Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Things that affect CICO
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
Well, obviously those of us telling you that we already know this don't think that.
But the larger point is this:
Without laboratory equipment, it's pretty much impossible to assess these other little variables you seem to make much of. There are some things you can do that for some people make a significant difference like getting a decent whack of your calories from protein to maximize TEF, for example, but other than that, you really are just talking a very small handful of calories that won't matter to most people and aren't really worth this hill you seem ready to die on.
For practical *and* practicable purposes, the variables that are easy to assess and quantify are the ones to focus on.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
Except they don't, it's just not worth worrying about because there's no practical application to be made from that knowledge. THAT'S the point we're trying to make and the one you want to ignore because......I don't even know why.
That is not true.
Please demonstrate with data how it's worth worrying about these marginal differences.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.
5 -
The people in the paper you provided seem to think it is worthy of studying and also say there is a lot of unknowns.6
-
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.
This touches on something that I think gets lost in a lot of noise in discussions like this that verge on what seems to make an issue of optimizing things and that's the topic of adherence or compliance.
Satiety is something that has a major impact on compliance, and if there is one thing I've learned in all the years I've been at this the one thing that trumps EVERYTHING else is compliance. I don't care about optimal this that or the other thing, whatever works for an individual in terms of making compliance easier is the answer for them.
These variables that everyone makes mountains that should be molehills of preference out of are usually the sorts of things that people can sort and arrange into a series of choices and habits to construct a lifestyle that easy for them to live with, be compliant with and works best for them.
The only over riding factor is that they maintain the principles of energy balance.13 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.
Not with the crowd I hang out with.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.
This touches on something that I think gets lost in a lot of noise in discussions like this that verge on what seems to make an issue of optimizing things and that's the topic of adherence or compliance.
Satiety is something that has a major impact on compliance, and if there is one thing I've learned in all the years I've been at this the one thing that trumps EVERYTHING else is compliance. I don't care about optimal this that or the other thing, whatever works for an individual in terms of making compliance easier is the answer for them.
These variables that everyone makes mountains that should be molehills of preference out of are usually the sorts of things that people can sort and arrange into a series of choices and habits to construct a lifestyle that easy for them to live with, be compliant with and works best for them.
The only over riding factor is that they maintain the principles of energy balance.
True about the energy balance if we had perfect will power but we don't. If we did, non of us would have gotten fat. Satiety is very important also.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.
This touches on something that I think gets lost in a lot of noise in discussions like this that verge on what seems to make an issue of optimizing things and that's the topic of adherence or compliance.
Satiety is something that has a major impact on compliance, and if there is one thing I've learned in all the years I've been at this the one thing that trumps EVERYTHING else is compliance. I don't care about optimal this that or the other thing, whatever works for an individual in terms of making compliance easier is the answer for them.
These variables that everyone makes mountains that should be molehills of preference out of are usually the sorts of things that people can sort and arrange into a series of choices and habits to construct a lifestyle that easy for them to live with, be compliant with and works best for them.
The only over riding factor is that they maintain the principles of energy balance.
True about the energy balance if we had perfect will power but we don't. If we did, non of us would have gotten fat. Satiety is very important also.
Agreed. Satiety is one of the keys for compliance, which is why I think optimizing it is important. The means of optimizing it vary on an individual basis, though.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.
My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.
There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.
This touches on something that I think gets lost in a lot of noise in discussions like this that verge on what seems to make an issue of optimizing things and that's the topic of adherence or compliance.
Satiety is something that has a major impact on compliance, and if there is one thing I've learned in all the years I've been at this the one thing that trumps EVERYTHING else is compliance. I don't care about optimal this that or the other thing, whatever works for an individual in terms of making compliance easier is the answer for them.
These variables that everyone makes mountains that should be molehills of preference out of are usually the sorts of things that people can sort and arrange into a series of choices and habits to construct a lifestyle that easy for them to live with, be compliant with and works best for them.
The only over riding factor is that they maintain the principles of energy balance.
True about the energy balance if we had perfect will power but we don't. If we did, non of us would have gotten fat. Satiety is very important also.
Agreed. Satiety is one of the keys for compliance, which is why I think optimizing it is important. The means of optimizing it vary on an individual basis, though.
Totally agree with that!1 -
-
Ok, so an assumption that I wanted to start out with is that calories-in, calories-out (CICO) is the only way to lose weight. This is not up for debate in this thread. However, I wanted to discuss things that may make a difference in either the CI side or the CO side and help an individual lose weight.
For instance: More sleep leads to more energy which means you may workout or move around more, which increases in calories out.
Or: If you eat healthier foods you are more satiated on fewer calories, so you eat less (fewer calories in.)
What are some things that you think affect weightloss because they may affect CICO?
Note, this doesn't mean that any of these things are universal, because again, CICO is what actually changes things, but I've noticed people have some things which help them achieve their calorie and activity goals.
For me personally, I focus on (quality) sleep, stress levels, and activity levels. If those things are in line, I tend to be more mindful of what I eat, and eat those things that are more nutritious and keep me sated. I also tend to drink more fluids with higher activity levels, so that keeps the hunger down longer.
As for the actual things I think (or know) can affect weightloss because they impact the energy balance equation.... well the list is huge. All the hormonal changes, dietary choices changes, activity levels and types, etc, etc all add up to fairly large variations human to human. Data shows that dietary variations alone can lead to changes of 15% + in various populations and regions. There is a reason the overall efficiency isn't a set point, but a range.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »
I would think for anyone aspiring to hit 1000 calories per hour that the variables involved might be much more like describing Olympic competition skating or snowboarding feats. A quadruple axle triple cork flip combination for warming up, then bring the intensity.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
But there's all those unused muscle groups0 -
Behaviorally, I know for sure some antidepressants affect it. Normally, I don't have a sweet tooth, but rather a salty tooth -- I could live without ever having another cookie, but you can pry my french fries out of my cold, dead hands.
Paxil in particular made me crave sugar like crazy. It was very bizarre to me. It also made me care so little about anything that I never told myself I shouldn't have ice cream for breakfast because who cares about my weight or my health or anything really? I gained 30 lbs in 2 months on this drug because of that.
I take Wellbutrin now and don't have the same issue.3 -
Hormones. Depending on my TMI, I can get exhausted just going about my day, meaning I move way less and burn fewer non-exercise calories. Also, stress can affect hunger levels. Some people stress eat (me) while others lose all appetite and lose weight during periods of high stress (not me).1
-
Technically, nothing affects CICO, but I get what you are saying. There are factors which might affect the rate calories are going out or how they are coming in. For me, too much sugar affects how many calories in because sugar makes me hungry and I consume more calories. Eating a lot of healthy fat reduces my appetite so therefore less calories in. More muscle affects calories out, but it still has to be balanced by calories in, although you can get away with a few more calories. But, muscle doesn't burn as many calories as some people think, nor does the post workout burn fitness experts talk about.0
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