CICO, It's a math formula

Options
1…910121415…31

Replies

  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    Options
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
  • dfwesq
    dfwesq Posts: 592 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    Ruatine wrote: »
    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
    Are you asking about someone with a metabolic disorder that prevents them from absorbing and using some caloric substances? If that's what you're asking, I'd think so. The "CI" part of the equation is talking about calories that actually enter your system, not necessarily all the potentially usable calories you ingest. If you eat something but don't actually digest and absorb the nutrients from it, it's not really CI.

    I agree it isn't always easy to get a good estimate of CI and CO. They can be affected by various things, and they're not consistent over time. It can be helpful to estimate and use trial and error to figure out how close you are.

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    Options
    Tacklewasher 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.

    Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?

    If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?

    While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    Options
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Tacklewasher 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.

    Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?

    If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?

    While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?

    Exactly as several in this thread have indicated - portion control. There are many people who don't count calories and lose/gain/maintain weight perfectly fine. Some people are inherently better at portion control than others. If someone is weighing themselves regularly, it's not difficult to tell when the equation is out of balance.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?

    The easiest way is to pick a number and stick to it as accurately as possible and assess results over time. For me I need eight weeks to see the trend and results.

    So the equation is useful but common sense also has to be applied and an understanding that everything is an estimate.

    But it's really not in the least bit complicated to work out your own numbers.

    Yes, I think this is the most sensible approach if you are logging and counting and want to know the numbers.

    Another option is just to find a way to access whether you are eating less or more, and then adjust without actually counting. I did this and lost successfully doing so, but for me it was less fun than counting and knowing the numbers. (I like data with other things too, though, as people were saying early on.)
  • annaskiski
    annaskiski Posts: 1,212 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
    CIabc=COxyz?

    You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.


    Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.

    In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.

    Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.
  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    Options
    ladyreva78 wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?

    I think it would be helpful in the sense that, if you know you have some kind of a metabolic disorder, then you take a set percentage off the calculated CI, stick with it for 4 weeks and the re-evaluate how your progress is. Someone in that situation might not be as frustrated with the result if they know from the start that they need to subtract 5-10% from what ever number a random online calculator spewed out.

    Actually... the same anyone attempting to lose/gain/maintain weight should proceed. Gather a basic minimum of data and then adapt according to the desired results.

    It was exactly this rather stupidly basic piece of knowledge I was missing and which was leading to failure time and time again. Understanding what the basic equation is took a whole lot of guesswork and emotion out of this whole business for me.
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?

    The easiest way is to pick a number and stick to it as accurately as possible and assess results over time. For me I need eight weeks to see the trend and results.

    So the equation is useful but common sense also has to be applied and an understanding that everything is an estimate.

    But it's really not in the least bit complicated to work out your own numbers.
    dfwesq wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
    Are you asking about someone with a metabolic disorder that prevents them from absorbing and using some caloric substances? If that's what you're asking, I'd think so. The "CI" part of the equation is talking about calories that actually enter your system, not necessarily all the calories you ingest. If you eat something but don't actually digest and absorb the nutrients from it, it's not really CI.

    I agree it isn't always easy to get a good estimate of CI and CO. They can be affected by various things, and they're not consistent over time. It can be helpful to estimate and use trial and error to figure out how close you are.

    That's all to my point though. In the end, it's an estimate on both sides of the equation for all of us, regardless of any medical issues or other complicating factors. The inclusion of variables in the CI=CO equation doesn't add anything to the process of gaining, losing or maintaining weight, because everyone has to estimate and reassess after a period of time.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?

    The easiest way is to pick a number and stick to it as accurately as possible and assess results over time. For me I need eight weeks to see the trend and results.

    So the equation is useful but common sense also has to be applied and an understanding that everything is an estimate.

    But it's really not in the least bit complicated to work out your own numbers.

    Yes, I think this is the most sensible approach if you are logging and counting and want to know the numbers.

    Another option is just to find a way to access whether you are eating less or more, and then adjust without actually counting. I did this and lost successfully doing so, but for me it was less fun than counting and knowing the numbers. (I like data with other things too, though, as people were saying early on.)

    True. I think this way would be pretty easy if you're a habitual eater too. I'm not so like you I like the numbers and reducing as many variables as possible whilst still having very eclectic and ever changing food choices. No two days look the same for the most part for me.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    annaskiski wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
    CIabc=COxyz?

    You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.


    Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.

    In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.

    Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.

    I gotcha! I thought you were yelling at me, and I was like, dude, we agree! <3

    I see what you are saying. I was just trying to think of an easy way to illustrate the variables when they are brought up. Here's how I imagine the conversation:

    Me: Hey, CI=CO!

    Nonanalytical person: Starvation mode bloo bloo bloo!

    Me: Well.... x=adaptive thermogenesis so CI=CO[variable impact of adaptive thermogenesis]. If x = -200 then you have to have [CI-200]=[CO-200] to maintain weight, aka, you will need to eat less if your metabolism has been screwed up, but it probably hasn't. If your equation is CI=[CO-200] you are going to gain because in this case CI>CO.

    Nonanalytical person: Magic fat burning foods bloo bloo bloo!

    Me: Okay, so y=thermic effect of food. Etc. (I am not sure if that would be on the CI or the CO side of the equation).

    But it should be set up as abc = xyz to be mathematically precise.

    ***edited a number
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    Ruatine wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    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.

    I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?

    I'm not saying they can be quantified--maybe they can be ballparked through trial and error. I think where this would be useful is when people say that some variable invalidates CICO. At that point it might be helpful to illustrate how that variable is part of the equation. You don't know what "x" is but by playing with the other side of the equation over time you can accommodate for it.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories