CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
Up next: Relativity - it's just a theory.
And the equations are too complicated so it does not apply to me cuz you don't know me and everyone is different.
21 -
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?
)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
Ok if you were seriously asking me that question, then my answer is. I don't care about precision. If anything the nonprecision aspect reinforces my point. It's overkill.
Your question is better directed at ndj1979, who brought up precision.
I am totally serious...for you non-precision is wonderful and great. I totally get that. But can't you acknowledge that others need to get pretty close?
I'm not knocking what works for you, in fact its the opposite I'm happy and it gives me hope I don't have to been super duper accurate about everything, BUT some folks need to, and there is nothing wrong with that. Right?
There are many points in this last post of yours. Some of them seem loaded. I'm not entirely clear of your intention. Always hard through texts.
Why do you care to get my acknowledgement? What's your point?
Is it not better that you understand what works (possible) and what doesn't, reasonably? And see if you can get anything out of it for yourself?
What is "wrong" and "Right" to you? For some people like me, doing a minute of something unnecessary where I could help is wrong, but for others doing what makes them happy is right for them. Also, what do you believe your role is, when you think you can contribute? Are you a globalist or a pacifist?
1 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
Ok if you were seriously asking me that question, then my answer is. I don't care about precision. If anything the nonprecision aspect reinforces my point. It's overkill.
Your question is better directed at ndj1979, who brought up precision.
I am totally serious...for you non-precision is wonderful and great. I totally get that. But can't you acknowledge that others need to get pretty close?
I'm not knocking what works for you, in fact its the opposite I'm happy and it gives me hope I don't have to been super duper accurate about everything, BUT some folks need to, and there is nothing wrong with that. Right?
There are many points in this last post of yours. Some of them seem loaded. I'm not entirely clear of your intention. Always hard through texts.
Why do you care to get my acknowledgement? What's your point?
Is it not better that you understand what works (possible) and what doesn't, reasonably? And see if you can get anything out of it for yourself?
What is "wrong" and "Right" to you? For some people like me, doing a minute of something unnecessary where I could help is wrong, but for others doing what makes them happy is right for them. Also, what do you believe your role is, when you think you can contribute? Are you a globalist or a pacifist?
Nothing loaded honestly!
My intention was crystal clear...some like you doesn't need precision and thats awesome I'm hoping to also not need to weigh my food for precision!!!
Of freaking course I freaking care what I understand what works and what I can get out of this experience, after all aren't we all here for what "we" can get out of it?
I'm just saying with no intention toward you, regardless if you acknowledge or not (however it would be cool if you could) that everyone is an individual. Some really like to get as precise as they can and thats super cool for me.
You don't need to be and that is also super cool for me.
Thats all:)1 -
We haven't came full circle for a while. We must be on a Barkley Marathon loop. Hope everyone packed extra bug spray and protein bars.12
-
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Well i dont count for maintenance but i do utilize counting for cuts. And since i have very little margin for error since i am working towards single digit body fat, i choose to use MFP.
ETA: some of us do have more extreme goals which may require more precision.5 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I find the idea that people mistake thirst for hunger so bizarre, but then I'm someone who always has a drink (usually water, sometimes coffee, because I love it too much, occasionally tea), and who can't imagine eating something without also having something to drink. It used to annoy me on planes when they'd serve the meal before bringing drinks. I'd sit there wondering how anyone was supposed to eat without something to drink with it.
It seems to me when I don't drink several glasses of water a day I tend to be hungrier. I'm not sure if I'm confusing dehydration with hunger but it sure seems to help me not be hungrier.
Interesting. I just never really have a day when I don't drink water, unless I am so busy I couldn't possibly be hungry. But I tend to think "I'm thirsty" way before "I'm hungry" and they seem like different feelings to me.
But then my hunger signals are all weird so I guess it's good my thirst ones are not!2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.
That is true about CICO only being a reality concept. What I said was the professionals have debunked CICO as being more than a helpful tool since CI and CO are basically unknown values in humans. CICO does not stand for provable science.
What does this even mean?
No one said CICO "stands for provable science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Since you keep going on about introducing things into court, do you think the fact that calories are what determine weight gain would not pass the Daubert test? You would be wrong.
Who has tried to debunk CICO as being more than a helpful tool? Again, what does that mean? CICO means that calorie balance determines whether you lose, gain, or maintain. I haven't seen that debunked. It does not say that the actual values for a particular person can be perfectly determined, and that that's not possible (especially since it changes daily) outside of some kind of metabolic ward experiment has 0 to do with what anyone has said here or with the truth of the concept.
Also, what is a "reality concept"? Is that what they call the proposal for the next Real Housewives show?10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I find the idea that people mistake thirst for hunger so bizarre, but then I'm someone who always has a drink (usually water, sometimes coffee, because I love it too much, occasionally tea), and who can't imagine eating something without also having something to drink. It used to annoy me on planes when they'd serve the meal before bringing drinks. I'd sit there wondering how anyone was supposed to eat without something to drink with it.
It seems to me when I don't drink several glasses of water a day I tend to be hungrier. I'm not sure if I'm confusing dehydration with hunger but it sure seems to help me not be hungrier.
Interesting. I just never really have a day when I don't drink water, unless I am so busy I couldn't possibly be hungry. But I tend to think "I'm thirsty" way before "I'm hungry" and they seem like different feelings to me.
But then my hunger signals are all weird so I guess it's good my thirst ones are not!
I do not naturally gravitate twords water, I have to have a conscious thought to drink it. Like jo get water:)
I am not sure hunger and thirst get confused, but after tracking my water intake I see an increase in hunger and less adherence to my goals. I don't know why though.1 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
Keep in mind that I did not chosen the term "debunk" but did borrow it some a post above made by another.
Our dog loses and gains weight per CICO but I do not know if she counts calories or not. The same goes for our horses, deer, turkey, cats and opossums that eats the cats' food.
Yes CICO is a non-consideration because it is unknowable to anyone reading this post. This is known to many professionals. Peter Attia is one doctor that I know who measured his CICO in an expensive sealed lab setting. The links in a post above has the below plus remarks from other professionals with credibility on the subject stated in the OP.
Dr. Peter Attia — “Restating the First Law offers me nothing beyond the obvious.”
Here’s Peter Attia take on CICO.
“Let’s explain what’s going on [in a crowded] room in terms of thermodynamics. The First Law would say something like this: The change in the number of people in the room must be equal to the difference between the number of people entering the room and the number of people leaving the room. For example, if the room “gains” 10 people, we can safely conclude that 10 more people entered the room than left it (e.g,. 15 versus 5, or 197 versus 187).
So here’s the million dollar question: Why is the room packed? Let me be more specific, why are there 78 people in the room? The “calories-in-minus-calories-out-model” says, “because 78 more people entered the room than left the room.” I say, sure, that’s true, but it doesn’t tell me WHY? I want to know WHY there are 78 people in the room (or, more specifically, WHY did 78 more people enter the room than leave the room)? Was it because there was a very compelling speaker in the room? Was it because they were giving away free food in room? Was it because it was raining outside and folks wanted to stay dry?
If my goal is to keep people out of the proverbial room, I’d better understand what brought them into the room. I need to know what is causing the room to accumulate people. Restating the First Law offers me nothing beyond the obvious. Of course more people entered the room than exited the room. How does that help me get people out?
Similarly, when someone tells me so-and-so is obese because he eats more than he expends, I say, “of course he does…you’re just re-stating the First Law.” What I want to know is, WHY did he eat more calories than he burned? If we don’t understand this point, how can we treat this condition?”1 -
OP and stevencloser mentioned averaging them over time, but then OP made the "within 100 calories" post. I think you're pointing out that pinpointing CI and CO to within 100 calories, in the short term, is impractical or impossible. Am I understanding you?endlessfall16 wrote: »...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
(Reiterating what has been posted in other discussions and I don't think anyone is arguing about, is that food package weights and volumes can be off by up to 20%, calorie counts are very imprecise, and calorie use varies from day to day.)
1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
Ok if you were seriously asking me that question, then my answer is. I don't care about precision. If anything the nonprecision aspect reinforces my point. It's overkill.
Your question is better directed at ndj1979, who brought up precision.
I am totally serious...for you non-precision is wonderful and great. I totally get that. But can't you acknowledge that others need to get pretty close?
I'm not knocking what works for you, in fact its the opposite I'm happy and it gives me hope I don't have to been super duper accurate about everything, BUT some folks need to, and there is nothing wrong with that. Right?
There are many points in this last post of yours. Some of them seem loaded. I'm not entirely clear of your intention. Always hard through texts.
Why do you care to get my acknowledgement? What's your point?
Is it not better that you understand what works (possible) and what doesn't, reasonably? And see if you can get anything out of it for yourself?
What is "wrong" and "Right" to you? For some people like me, doing a minute of something unnecessary where I could help is wrong, but for others doing what makes them happy is right for them. Also, what do you believe your role is, when you think you can contribute? Are you a globalist or a pacifist?
Nothing loaded honestly!
My intention was crystal clear...some like you doesn't need precision and thats awesome I'm hoping to also not need to weigh my food for precision!!!
Of freaking course I freaking care what I understand what works and what I can get out of this experience, after all aren't we all here for what "we" can get out of it?
I'm just saying with no intention toward you, regardless if you acknowledge or not (however it would be cool if you could) that everyone is an individual. Some really like to get as precise as they can and thats super cool for me.
You don't need to be and that is also super cool for me.
Thats all:)
I see. I'm fully aware that everyone is an individual. It's a given.
That said, everyone deserves to see the full map even if she doesn't plan to (or can't) travel, so to speak.
I was honestly amazed at the OPs claim that he could be precised within 100 Calories. Does that mean he knows exactly how much walking he does, how many times he gets up, etc. in a day? I have no idea. Hence, my question.
1 -
Think people need a reminder of the difference between accuracy and precision...
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-accuracy-and-precision-609328
The people who are successful at applying the numbers related to CICO to govern their weight management are precise. They may also be accurate, but they don't have to be. It can be, "good enough for government work" or "close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades".
As I said early on in the thread, there is a tendency for some people to think that you have to be both precise and accurate, or the whole thing is invalid. The ironic thing is that even these people are still governed by CICO, they just either haven't been successful at managing the equation themselves, or they don't want to bestow credit upon something that is so fundamentally basic.21 -
Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)13 -
Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
Calories go in and out (and get stored) all the time. Until they don't. But I think it takes calories to cremate 'em.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
Pretty much, yes. If someone has completely stopped taking calories in, and completely ceased to expend calories out, they will most likely belong in a box.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
Calories go in and out (and get stored) all the time. Until they don't. But I think it takes calories to cremate 'em.
Interesting point. A year or two ago I was talking with the owner of a funeral home and asked if they charged more for obese cremations. He said the price was all the same but that very fat people took some less fuel to cremate because the body fat added fuel to the fire. He was not smiling when he told me that so maybe it was factual. I plan to grow grass for job creation. 1 -
OP and stevencloser mentioned averaging them over time, but then OP made the "within 100 calories" post. I think you're pointing out that pinpointing CI and CO to within 100 calories, in the short term, is impractical or impossible. Am I understanding you?endlessfall16 wrote: »...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
(Reiterating what has been posted in other discussions and I don't think anyone is arguing about, is that food package weights and volumes can be off by up to 20%, calorie counts are very imprecise, and calorie use varies from day to day.)
OP can pinpoint it to within 100 calories because he's been doing it over a long period, not short, an knows how his weight moves eating at those calorie intakes over the long period.
Package weights can be off that's why kitchen scales exist and calorie counts can be off in either direction with the average being the number you find on the USDA database for example, normal distribution, bell curves etc. That evens out, again, over the long haul.9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions