CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success.
I didn't have some insatiable appetite or any other issues with food...I became overweight when I graduated college and took a desk job and went from being very active to more or less sedentary...CICO explains that just fine...I continued to eat the same but my activity level dropped...I let things be and over time I went from overweight to slightly obese.
Pretty simple...12 -
VintageFeline wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Why are you derailing this thread into a topic it's not? ndj's post was not about why people overeat, of which there are many reasons. His post was about the fact that every way of eating comes down to balancing calories eaten to calories expended, regardless of how you reach it. Also, see @Tacklewasher's post above. CICO does not equal calorie counting.
To be fair, the OP does not pose a question or explicitly suggest a single point for discussion. It makes a minimum of four separate points (or seven separate points if you split out what appear to be intended as elaborations on more general points), including two separate points labeled "finally." You have to expect that people will wander down different paths when so many are presented.
(I'm not saying I don't find Gale's theme that knowing about CICO solves nothing unless you address every factor on both sides of the equation, plus any psychological or behavioral issues that affect adherence, to be a tiresome example of majoring in the minors. But he's attacking the basic premise of the OP, and if that's derailing, the large majority of threads on MFP are derailed by the third post.)
The thing is, he's disputing the indisputable. It's his modus operandi.
Absolutely. I'm just saying that a better response than "you can't even talk about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise" would be to say "here's why your statements about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise miss the point." Fight bad facts and bad logic with good facts and good logic, not by saying "you can't make that argument here." Or ignore him. There's even a button for that.
3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Why are you derailing this thread into a topic it's not? ndj's post was not about why people overeat, of which there are many reasons. His post was about the fact that every way of eating comes down to balancing calories eaten to calories expended, regardless of how you reach it. Also, see @Tacklewasher's post above. CICO does not equal calorie counting.
To be fair, the OP does not pose a question or explicitly suggest a single point for discussion. It makes a minimum of four separate points (or seven separate points if you split out what appear to be intended as elaborations on more general points), including two separate points labeled "finally." You have to expect that people will wander down different paths when so many are presented.
(I'm not saying I don't find Gale's theme that knowing about CICO solves nothing unless you address every factor on both sides of the equation, plus any psychological or behavioral issues that affect adherence, to be a tiresome example of majoring in the minors. But he's attacking the basic premise of the OP, and if that's derailing, the large majority of threads on MFP are derailed by the third post.)
The thing is, he's disputing the indisputable. It's his modus operandi.
Absolutely. I'm just saying that a better response than "you can't even talk about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise" would be to say "here's why your statements about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise miss the point." Fight bad facts and bad logic with good facts and good logic, not by saying "you can't make that argument here." Or ignore him. There's even a button for that.
And I'm just saying that GH isn't even talking about why the OP is wrong. In fact, he agreed further back that CICO is an equation, just as the OP stated. His posts are twisting the thread into the topic of "CICO doesn't explain why people overeat and become obese," which has nothing to do with the OP.
What was more useful was the discussion about whether it's helpful to talk to people about the math behind weight loss instead of just telling them "eat less, move more." I'm a numbers person, so understanding the math and science behind losing/gaining/maintaining weight works for me. I absolutely found it useful to know that my body has a set number of calories it needs to maintain its weight and that the food I eat needs to balance that. Knowing there are two sides of an equation I can manipulate has helped me not only decrease the number of calories I was eating but also increase my normal activity level. I'd question whether it's ever unhelpful for someone to understand CICO.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Weird, I never wasted even a single thought on hormones in my whole life, but like a miracle, as soon as I started paying attention to CICO, my weight moved in exactly the directions and at the speeds the calculators suggested, and that for now 4 years.22 -
So the article posted on the previous page....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
says
The human body obeys the law of energy conservation [20], which can be expressed as
(1)
where ΔU is the change in stored energy in the body, ΔQ is a change in energy input or intake, and ΔW is a change in energy output or expenditure.
So......
ΔU = The change in your stored energy (i.e fat)
ΔQ = The change in your energy input (i.e your CI)
ΔW = Change in energy output (i.e. your CO)
Guess what this is saying....go ahead, guess....16 -
-
annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.1 -
annaskiski wrote: »So the article posted on the previous page....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
says
The human body obeys the law of energy conservation [20], which can be expressed as (1)
where ΔU is the change in stored energy in the body, ΔQ is a change in energy input or intake, and ΔW is a change in energy output or expenditure.
So......
ΔU = The change in your stored energy (i.e fat)
ΔQ = The change in your energy input (i.e your CI)
ΔW = Change in energy output (i.e. your CO)
Guess what this is saying....go ahead, guess....
You make me wish I hadn't sucked so badly in math, physics and chemistry.
1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
I think it would be helpful in the sense that, if you know you have some kind of a metabolic disorder, then you take a set percentage off the calculated CI, stick with it for 4 weeks and the re-evaluate how your progress is. Someone in that situation might not be as frustrated with the result if they know from the start that they need to subtract 5-10% from what ever number a random online calculator spewed out.
Actually... the same anyone attempting to lose/gain/maintain weight should proceed. Gather a basic minimum of data and then adapt according to the desired results.
It was exactly this rather stupidly basic piece of knowledge I was missing and which was leading to failure time and time again. Understanding what the basic equation is took a whole lot of guesswork and emotion out of this whole business for me.5 -
French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
The easiest way is to pick a number and stick to it as accurately as possible and assess results over time. For me I need eight weeks to see the trend and results.
So the equation is useful but common sense also has to be applied and an understanding that everything is an estimate.
But it's really not in the least bit complicated to work out your own numbers.7 -
Are you asking about someone with a metabolic disorder that prevents them from absorbing and using some caloric substances? If that's what you're asking, I'd think so. The "CI" part of the equation is talking about calories that actually enter your system, not necessarily all the potentially usable calories you ingest. If you eat something but don't actually digest and absorb the nutrients from it, it's not really CI.I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
I agree it isn't always easy to get a good estimate of CI and CO. They can be affected by various things, and they're not consistent over time. It can be helpful to estimate and use trial and error to figure out how close you are.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
You don't have to...I haven't counted calories in about 4 years...I can maintain and lose if need be just fine without counting calories. If I'm maintaining my weight then my CI=CO...If I'm losing weight then my CI<CO...I don't have to specifically know the numbers for the equation to be in play...11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
Exactly as several in this thread have indicated - portion control. There are many people who don't count calories and lose/gain/maintain weight perfectly fine. Some people are inherently better at portion control than others. If someone is weighing themselves regularly, it's not difficult to tell when the equation is out of balance.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Best post ever.
I tend to find (WARNING - sweeping generalisation coming here!
) those with a problem with CICO a) don't accurately measure the CI (no scales, not recording EVERYTHING they eat) and b) over-estimate the CO ("but I'm running about all day so it doesn't matter I don't go to the gym").
I have a co-worker (trying to lose weight to fit into a special occasion dress) who is constantly saying "oh, but I can't do this or that exercise at the moment because of the pain in my hip/back/knee" and blaming that on her inability to lose weight, rather than reducing her CI further until she can resume her routine (which, TBH, was only ever intermittent!). While she was telling us this, she absent-mindedly ate 7 sweets from a bag someone had left on a desk
I agree with your example of the types of people who have an issue with CICO. To further expound I think there are a few types:
1. People who have been told about the concept, but have failed to successfully implement it for themselves (as you describe)
2. People who don't want to believe that something as simple as managing a basic math equation is what is responsible for their weight issues all these years. If it were that simple, then they have no excuse for not losing the weight sooner.
3. People who have recently begun to evangelically follow a particular way of eating in order (kept, paleo, vegan, clean eating) to achieve results. They want to credit the way of eating for the weight loss, because of all the other perceived benefits they've encountered, and not suggest that any thing as simple as calories should take the credit away from this magical way of eating.
4. People who want to major in the minors and nitpick the details of the numbers as a reason to suggest that the entire formula won't work because it can't be precisely measured. Throwing the baby out with the bath water if you will...
Maybe this is simply a subtype or variant of one of the above, but I'd add "People who believe that CICO means that MFP's (or any other) calorie calculator is supposed to give exactly correct calorie levels for them." In that view, if one tracks CI & CO as carefully as possible, but doesn't lose as expected, "CICO doesn't work".9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
The easiest way is to pick a number and stick to it as accurately as possible and assess results over time. For me I need eight weeks to see the trend and results.
So the equation is useful but common sense also has to be applied and an understanding that everything is an estimate.
But it's really not in the least bit complicated to work out your own numbers.
Yes, I think this is the most sensible approach if you are logging and counting and want to know the numbers.
Another option is just to find a way to access whether you are eating less or more, and then adjust without actually counting. I did this and lost successfully doing so, but for me it was less fun than counting and knowing the numbers. (I like data with other things too, though, as people were saying early on.)1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
CIabc=COxyz?
You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.
Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.
In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.
Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.2 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
I think it would be helpful in the sense that, if you know you have some kind of a metabolic disorder, then you take a set percentage off the calculated CI, stick with it for 4 weeks and the re-evaluate how your progress is. Someone in that situation might not be as frustrated with the result if they know from the start that they need to subtract 5-10% from what ever number a random online calculator spewed out.
Actually... the same anyone attempting to lose/gain/maintain weight should proceed. Gather a basic minimum of data and then adapt according to the desired results.
It was exactly this rather stupidly basic piece of knowledge I was missing and which was leading to failure time and time again. Understanding what the basic equation is took a whole lot of guesswork and emotion out of this whole business for me.VintageFeline wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
The easiest way is to pick a number and stick to it as accurately as possible and assess results over time. For me I need eight weeks to see the trend and results.
So the equation is useful but common sense also has to be applied and an understanding that everything is an estimate.
But it's really not in the least bit complicated to work out your own numbers.
Are you asking about someone with a metabolic disorder that prevents them from absorbing and using some caloric substances? If that's what you're asking, I'd think so. The "CI" part of the equation is talking about calories that actually enter your system, not necessarily all the calories you ingest. If you eat something but don't actually digest and absorb the nutrients from it, it's not really CI.I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
I agree it isn't always easy to get a good estimate of CI and CO. They can be affected by various things, and they're not consistent over time. It can be helpful to estimate and use trial and error to figure out how close you are.
That's all to my point though. In the end, it's an estimate on both sides of the equation for all of us, regardless of any medical issues or other complicating factors. The inclusion of variables in the CI=CO equation doesn't add anything to the process of gaining, losing or maintaining weight, because everyone has to estimate and reassess after a period of time.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
The easiest way is to pick a number and stick to it as accurately as possible and assess results over time. For me I need eight weeks to see the trend and results.
So the equation is useful but common sense also has to be applied and an understanding that everything is an estimate.
But it's really not in the least bit complicated to work out your own numbers.
Yes, I think this is the most sensible approach if you are logging and counting and want to know the numbers.
Another option is just to find a way to access whether you are eating less or more, and then adjust without actually counting. I did this and lost successfully doing so, but for me it was less fun than counting and knowing the numbers. (I like data with other things too, though, as people were saying early on.)
True. I think this way would be pretty easy if you're a habitual eater too. I'm not so like you I like the numbers and reducing as many variables as possible whilst still having very eclectic and ever changing food choices. No two days look the same for the most part for me.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »You don't have to...I haven't counted calories in about 4 years...I can maintain and lose if need be just fine without counting calories. If I'm maintaining my weight then my CI=CO...If I'm losing weight then my CI<CO...I don't have to specifically know the numbers for the equation to be in play...
This.GaleHawkins wrote: »While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
One doesn't actually have to "compute" CICO at all.
If one is maintaining, one KNOWS that CI=CO. If you are gaining about 1 lb every two weeks, you know CI=CO+250, roughly. So, if one wants to fix the CICO balance (so as to lose 1 lb/week), you either decrease CI, increase CO, or do a combination.
While one easy way to do this is to count, it's not necessary. If my diet is consistent or I can estimate it pretty well, I can start by adjusting CI by reducing some of the high cal things I eat. For example, I could cut in half my portion of starch with dinner, cut in half the amount of oil I add when cooking, and eat dessert half as often or in half as large a portion as I was. How specific you get depends on how much you like logging, how consistent your eating habits are, and how much you enjoy logging.
Before I did MFP I decided to increase activity and decrease calories. It didn't require logging. (I am pro logging, but let's not confuse the two concepts.)5 -
annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
CIabc=COxyz?
You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.
Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.
In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.
Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.
I gotcha! I thought you were yelling at me, and I was like, dude, we agree!
I see what you are saying. I was just trying to think of an easy way to illustrate the variables when they are brought up. Here's how I imagine the conversation:
Me: Hey, CI=CO!
Nonanalytical person: Starvation mode bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Well.... x=adaptive thermogenesis so CI=CO[variable impact of adaptive thermogenesis]. If x = -200 then you have to have [CI-200]=[CO-200] to maintain weight, aka, you will need to eat less if your metabolism has been screwed up, but it probably hasn't. If your equation is CI=[CO-200] you are going to gain because in this case CI>CO.
Nonanalytical person: Magic fat burning foods bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Okay, so y=thermic effect of food. Etc. (I am not sure if that would be on the CI or the CO side of the equation).
But it should be set up as abc = xyz to be mathematically precise.
***edited a number2 -
French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
I'm not saying they can be quantified--maybe they can be ballparked through trial and error. I think where this would be useful is when people say that some variable invalidates CICO. At that point it might be helpful to illustrate how that variable is part of the equation. You don't know what "x" is but by playing with the other side of the equation over time you can accommodate for it.2 -
French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
CIabc=COxyz?
You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.
Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.
In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.
Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.
I gotcha! I thought you were yelling at me, and I was like, dude, we agree!
I see what you are saying. I was just trying to think of an easy way to illustrate the variables when they are brought up. Here's how I imagine the conversation:
Me: Hey, CI=CO!
Nonanalytical person: Starvation mode bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Well.... x=adaptive thermogenesis so CI=CO[variable impact of adaptive thermogenesis]. If x = -200 then you have to have [CI-200]=[CO-200] to maintain weight, aka, you will need to eat less if your metabolism has been screwed up, but it probably hasn't. If your equation is CI=[CO-200] you are going to gain because in this case CI>CO.
Nonanalytical person: Magic fat burning foods bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Okay, so y=thermic effect of food. Etc. (I am not sure if that would be on the CI or the CO side of the equation).
But it should be set up as abc = xyz to be mathematically precise.
***edited a number
Sorry, I realize that you yourself were not saying this, but when people say that that CICO doesn't work 'cause hormones, I get a little nuts
5 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
I'm not saying they can be quantified--maybe they can be ballparked through trial and error. I think where this would be useful is when people say that some variable invalidates CICO. At that point it might be helpful to illustrate how that variable is part of the equation. You don't know what "x" is but by playing with the other side of the equation over time you can accommodate for it.
So useful more as a teaching point than a starting point. I could see that. I tire of seeing people say that CICO doesn't work because they're insulin resistant, uncontrolled hypothyroid, etc. I believe it was Tacklewasher who said that there's a feedback loop. Because we're all working from estimates, we all have to adjust the numbers in our personal equation up or down on a regular basis. It's not something unique to individuals with medical problems, disabilities, etc., but their adjustments are likely to be more drastic than someone without those variables, which could be why so many believe CICO is invalid.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
i have not counted calories in six months I have maintained..
here is how I do it..
I get on the scale every Friday morning and weigh myself; if weight stays the same I am good, if weight goes higher for several weeks then I need to make adjustments...
Again, I dont know why you don't understand this, or maybe you choose not to, CICO is a math formula, counting calories is a tool figure out CI>CO; CI<CO; CI=CO...but you don't have to count calories to do CICO.
7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
i have not counted calories in six months I have maintained..
here is how I do it..
I get on the scale every Friday morning and weigh myself; if weight stays the same I am good, if weight goes higher for several weeks then I need to make adjustments...
Again, I dont know why you don't understand this, or maybe you choose not to, CICO is a math formula, counting calories is a tool figure out CI>CO; CI<CO; CI=CO...but you don't have to count calories to do CICO.
We all 'do' CICO.....We all conform to the laws of physics.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions