing the indisputable. It's his modus operandi.

    Absolutely. I'm just saying that a better response than "you can't even talk about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise" would be to say "here's why your statements about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise miss the point." Fight bad facts and bad logic with good facts and good logic, not by saying "you can't make that argument here." Or ignore him. There's even a button for that. :smile:

    And I'm just saying that GH isn't even talking about why the OP is wrong. In fact, he agreed further back that CICO is an equation, just as the OP stated. His posts are twisting the thread into the topic of "CICO doesn't explain why people overeat and become obese," which has nothing to do with the OP.

    What was more useful was the discussion about whether it's helpful to talk to people about the math behind weight loss instead of just telling them "eat less, move more." I'm a numbers person, so understanding the math and science behind losing/gaining/maintaining weight works for me. I absolutely found it useful to know that my body has a set number of calories it needs to maintain its weight and that the food I eat needs to balance that. Knowing there are two sides of an equation I can manipulate has helped me not only decrease the number of calories I was eating but also increase my normal activity level. I'd question whether it's ever unhelpful for someone to understand CICO.
  • dfwesq
    dfwesq Posts: 592 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    ...CICO is finding a way to make your CI < CO or CI>CO or CI=CO...

    how you get there does not matter.
    Just to borrow a point from OP, it doesn't matter for purposes of weight loss. But it may matter for other reasons, such as nutrition.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    dfwesq wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    ...CICO is finding a way to make your CI < CO or CI>CO or CI=CO...

    how you get there does not matter.
    Just to borrow a point from OP, it doesn't matter for purposes of weight loss. But it may matter for other reasons, such as nutrition.

    ndj1979 is OP.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    annaskiski wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »

    So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?

    CIabc=COxyz?

    Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?

    See, this is the problem.....

    The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.

    CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).

    i.e.
    CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
    CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.

    BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.

    And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..

    First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.

    I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    Options
    annaskiski wrote: »
    So the article posted on the previous page....

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/

    says

    The human body obeys the law of energy conservation [20], which can be expressed as

    cm2j244c4uuf.png (1)

    where ΔU is the change in stored energy in the body, ΔQ is a change in energy input or intake, and ΔW is a change in energy output or expenditure.

    So......

    ΔU = The change in your stored energy (i.e fat)
    ΔQ = The change in your energy input (i.e your CI)
    ΔW = Change in energy output (i.e. your CO)

    Guess what this is saying....go ahead, guess....

    You make me wish I hadn't sucked so badly in math, physics and chemistry. :heart:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories