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.
CICO -- what does it mean?
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.
Exactly this.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So now (I think!) we all agree that CICO and calorie counting is different.
From a practical perspective, there are many ways to adjust CICO so that you lose weight. Calorie counting is one. Other methods also may work (I've lost weight twice in my life, years apart, maintained for years, and the first time and the beginning of the second time I did not count, so obviously it is possible). Some of the common methods that people use are changing their diets in a way that increases satiety from fewer calories FOR THEM or makes casual overeating harder (again, for them -- for me this might be a bigger effect). Examples of this are keto, WFPB, paleo, etc. Other methods are changing eating patterns (which has the same two effects). While IF is an example of this, so is my preferred method (3 meals, no snacking). The thing with all these methods is that they assume the person will not overeat while using the method, and of course plenty who do IF or keto or my no snacking thing will still overeat. But also some won't be able to log well or will hate it too much to sustain it.
Whatever method you use, I do think that focusing on things like TEF and trying to "waste" calories is pretty much a waste of time (although worth knowing about, sure). That's because (among other things) you don't get any particular benefit from eating more "on the label" calories, especially if the way you do so is less satisfying to you. If it IS satisfying for you, do it for that reason.
I am somewhat a volume eater, not as much as some -- I did fine during my experiment with keto, although I still ate a decent amount of vegetables. I eat volume because I find it satisfying and enjoyable, not because I think it's inherently beneficial to eat the greatest volume you possibly can. Similarly, if including more protein in your diet is satiating to you (it is for many), do that, but NOT because the TEF is higher. Eating 2000 estimated calories that end up being 1600 when everything is taken into account is not inherently more satisfying or enjoyable or "optimal" than eating 1750 estimated calories that are 1600 when everything is taken into account.
The idea that it's optimal to eat as much as possible more than you actually digest is really puzzling to me. Might as well say the optimal thing is that icky gadget that lets you remove food after you eat it, and, well, ick.
Agree with your first paragraph.
I'm not suggesting wasting calories although it is inevitable. Actually if a person does HIIT sprinting and moves a certain distance, the power rating will have an effect on the efficiency of the energy conversion from fat. Just like a car is less efficient at certain speed than others. So knowing things like that may help us to exercise in a manner that might be more beneficial (I'm not saying HIIT is the way to go, that was only for discussion purposes). Since some forms of exercise might not be supported as efficiently, we then can benefit from the inefficiency.
I'm not saying we should eat in manner that we can't digest it all either. I am saying that there are factors that I think can be significant (maybe 10-20% effect) on the energy balance of the body. I think in an academic sense it is worthy of studying and some day will be practical for lots of people who can then accept the scientific results.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.
Exactly this.
I agree with that although I think the complexities are worthy of study.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.
Agreed, but the complexities are worthy of study.4 -
I edited a bit and added some stuff before you quoted.I'm not suggesting wasting calories although it is inevitable.
My memory from prior conversations was that you thought it was "optimal" (as you alluded to in this conversation somewhere today) to eat as many calories as possible and maximize the wasting of them. That's what I disagree with. I eat a bunch of foods that probably are not as efficiently digested for calories as some others, but not because I want to waste calories, but because often they are higher volume and I find that satisfying, and because they also often have micronutrients and, of course, taste good.
Regarding TEF, I think the only meaningful difference is going to be if you go from one extreme to another -- low protein to high, for example. But the amount of protein I would recommend is within a more narrow range, so within what I'd consider the range of recommended macros (which is a pretty good range), I don't think there's a meaningful difference. (I think a super high protein diet is a bad idea because you are cutting out/way down on too many foods that are good sources of energy (fat and carbs) and micros and fiber. I think better reasons for many to increase protein if it's low, despite it not making a significant difference to TEF is satiety and muscle protection.)
Similarly, my interest in exercise are fitness goals, not mere calorie burning, so even if HIIT burned more (I think most who are focused on that likely aren't fit enough to do it correctly), it wouldn't change my exercise routine. Mostly people should do what they are likely to find themselves likely to continue with, which is not going to be based on whether something might slightly increase calorie burning a bit more than something else over the next 12 hours.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I edited a bit and added some stuff before you quoted.I'm not suggesting wasting calories although it is inevitable.
My memory from prior conversations was that you thought it was "optimal" (as you alluded to in this conversation somewhere today) to eat as many calories as possible and maximize the wasting of them. That's what I disagree with. I eat a bunch of foods that probably are not as efficiently digested for calories as some others, but not because I want to waste calories, but because often they are higher volume and I find that satisfying, and because they also often have micronutrients and, of course, taste good.
