CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
ladyreva78 wrote: »
Yep. It simple's to set an alarm clock to get up in the morning. For me, it's easy to get up and go, but I know lots of people who need to get dragged out of bed to start the day.quiksylver296 wrote: »CynthiasChoice wrote: »I'm one of those people who gets annoyed with the statement that CICO is simple. Yes the equation is simple, but the application of it is a puzzle for many people, especially for those who are impatient to get it right immediately so they see the pounds start to drop off.
There are so many unknowns, and then add to that the complete disarray of the MFP database. It can take up to an hour to research every food entry for the day to make sure it matches the USDA database. So many packaged foods under-report calorie content, and are likely 20% higher in calories than the package states. And one banana can be way sweeter than another and likely 25 calories more. It's impossible to know how many calories you are truly consuming. And CI is the "easiest" part to track.
It's the word "simple" that annoys me. And when people throw out the CICO comment, they are sometimes completely ignoring the significant part of the conversation, i.e. how to deal with cravings, satiety, nutrition, etc. It sometimes comes off sounding smug and condescending.
Simple =/= easy.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That would be me. I have 3 alarm clocks set up around my room to somehow get myself moving. It's simple enough to do.
Doesn't mean it's easy to get me going (or always successful). Even after I'm up, there's no guarantee that my eyes are fully open or, as the French would say, aligned with the holes...
Same applies to CICO. It's simple if you use the tools available, but you still have to use the tools consistently (and not throw a pillow at them) over a long time period to get to the results you want. And that's anything but easy at times.
Me too, I'm a night owl and I've been suffering because I've changed jobs, which requires an earlier start. Radio on, lights on, and my phone alarm, I can just about get out of bed but not quickly.
Several of my failed attempts involved me trying to work out in the morning before work. Just get up earlier it's easy part of the current success has boiling it down to Maths. Working out what suits me best rather than trying to be perfect believing all the myths (I drink my calories, I eat breakfast sometimes, a banana is grim and I will never eat one, I eat late at night, I'm useless in the mornings, along with other things).
It's not always easy, but it is simple. I tracked my food for months, looked at my weight trends, established that my fitbit slightly underestimates my burn so I eat all the exercise. It is simple, but the emotional connection and guilt around food is still not easy at times. But using calorie counting as a tool for CI<CO has been working for me.
I'm a Clinical Data Analyst, can I join the club?
7 -
Math and physics teacher here. I agree CI<CO is needed for weight loss.
I do also believe that some need to address dietary/nutritional and health needs to make meeting that equation for a sustained length of time (months and months of weight loss for many) doable.
CI<CO is the key. To reach that over the long term people may need to change many things, and not just the number of calories they consume.11 -
Great post OP - I knew the forum warriors would find a way to make it about them. I am waiting for the words "peer reviewed" to make their inevitable appearance.
21 -
-
middlehaitch wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.French_Peasant wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.
*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I'll allow it...
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
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)2 -
crazyycatlady1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.French_Peasant wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.
*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I'll allow it...
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
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.4 -
People fail to see how simple it is, because the diet industry has plagued our brains with how not simple it is. If someone has failed double digit amount of times at losing weight, it would be a little pride swallowing moment if you realized how simple it is to lose the weight. That would mean your predicament is 100% self inflicted, and the only person to be accountable is yourself. (Not including people with medical conditions or other issues that greatly affect CO more than the avg person).
It took me several years and failed attempts to understand/realize that myself. Now it's so obvious. As someone said, just because the equation is simple, it doesn't mean it's easy.
There really isn't much dispute, if any to OP's post. Some of my friends still argue they have to restrict their diet because a calorie of a donut is not equal to a calorie of broccoli.
Self accountability is a hell of a drug. It can either motivate you or derail you into making excuses for failure.
14 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.French_Peasant wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.
*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I'll allow it...
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
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..4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.French_Peasant wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.
*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I'll allow it...
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
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.4 -
I think people just fail to see how simple it is, because the diet industry has plagued our brains with how not simple it is...
The diet industry is a multi-billion dollar fraud machine that doesn't want people to know how simple it is to lose weight. And they don't want people to succeed, it's bad for their business. They need people to believe that you need this supplement, this fad diet, this workout plan/video, this book or whatever to truly succeed, and that it's not as simple as just taking in less calories than you expend. Our society in general is very poorly educated about nutrition and the diet industry preys upon that.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Yes it is a math formula yet we have no way of knowing our own CICO short of going to an expensive lab. What if one is taking Pycnogenol, etc that is blocking some complex carbs from being used as energy? How do you know how many calories to subtract from CI? CICO does not factor in efficiency of digestion. What about people with health conditions that lower their metabolism?
I give you even though it is nothing precise CICO guessimations may be helpful as we start to order our disordered WOE's.
There is one way that any of us can determine our true net CICO results and that is to weigh our body say the first thing each morning before we eat or drink anything and track those numbers. One could do it once a week or month if she wishes.
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-bark2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Yes it is a math formula yet we have no way of knowing our own CICO short of going to an expensive lab. What if one is taking Pycnogenol, etc that is blocking some complex carbs from being used as energy? How do you know how many calories to subtract from CI? CICO does not factor in efficiency of digestion. What about people with health conditions that lower their metabolism?
I give you even though it is nothing precise CICO guessimations may be helpful as we start to order our disordered WOE's.
There is one way that any of us can determine our true net CICO results and that is to weigh our body say the first thing each morning before we eat or drink anything and track those numbers. One could do it once a week or month if she wishes.
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
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/12 -
Math and physics teacher here. I agree CI<CO is needed for weight loss.
I do also believe that some need to address dietary/nutritional and health needs to make meeting that equation for a sustained length of time (months and months of weight loss for many) doable.
CI<CO is the key. To reach that over the long term people may need to change many things, and not just the number of calories they consume.
which I clearly stated in my OP....7 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.French_Peasant wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.
*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I'll allow it...
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
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.
thatendlessfall16 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.French_Peasant wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.
*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I'll allow it...
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
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.
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.3 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »
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.
But, for me, learning about CICO helped tremendously. Forget the accountant stuff, it made weight loss so much easier than figuring out which foods I shouldn't be eating, or which diet to follow, or how much do I need to exercise and what exercise and all the crap you see i the checkout lines at the store (or my wife finds in her facebook feeds). This WAS the freaking insight I needed to make this work for ME. It was "a million times better" than anything I had heard about up to that point. If I hadn't had seen the "Sync with My Fitness Pal" on the Garmin Connect dashboard, I'd still be confused, working my friggen *kitten* off and not getting anywhere near the results.
So, @endlessfall16 It helped me. I has helped those like me. It will help others like me. I can only relate what has worked for me, with the caveat that while it worked for me, it may not be the right way for others. For me, understanding CICO meant that calorie counting instantly made sense to me, and the tools here work for me. But as I said in my initial post, CICO is not calorie counting. But even if someone doesn't want to count, understanding what is going on in the background may help.14 -
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.)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.1 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »I'm one of those people who gets annoyed with the statement that CICO is simple. Yes the equation is simple, but the application of it is a puzzle for many people, especially for those who are impatient to get it right immediately so they see the pounds start to drop off.
There are so many unknowns, and then add to that the complete disarray of the MFP database. It can take up to an hour to research every food entry for the day to make sure it matches the USDA database. So many packaged foods under-report calorie content, and are likely 20% higher in calories than the package states. And one banana can be way sweeter than another and likely 25 calories more. It's impossible to know how many calories you are truly consuming. And CI is the "easiest" part to track.
It's the word "simple" that annoys me. And when people throw out the CICO comment, they are sometimes completely ignoring the significant part of the conversation, i.e. how to deal with cravings, satiety, nutrition, etc. It sometimes comes off sounding smug and condescending.
This perfectly illustrates the point that I was trying (and perhaps failing) to make upthread -- there are so many variables that go into calculating both CI and CO that it's really impossible to perfectly calculate either side.
The part I maybe didn't explain quite so well is that the complexity of both CI and CO is why the overall equation is so valuable.
Observation over time will tell you whether CI=CO, CI>CO or CI<CO.
You don't necessarily need to know which exact variable to tweak in order to change the equation. It's helpful to try to pinpoint it, but ultimately when we do try, we're looking for big inaccuracies. If you understand the overall picture of the equation, you have lots of options that will let you change it. However, if you don't understand the overall picture of the equation, how do you even begin to try to change it?7 -
Preach!1
-
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.)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.
No, I think what @mgibbons22 is saying is that CICO is an energy balance, and he has understood his CO number, so that by making CI = CO - 1000, he has lost weight exactly at the predicted rate of 2 lbs/week base on a 7000 cal weekly deficit.
I don't think he's conflating Calorie Counting and CICO at all. I think you might be however.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »
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.
But, for me, learning about CICO helped tremendously.
Me too, even though I already knew, in theory, that it was calories. There's so much magical thinking about weight loss and ideas that certain foods are extra fattening or will have some inexplicable effect beyond their calories or that you have to plan it out like a magical spell again (don't eat fats with carbs or whatever) or that it matters so very much (for everyone) that you eat X meals or within 30 minutes after a workout or run fasted or whatever (all contradictory of course) that I think wiping that away and saying no, what matter is just eating less than I burn (and if I've been at maintenance, less than what I am now, cut 500 calories and add some exercise/increase activity, perhaps).
