CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »@ndj1979 below are some factors that most people do not have when trying to compute CICO that I ran upon this evening when studying the use of pH strips.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf
Page 14:
"You exercise and diet in order to make your fat go away. But your body says to itself, “I need
that Fat. That is my warehouse for stored toxins.” So it holds onto the fat. It resists losing weight.
And you get frustrated because you remain fat because you do not understand the real problem....."
Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Also page 20:
"......And German researchers found that drinking water increases the rate at which you
burn calories Just two cups of water increased metabolic rate by almost a third-and it stayed for
up for about half an hour. (pg. 56)"
Curious. What does this have to do with the mathematics of calories in/ calories out?
How would you compute the calorie burned due to two liters of water drank per the German research?
"Therefore, the thermogenic effect of water should be considered when estimating energy expenditure, particularly during weight loss programs."
What? I don't follow. This still has nothing to do with the math of calories in and out.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@ndj1979 below are some factors that most people do not have when trying to compute CICO that I ran upon this evening when studying the use of pH strips.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf
Page 14:
"You exercise and diet in order to make your fat go away. But your body says to itself, “I need
that Fat. That is my warehouse for stored toxins.” So it holds onto the fat. It resists losing weight.
And you get frustrated because you remain fat because you do not understand the real problem....."
Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Also page 20:
"......And German researchers found that drinking water increases the rate at which you
burn calories Just two cups of water increased metabolic rate by almost a third-and it stayed for
up for about half an hour. (pg. 56)"
Good lord... Even ACV threads have more sense than this drivel.
So "the body" does that monologue then somehow preferentially does not use the system that was specifically designed for the purpose of storing energy and retrieving it when needed for the explicit purpose of holding on to "toxins"? Does holding on to what would save you to spend in order to hold onto what would kill you to store make any evolutionary sense to you, Gale?
How much variation in fluid intake among people do you think there is? Are you seriously operating under the assumption that some people consume zero fluid? Because that would be the only point of comparison that would make this increase even remotely practically significant. People who chug cold beer and soda all day would experience the same effect, by the way. (P.S eating ice cream has an even more profound effect than drinking water, so you better stockpile the pints).
Where do you find these things? Are you now jumping on the alkaline wagon? What's next? The horoscope diet? Then again, what does any of this have to do with the math?20 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@ndj1979 below are some factors that most people do not have when trying to compute CICO that I ran upon this evening when studying the use of pH strips.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf
Page 14:
"You exercise and diet in order to make your fat go away. But your body says to itself, “I need
that Fat. That is my warehouse for stored toxins.” So it holds onto the fat. It resists losing weight.
And you get frustrated because you remain fat because you do not understand the real problem....."
Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Also page 20:
"......And German researchers found that drinking water increases the rate at which you
burn calories Just two cups of water increased metabolic rate by almost a third-and it stayed for
up for about half an hour. (pg. 56)"
Just...wow...
Also, 4.2 kilojoules to a calorie, so the 'recommended' 2 litres of water a day is burning less than 100 cals. And I'm betting is already factored in to most equations, what with the human need to drink. You'd have to drink a mighty amount of water for it to have any real effect, and that comes with its own dangers. Talk about majoring in the minors!16 -
Yes I'm sure we can all come up with ridiculous variations in human metabolism - if I have a paper cut how many calories do I burn on healing and what if it is 2cm long or 3.567 cm long and what if it was cut on my dominant or non dominant hand and how many calories does putting a bandaid on burn.........
But like the calorie difference between drinking 1 litre of fluid or 2 litres or drinking it warm or cold or through a straw or whatever other variation there might be - the calorie burn is just part of daily living and diffferences are far too miniscule to be relevant.14 -
Why do people ignore peer-reviewed studies, and then jump on bandwagons of fringe studies by people of questionable scientific background, and studies which cannot be corroborated?
What is behind the 'scientists are trying to trick us' belief, which I realize has always been around, but now seems so pervasivel?9 -
@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?12 -
annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@RoteBook what grounds do you have for putting down pubmed.gov as a legit source?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14671205
PubMed.gov is not, in itself, a source. It is a database of sources, some more reliable than others. They're all peer-reviewed journals (though not all of the content is peer reviewed, e.g., editorials), but the fact that reviewers have OK'd a manuscript doesn't necessarily mean that the research is carefully done or reproducible. If you look at the cited references for that article, for example, you'll find this one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26690288
Its authors conclude: "This study conducted in young men and women varying widely in adiposity, comparing the ingestion of distilled water to Sham drinking, suggests that ingestion of purified water per se does not result in the stimulation of thermogenesis or fat oxidation."
A couple of other articles by Viv and Joshi do claim to find an effect, but if you look at the design, there appear to have been no control groups!
Note, too, that in the original article, 40% of the (relatively small) thermal effect was just raising the temperature of the water from 22°C to normal human body temperature. Ergo, it would be even better to drink ice water!8 -
annaskiski wrote: »Why do people ignore peer-reviewed studies, and then jump on bandwagons of fringe studies by people of questionable scientific background, and studies which cannot be corroborated?
What is behind the 'scientists are trying to trick us' belief, which I realize has always been around, but now seems so pervasivel?
One thing I've noticed is that the people who often jump to these sorts of theories, or who want to poo poo or overcomplicate like the basic principle of CICO, or ignore other scientific evidence, are people who haven't been successful at achieving their goals. So rather than look to their own habits as the potential root cause, they want to blame the underlying scientific principle.
8 -
annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.1 -
annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
The faith that some people have in information just because it shows up in a Google search would be touching if it wasn't having such a detrimental impact on our world.12 -
Really great post thanks for providing this information. I've definitely been able to lose weight by following the calories in vs versus calories method. All I do is eat at a deficit
thanks for this helpful post. 2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
The faith that some people have in information just because it shows up in a Google search would be touching if it wasn't having such a detrimental impact on our world.
That is a very factual statement and one of the concerns I have for new members on MFP. All of my posts are written in a way that I should be able to go into a courtroom and with accepted science sources prove my post. It is also why I do not offer to give others medical or eating advice.
We live in a day where it comes from the web or from a local doctor's office the patient still needs to sort through all medical advice. There are left wing, middle of the road and right wing sources of medical advice in the world. The 25-40 year lag for a true peer reviews of clinical data from the field is often killing us prematurely and I think that will continue.
I just learned more about Vitamin K2 MK7 being essential in preventing heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc last week yet the research has been out on the web for years. Main stream medical reporting seldom is covering leading edge medical concepts and treatments that can make for interesting reading.
https://selfhacked.com/2016/05/12/top-10-science-based-benefits-vitamin-k2/2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
The faith that some people have in information just because it shows up in a Google search would be touching if it wasn't having such a detrimental impact on our world.
That is a very factual statement and one of the concerns I have for new members on MFP. All of my posts are written in a way that I should be able to go into a courtroom and with accepted science sources prove my post. It is also why I do not offer to give others medical or eating advice.
We live in a day where it comes from the web or from a local doctor's office the patient still needs to sort through all medical advice. There are left wing, middle of the road and right wing sources of medical advice in the world. The 25-40 year lag for a true peer reviews of clinical data from the field is often killing us prematurely and I think that will continue.
I just learned more about Vitamin K2 MK7 being essential in preventing heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc last week yet the research has been out on the web for years. Main stream medical reporting seldom is covering leading edge medical concepts and treatments that can make for interesting reading.
https://selfhacked.com/2016/05/12/top-10-science-based-benefits-vitamin-k2/
The media tends to not cover anything that can't be overblown and sensationalized. If Vit K2 is preventing cancer and other major illnesses, that sounds like something the media would be salivating over. Although it's not a riveting as "the top 5 things to never eat to rid your belly fat." I'll look at the studies later, if I get the chance. Today will not be that day.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I just learned more about Vitamin K2 MK7 being essential in preventing heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc last week yet the research has been out on the web for years. Main stream medical reporting seldom is covering leading edge medical concepts and treatments that can make for interesting reading.
https://selfhacked.com/2016/05/12/top-10-science-based-benefits-vitamin-k2/
Seriously - this a source you're using? The guy talks about using the "wisdom of the ancients" to turn his life around, and whose bio has negligible scientific background, but does have many paragraphs about his Myers-Briggs quackery personality profile.
9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
The faith that some people have in information just because it shows up in a Google search would be touching if it wasn't having such a detrimental impact on our world.
That is a very factual statement and one of the concerns I have for new members on MFP. All of my posts are written in a way that I should be able to go into a courtroom and with accepted science sources prove my post. It is also why I do not offer to give others medical or eating advice.
We live in a day where it comes from the web or from a local doctor's office the patient still needs to sort through all medical advice. There are left wing, middle of the road and right wing sources of medical advice in the world. The 25-40 year lag for a true peer reviews of clinical data from the field is often killing us prematurely and I think that will continue.
I just learned more about Vitamin K2 MK7 being essential in preventing heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc last week yet the research has been out on the web for years. Main stream medical reporting seldom is covering leading edge medical concepts and treatments that can make for interesting reading.
https://selfhacked.com/2016/05/12/top-10-science-based-benefits-vitamin-k2/
The irony in this post is truly overwhelming.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I just learned more about Vitamin K2 MK7 being essential in preventing heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc last week yet the research has been out on the web for years. Main stream medical reporting seldom is covering leading edge medical concepts and treatments that can make for interesting reading.
So here's where I call BS on all the "the cure is out there but the establishment just doesn't care/ or want to know/ or take the time to delve into the evidence". There are doctors and researchers out there who are dedicating their entire lives to the treatment of cancer. They watch people struggle and die, day by day. They cry along with the patient's family. Do you think all of these professionals are too dumb to find this info? Do you think that despite the personal impact their patients have on their lives they still value their profitability over prevention of the disease? Every single one of them?
And one more time for emphasis - Nothing you have posted negates the fact that our bodies run on an energy balance. You are arguing against the TDEE formula being absolute. Everyone here knows that the figure that MFP or some other calculator spits out is an estimate. You start there, and then you tweak until you find the right number for you. If you aren't patient enough to do the work, and would rather troll the interwebs for handfuls of magic pills and foods you need to swallow every day, go for it. But if you are maintaining your weight, that means you are consuming the same amount of calories your body is burning. Full stop. We're not talking about disease. We are not talking about optimal health. We are not talking about pain management. We are talking about weight.31 -
I'm not sure about all this, and I won't post all my disagreements/questions here, but I do think hydration is important. Dehydration is one of the many things that can affect metabolism (and thus the CO part of the equation). And proper hydration seems to be helpful in increasing metabolism. There are a bunch of studies supporting the idea that drinking water helps with weight control or weight loss, though not necessarily for the same reasons that author thinks.GaleHawkins wrote: »Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
0 -
I'm not sure about all this, and I won't post all my disagreements/questions here, but I do think hydration is important. Dehydration is one of the many things that can affect metabolism (and thus the CO part of the equation). And proper hydration seems to be helpful in increasing metabolism. There are a bunch of studies supporting the idea that drinking water helps with weight control or weight loss, though not necessarily for the same reasons that author thinks.GaleHawkins wrote: »Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Except that the "threat" of dehydration is very overblown in what Gale quoted. It's fear-mongering of the Taubes/sugar variety. Most people in the modern world, if they simply drink when thirsty, will be adequately hydrated. We have enough access to good quality water that it's not an issue. The 8 glasses is a bit of a myth as it refers to the "equivalent" of 8 glasses, with some of that being provided by food (my apple is juicy) as well as other liquids (my coffee is enjoyable) and, as long as your urine is not overly dark, your fine.
To try to link obesity to under-hydration is simply ridiculous. I'm not obese because I didn't drink enough water. I ate too much food. No clue why some want to place blame on odd things.19 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »
I'm not sure about all this, and I won't post all my disagreements/questions here, but I do think hydration is important. Dehydration is one of the many things that can affect metabolism (and thus the CO part of the equation). And proper hydration seems to be helpful in increasing metabolism. There are a bunch of studies supporting the idea that drinking water helps with weight control or weight loss, though not necessarily for the same reasons that author thinks.GaleHawkins wrote: »Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Except that the "threat" of dehydration is very overblown in what Gale quoted. It's fear-mongering of the Taubes/sugar variety. Most people in the modern world, if they simply drink when thirsty, will be adequately hydrated. We have enough access to good quality water that it's not an issue. The 8 glasses is a bit of a myth as it refers to the "equivalent" of 8 glasses, with some of that being provided by food (my apple is juicy) as well as other liquids (my coffee is enjoyable) and, as long as your urine is not overly dark, your fine.
To try to link obesity to under-hydration is simply ridiculous. I'm not obese because I didn't drink enough water. I ate too much food. No clue why some want to place blame on odd things.
Diversion of responsibility from self.15 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB
I only ask as I see a trend in public health trying to identify root causes on a macro scale, but coming to conclusions based on correlation rather than following the data.
There is no one root cause, but a culmination of several societal forces. Weight gain is the result of eating more than one needs - simple as that. The rate of obesity isn't terribly concerning and just shows that the average individual is consuming ~100-250 kcals/day than they should. Availability of food, decreasing exercise, increasing convenience, etc. all come together to make for the latest government intervention excuse.
This reinforces the application of CICO. Every validated weight loss program incorporates CICO, but changes the marketing slightly to suit the target demographic.
As for CRP - as a microbiologist this is not backed by data and you may be implementing confirmational bias. You cannot address the big picture without connecting the dots (data), otherwise you descend into a conspiratorial state.
No - there is no mass conspiracy hiding cures. There is simply too much genetic variation within the host and the vectors to develop a one size fits all cure. Drug products with >50% affinity are considered goldmines statistically.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB
I only ask as I see a trend in public health trying to identify root causes on a macro scale, but coming to conclusions based on correlation rather than following the data.
There is no one root cause, but a culmination of several societal forces. Weight gain is the result of eating more than one needs - simple as that. The rate of obesity isn't terribly concerning and just shows that the average individual is consuming ~100-250 kcals/day than they should. Availability of food, decreasing exercise, increasing convenience, etc. all come together to make for the latest government intervention excuse.
This reinforces the application of CICO. Every validated weight loss program incorporates CICO, but changes the marketing slightly to suit the target demographic.
As of CRP - as a microbiologist this is not backed by data and you may be implementing confirmational bias. You cannot address the big picture without connecting the dots (data), otherwise you descend into a conspiratorial state.
No - there is no mass conspiracy hiding cures. There is simply too much genetic variation within the host and the vectors to develop a one size fits all cure. Drug products with >50% affinity are considered goldmines statistically.
What's interesting... in the weight gaining section, we have at least one member who has an autoimmune disorder and recently had some blood test done. What was interesting is she showed greater levels of inflammation in her system, but yet was not symptomatic. The only variable that changed was she started weight training.1 -
I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells2 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
Because somatotypes were derived by a psychologist around a perception of where people fit into.. They don't really have an solid application in any of this. And at any given time, you could fit in one or more of the areas and will change as you lose or gain weight.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB
I only ask as I see a trend in public health trying to identify root causes on a macro scale, but coming to conclusions based on correlation rather than following the data.
There is no one root cause, but a culmination of several societal forces. Weight gain is the result of eating more than one needs - simple as that. The rate of obesity isn't terribly concerning and just shows that the average individual is consuming ~100-250 kcals/day than they should. Availability of food, decreasing exercise, increasing convenience, etc. all come together to make for the latest government intervention excuse.
This reinforces the application of CICO. Every validated weight loss program incorporates CICO, but changes the marketing slightly to suit the target demographic.
As of CRP - as a microbiologist this is not backed by data and you may be implementing confirmational bias. You cannot address the big picture without connecting the dots (data), otherwise you descend into a conspiratorial state.
No - there is no mass conspiracy hiding cures. There is simply too much genetic variation within the host and the vectors to develop a one size fits all cure. Drug products with >50% affinity are considered goldmines statistically.
What's interesting... in the weight gaining section, we have at least one member who has an autoimmune disorder and recently had some blood test done. What was interesting is she showed greater levels of inflammation in her system, but yet was not symptomatic. The only variable that changed was she started weight training.
Lifting messes with some of the blood work values though. Micro tears in muscle fibre would increase inflammation (I suspect, I haven't looked it up, but can do), just like it will increase CK levels.2 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.10 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB
I only ask as I see a trend in public health trying to identify root causes on a macro scale, but coming to conclusions based on correlation rather than following the data.
There is no one root cause, but a culmination of several societal forces. Weight gain is the result of eating more than one needs - simple as that. The rate of obesity isn't terribly concerning and just shows that the average individual is consuming ~100-250 kcals/day than they should. Availability of food, decreasing exercise, increasing convenience, etc. all come together to make for the latest government intervention excuse.
This reinforces the application of CICO. Every validated weight loss program incorporates CICO, but changes the marketing slightly to suit the target demographic.
As of CRP - as a microbiologist this is not backed by data and you may be implementing confirmational bias. You cannot address the big picture without connecting the dots (data), otherwise you descend into a conspiratorial state.
No - there is no mass conspiracy hiding cures. There is simply too much genetic variation within the host and the vectors to develop a one size fits all cure. Drug products with >50% affinity are considered goldmines statistically.
What's interesting... in the weight gaining section, we have at least one member who has an autoimmune disorder and recently had some blood test done. What was interesting is she showed greater levels of inflammation in her system, but yet was not symptomatic. The only variable that changed was she started weight training.
Lifting messes with some of the blood work values though. Micro tears in muscle fibre would increase inflammation (I suspect, I haven't looked it up, but can do), just like it will increase CK levels.
Oh, most definitely. The point is, you can't just say the increase in CRP is bad. Not all inflammation is bad (although, it's how it's currently being perceived). Some things like lifting or eating insoluble fiber are good actions that can cause an inflammatory response.1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
Even if they were true, they don't necessarily mean the CICO equation doesn't work... It just means the rate at which the different body types burns calories is different. The trick is determining what your actual CO side of the equation is.
I.e. Lean and more muscle may burn cals at rate X, where as heavy with less muscle burns cals at Y. Once you determine what that variable is (CO) then you adjust what you eat to be less than that to lose weight.0
This discussion has been closed.
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