Viewing the message boards in:

CICO, It's a math formula

Options
1246721

Replies

  • Posts: 41,865 Member

    Eek! I'm an artist. I don't play well with maths.
    I must be a freak of nature.

    Fortunately, quite early on I figure out my own numbers to work with.
    Now, I rarely count, have never owned a fitness/step tracker, and weigh myself occasionally- I go by the visuals.

    7 years maintenance isn't bad for a non-accountant B)

    Cheers, h.

    Edit, not retentive either- the opposite whatever that is.

    Yeah, I didn't say everyone...it's just an observation I've made throughout the years here...people in those kind of fields and similar tend to be very detail oriented and organized and a little OCD about certain things (i.e. anal retentive)
  • Posts: 41,865 Member

    The math really isn't even that hard though. I'm a stay at home mom with an English/political science degree and I can't even help my 6th grader with her math homework. Somehow I still figured out CICO and lost 50lbs. If I can do it, then everyone can do it :p

    No, the math isn't hard at all...when I'm talking about people in those fields and similar, I'm not really talking about the math...this is about as simple from a math standpoint as you get...but typically people in those fields and similar like data...they're a bit OCD in analyzing such data and other things...they like keeping ledgers and spreadsheets for everything...they tend to be very detail oriented and analytical, etc.

    Anyone can do this for sure...the math is super easy...but I think in general there's a certain type of personality that does well with calorie counting in particular...it's definitely not for everyone which is why there are so many different diet plans out there...for a lot of people, those are easier even though CICO is still in play whether they know it or not.
  • Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited April 2017
    cwolfman13 wrote: »

    No, the math isn't hard at all...when I'm talking about people in those fields and similar, I'm not really talking about the math...this is about as simple from a math standpoint as you get...but typically people in those fields and similar like data...they're a bit OCD in analyzing such data and other things...they like keeping ledgers and spreadsheets for everything...they tend to be very detail oriented and analytical, etc.

    Anyone can do this for sure...the math is super easy...but I think in general there's a certain type of personality that does well with calorie counting in particular...it's definitely not for everyone which is why there are so many different diet plans out there...for a lot of people, those are easier even though CICO is still in play whether they know it or not.

    I thrive on numbers. I enjoy them. I make spreadsheets for the heck of it and calculate my yearly deficit every new year. I could easily use guesstimates for some stuff without much worry, but I highly enjoy the process of getting as close enough of a number as possible just because I want to. There might be something to your theory there..
  • Posts: 932 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »

    No, the math isn't hard at all...when I'm talking about people in those fields and similar, I'm not really talking about the math...this is about as simple from a math standpoint as you get...but typically people in those fields and similar like data...they're a bit OCD in analyzing such data and other things...they like keeping ledgers and spreadsheets for everything...they tend to be very detail oriented and analytical, etc.

    Anyone can do this for sure...the math is super easy...but I think in general there's a certain type of personality that does well with calorie counting in particular...it's definitely not for everyone which is why there are so many different diet plans out there...for a lot of people, those are easier even though CICO is still in play whether they know it or not.

    This is what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. CICO loving arguers are stuck in the same crude gear arguing on a nonargument. As someone else put it...majoring in minor? Trolling? :)

    There's no argument from me re CICO. I have no problem or misunderstanding with it. Nothing complex about it. I just don't care for the jargon. It's crude as a term used for describing something. "Eat less, move more", "Eat less, exercise more" are better language, but none of these, CICO included, is significant a piece of info. or any real revelation for me.

    It would be million times better if someone posted new insights, ways to make dieting better, more effortless, even that would only help a handful of people... That would be worthwhile.
  • Posts: 8,159 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »

    If you are on a medication that inhibits digestion and absorption of nutrients, I'd watch out, because the result would be massive diarrhea.

    @psuLemon where did you come up with the massive diarrhea story?

    Pycnogenol is just French Maritime Pine Bark produced under a patented set of controls and standards with 40 years of lab studies that most anyone have access to at some level.

    The first link below is just an overview of Pycnogenol for those not interested in the science behind the supplement Pycnogenol yet the story does have links to the science.

    https://draxe.com/pine-bark-extract/
    7 Pine Bark Extract Benefits, Including for Skin, Hearing & Diabetes

    Below is for the health geeks that are hooked on the behind the scenes science. 113 Abstracts with Pycnogenol (Pine Bark) Research including 106 diseases researched for pine bark (Pycnogenol).

    greenmedinfo.com/substance/pycnogenol-pine-bark
  • Posts: 29,136 Member

    This is what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. CICO loving arguers are stuck in the same crude gear arguing on a nonargument. As someone else put it...majoring in minor? Trolling? :)

    There's no argument from me re CICO. I have no problem or misunderstanding with it. Nothing complex about it. I just don't care for the jargon. It's crude as a term used for describing something. "Eat less, move more", "Eat less, exercise more" are better language, but none of these, CICO included, is significant a piece of info. or any real revelation for me.

    It would be million times better if someone posted new insights, ways to make dieting better, more effortless, even that would only help a handful of people... That would be worthwhile.

    that

    This is what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. CICO loving arguers are stuck in the same crude gear arguing on a nonargument. As someone else put it...majoring in minor? Trolling? :)

    There's no argument from me re CICO. I have no problem or misunderstanding with it. Nothing complex about it. I just don't care for the jargon. It's crude as a term used for describing something. "Eat less, move more", "Eat less, exercise more" are better language, but none of these, CICO included, is significant a piece of info. or any real revelation for me.

    It would be million times better if someone posted new insights, ways to make dieting better, more effortless, even that would only help a handful of people... That would be worthwhile.

    that is the thing though, we are not arguing CICO. We are stating that it is a math formula that if one simply learns to follow they can lose weight, maintain weight, or gain weight. The insight is that it is not super complicated.
  • Posts: 592 Member
    edited April 2017
    mgibbons22 wrote: »
    I just lost 14 lbs in seven weeks while eating at a 1000 calorie per day deficit. Exactly as CICO predicts (could not have done it without MFP). Yes, CICO works.

    But the numbers are not going to match up every single day. Lots of undulations in my chart; I did not lose exactly 2/7 of a lb every day. Gotta be that "lots of variables" bit so many have cited. But over the long run: perfect.
    It sounds like what you're describing is calorie counting, where you count calories going in vs. calories going out. Or at least, estimates of those. That's one way to apply the CICO principle but not the same as CICO. I think that's what @Tacklewasher's post on page1 was getting at. (Not that you were saying calorie counting = CICO. But there seems to be a lot of disagreement over the terminology.)
  • Posts: 1,482 Member
    Preach!
  • Posts: 8,159 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »

    If your body cannot digest a nutrient, it would pass through you and be excreted, like insoluble fiber... It's why things like carb blocks and fat blockers always have side effects of diarrhea. If it's digestible, the body would convert calories to energy.


    https://examine.com/supplements/pycnogenol/

    Thanks for the link. It seems like most all humans can benefit from using this pine bark extract safely. My n=3 supports the same so far.

    Do you agree that CICO in no way addresses what causes humans to lose the ability to stop eating when they eat their daily required food needs?

    https://quora.com/What-percent-of-calories-from-food-are-actually-absorbed-when-we-eat

    The above article covers why CICO is only a fraction of the equation to good health since CICO in a scientific sense is not actually knowable to any of us posting.

    Until we work to learn WHY we eat more calories than we burn then CICO is only a theoretical concept as far as science goes.
  • Posts: 1,291 Member
    The maths on MFP are especially satisfying when enjoyed with the color-coding. Green - gooooooood. Red - baaaaaaaaaad.
  • Posts: 3,886 Member

    Thanks for the link. It seems like most all humans can benefit from using this pine bark extract safely. My n=3 supports the same so far.

    Do you agree that CICO in no way addresses what causes humans to lose the ability to stop eating when they eat their daily required food needs?

    https://quora.com/What-percent-of-calories-from-food-are-actually-absorbed-when-we-eat

    The above article covers why CICO is only a fraction of the equation to good health since CICO in a scientific sense is not actually knowable to any of us posting.

    Until we work to learn WHY we eat more calories than we burn then CICO is only a theoretical concept as far as science goes.

    I don't understand the bolded part. The result of the comparison of calories in to calories out is knowable to anyone with a scale and enough time to observe a weight trend. Not being able to quantify either CI or CO to 100% accuracy is irrelevant.

  • Posts: 1,639 Member
    JeepHair77 wrote: »
    The maths on MFP are especially satisfying when enjoyed with the color-coding. Green - gooooooood. Red - baaaaaaaaaad.

    Not when it comes to my protein goal! It should be red when I am under and green when I am over.
  • Posts: 1,291 Member

    Not when it comes to my protein goal! It should be red when I am under and green when I am over.

    This is true. I've actually had this exact thought - I wish the colors in the protein macro were reversed.
This discussion has been closed.