Once that refreshing starting point is reached, then the next thing is "how do I personally increase CO and decrease CI." That is going to depend on you and what led to the weight gain in your particular situation and what seems likely to help and what does not. I think of CICO as a great starting point, not the end all, but to figure out what's next (or ask for help if you need it), it's the best place to start.
Saying "how do I lose weight" is too general a question to have meaningful answers (beyond CICO).
But if you get CICO and say "I struggle with going over my calories, because I tend to feel a strong desire to snack in the evening" that's a more specific question where you may get helpful ideas (although more information is probably going to be more helpful still).
Once I approached it based on CICO, I found it pretty easy to figure out how to change things to lose, so I totally disagree that most fat people would find it unhelpful. They do have to be motivated to figure out what they need to change, though. I experimented some, and I've also found that some things I did not struggle with losing have come back and need to be dealt with in maintenance. It's all educational, though, and knowing it's CICO and things I can figure out myself is important and works with my personality and the fact I like planning and figuring stuff out and not following rules given to me by others.7 -
"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"
That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Yes it is a math formula yet we have no way of knowing our own CICO short of going to an expensive lab. What if one is taking Pycnogenol, etc that is blocking some complex carbs from being used as energy? How do you know how many calories to subtract from CI? CICO does not factor in efficiency of digestion. What about people with health conditions that lower their metabolism?
I give you even though it is nothing precise CICO guessimations may be helpful as we start to order our disordered WOE's.
There is one way that any of us can determine our true net CICO results and that is to weigh our body say the first thing each morning before we eat or drink anything and track those numbers. One could do it once a week or month if she wishes.
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
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.
1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Yes it is a math formula yet we have no way of knowing our own CICO short of going to an expensive lab. What if one is taking Pycnogenol, etc that is blocking some complex carbs from being used as energy? How do you know how many calories to subtract from CI? CICO does not factor in efficiency of digestion. What about people with health conditions that lower their metabolism?
I give you even though it is nothing precise CICO guessimations may be helpful as we start to order our disordered WOE's.
There is one way that any of us can determine our true net CICO results and that is to weigh our body say the first thing each morning before we eat or drink anything and track those numbers. One could do it once a week or month if she wishes.
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
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.
And balancing your checkbook doesn't address why some people spend more than they earn.
Why do we have to understand why some people eat more than they need to in order to accept the science behind how our bodies process and store energy? It's like saying I can't make a personal budget until I understand why my neighbor spent his rent money on a new television.34 -
For heavens sake. How has this become yet another debate. it's just the flipping science of weight loss.
Are there other factors surrounding compliance and long term success? Of course. Do they make any impact on the science of weight management? Nope.15 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Yes it is a math formula yet we have no way of knowing our own CICO short of going to an expensive lab. What if one is taking Pycnogenol, etc that is blocking some complex carbs from being used as energy? How do you know how many calories to subtract from CI? CICO does not factor in efficiency of digestion. What about people with health conditions that lower their metabolism?
I give you even though it is nothing precise CICO guessimations may be helpful as we start to order our disordered WOE's.
There is one way that any of us can determine our true net CICO results and that is to weigh our body say the first thing each morning before we eat or drink anything and track those numbers. One could do it once a week or month if she wishes.
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
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.
In this scenario, it seems like you are trying to take CICO and apply psychologically which would not really make any sense. CICO is not a theory; it is simple science. Psychologically, people do not stop eating for a variety of reasons from comfort to shame to habit. I am not sure how that in any way impacts CICO other than hiking up CI?14 -
The maths on MFP are especially satisfying when enjoyed with the color-coding. Green - gooooooood. Red - baaaaaaaaaad.4
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Yes it is a math formula yet we have no way of knowing our own CICO short of going to an expensive lab. What if one is taking Pycnogenol, etc that is blocking some complex carbs from being used as energy? How do you know how many calories to subtract from CI? CICO does not factor in efficiency of digestion. What about people with health conditions that lower their metabolism?
I give you even though it is nothing precise CICO guessimations may be helpful as we start to order our disordered WOE's.
There is one way that any of us can determine our true net CICO results and that is to weigh our body say the first thing each morning before we eat or drink anything and track those numbers. One could do it once a week or month if she wishes.
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
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.
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.
4 -
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.3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »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.
This is true. I've actually had this exact thought - I wish the colors in the protein macro were reversed.3 -
To reiterate the point made by many:
You don't have to know exactly how many Calories you took in or burned down to the small (lowercase c) calorie.
Do I give a fudgesicle if my deficit was 500 or only 369 today? No. Do I give a fudgesicle if it is going to be 723 tomorrow because of inaccuracies? No. What I care about is that the weight trend goes towards 500 calories ~ 1 pound per week weight loss in the long term.
All this talk about "yeah but it's not 100% accurate" is nothing more than excuses.22
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions