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?

Options
124»

Replies

  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 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.
  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    Options
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    I edited a bit and added some stuff before you quoted.
    blambo61 wrote: »
    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.
  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I edited a bit and added some stuff before you quoted.
    blambo61 wrote: »
    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.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,113 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    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