Regarding TEF, I think the only meaningful difference is going to be if you go from one extreme to another -- low protein to high, for example. But the amount of protein I would recommend is within a more narrow range, so within what I'd consider the range of recommended macros (which is a pretty good range), I don't think there's a meaningful difference. (I think a super high protein diet is a bad idea because you are cutting out/way down on too many foods that are good sources of energy (fat and carbs) and micros and fiber. I think better reasons for many to increase protein if it's low, despite it not making a significant difference to TEF is satiety and muscle protection.)
The wasting of calories idea is something that I was accused of in a thread a long time ago. I never proposed that then and don't now. I think it is a fallout from some eating schedules but not the main reason to do things just like your main reason to eat non-easily digested food isn't to waste it either.
I'm not sure about the protein and I'm not an advocate of high protein either (I get gout from it). I do think there are other things that probably the biggest effect is on satiety and how that effects us. Not all people response the same to things that control satiety either so I'm not saying everyone is the same there.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.
Agreed, but the complexities are worthy of study.
Lots of things are worthy of study: Scientific research is worth doing to increase the boundaries of human knowledge. Some of that research will have practical applications.
Until the results of that research are available, at least in preliminary form, there's no real practical way for us to apply it intentionally (we may do so unintentionally, as when humans were routinely eating micronutrients before we even knew they existed).
Even once science has well-founded theories, some of what is known may be worth knowing for scientists, and interesting to others of us, but of trivial enough practical impact that we needn't give those things any conscious attention in order to lead a happy and successful life.
So, yes, things about energy management in the human body remain unknown, and are worthy of further study. Until they're known, we can't intentionally apply them, no matter how helpful they might be.
Other things about energy management in the human body are known, but in context are not major enough to be worth fussing with, or are in a complex relationship with other factors that limit our ability to do anything practical with them. Something like TEF falls in this category for most people. The theoretical maximum percentage effect could be moderately significant, but there are reasons not to bother: The "maximum TEF diet" wouldn't be sustainable for most of us, and most likely wouldn't provide well-rounded nutrition.
In a place like MFP, it only makes sense that the main focus is on the practical factors we can manipulate to achieve weight loss while maintaining nutrition, physical fitness suitable to our situation, satiation, logistical practicality within our overall lives, sense of social engagement and belonging, pleasure, etc.
For most of us, that's what we eat, how much, and when; and what activities (work, hobbies, chores, exercise, etc.) we do.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.
Agreed, but the complexities are worthy of study.
Worthy of study and worthy of concern are two totally different things.13 -
As an EE, I find it laughable that someone that claims to know so much about thermodynamics doesn't understand a basic energy equation principle.13
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.
Agreed, but the complexities are worthy of study.
I could never disagree with that statement, but they have already been studied quite extensively. For instance, we know that there are many genes that relate to weight and almost all of them are on the intake side. As far as for practical purposes, for the majority of people, the only they need to worry about is keeping on track with the tools of diet and exercise. It doesn't need to be an academic exercise anymore than one need to be aware of the machinations of level 1 of the OSI model to be posting on the forums here.6 -
As an EE, I find it laughable that someone that claims to know so much about thermodynamics doesn't understand a basic energy equation principle.
As another EE, I find it weird that same someone would go on for days insisting that every variable must be explicitly determined and included in a calculation. That would be like insisting that we would have to include the intrinsic resistance of an inductor when designing a LRC filter, even though the discrete resistor is orders of magnitude larger.
One of the key tools in engineering and science is understanding when minor terms are or are not necessary to use in a calculation.10 -
I wonder if the "naturally skinny" might be less efficient at converting food to energy. Where does the surplus energy go? By the way of all that the body discards.
Maybe they are. Maybe they plain old eat less and move more than others.
I have given example before of my father who has always been skinny.
He is now 78 years old - he plays bowls, he is in a walking group, he gardens, he does DIY projects, he climbs stairs instead of using lifts, he walks to the shops instead of taking the car, he watches little TV, He does not own a mobile phone or a computer.
He does not eat big meals, does not have sugar in tea or coffee, does not have a sweet tooth. His idea of an after dinner treat is 2 squares of chocolate ( mine is the whole block! )
Sure, he could have extraordinary metabolism - or it could be ' natural' ( ie uncounted) CICO
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions