CICO
Replies
-
@blambo61 CI < CO => WL. I don't think anybody's ever said that fat rate = linearf (CI - CO)
From what I seem to understand from MFP people who lift , the nature of CO first of all will determine the rate of fat loss. For example for a constant CI-CO, lifting will produce higher fat loss.
The other thing if we look at WL = f(CI-CO), this function also cannot be linear since CO decreases as your WL increases...Not sure what that means for fat loss
Anyway finding the exact function of CICO for weight loss OR fat loss is probably a topic for research yes but practical application as most people have said is pretty pointless since well... CICO works!0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The article's "3500 calorie" models, however, aren't what MFP uses. I tried them out and it seems like their "3500 calorie" models assume your TDEE doesn't change over time. It does, and MFP knows it does, which is why it recalculates your goals periodically. My TDEE is lower than when I weighed 60 lb more.
Does MFP recalculate, or merely suggest you should rerun goals ? I think the latter.
It depends on how you set it up. If you use the MFP defaults, it continuously recalculates. If you customize any part of it, it will prompt you to recalculate after each 10 lb. you lose.
Checked. It does not automatically recalculate but merely suggests a rerun of goals if you check in a 10 lb loss.0 -
OP--your profile states you were athletic and fit. 3.5% BF, while for many, but not you, seems unapproachable, maybe ask yourself this simple question: when you were young and active how many calories did you eat? I wonder how your younger self would have done eating how you today. You may find by simply following NEAT(MFP method) or TDEE less xx% the experience of weight loss not only more sustainable but enjoyable.
Best of luck and remember, weight loss is not not linear but something few people can sustain. Be rare, be one of the few.0 -
Since fat accumulation is a complex function of CI and fat dissapation is also a complex function of CO, the simple model of fat rate = CI - CO is not a perfect model.
Most of what you are talking about would be included in either CI or CO. If the point is that both CI and CO tend to be estimates and not include all the potential factors (which may be impossible to determine), sure.Improvements to this model could lead to practices that could improve weight loss for those already having success with the CICO model and has the potential to greatly help those who have to eat so little or exercise so much to loose weight that they give up on their weight loss programs.
Disagree. First, I don't believe the latter group exist, beyond people with health problems (or who perhaps should not be losing more weight), or, I suppose, someone with a really aggressive leanness goal who may have to decide whether the trade-offs are worth it to them. Second, I don't think the things you were talking in the other thread would be an improvement over a rougher estimate + time, because they aren't likely to make much difference. For example, the result of playing around with eating windows or macro mix is likely to have a much greater effect on satiety and sustainability than actual calories taken in or calories out. Thus, trying to push some "trick your body to be able to eat more calories" plan to take maximum advantage of such things is likely to cause most to overthink it and worry about things like "what if I can't get in my dinner in my eating window, oh, no!" and be outweighed by the potential dislike of the way of eating or by health issues related to the macro mix (i.e., highest TEF is for protein, but there are good reasons to avoid a 90% protein diet).
If someone likes experimented and is motivated by data, playing around with this stuff might be a good approach, but for a newbie frustrated with not losing or just wanting to learn how to get started I think making it super complicated is likely counterproductive and may play into some stumbling blocks (like I can't lose because I can't eat in this defined way you are telling me I should).0 -
Yeah, I'm confuzzled.
I understand CICO is a euphemism for a bunch of complex & arcane inter related processes... but while it can be wrong on certain details, in the aggregate it is 'mostly' right also! Like a yardstick won't work for manufacturing a computer chip, but it's damned handy if you want to mulch your yard!
So when someone jumps on here & swears they're eating 1200 cals a day but they weigh 200 lbs, referring them to CICO is way more helpful than trying to help them find out if they've got some esoteric little variance in absorption or whatnot.
So I've lost track of the point....
Human bodies are weird arcane highly individualized nonrational beasts. YES!
Excess calories get stored as fat. YES!
Human personalities have a hard time reliably self reporting simple facts about how much they eat & how much they burn. YES SQUARED!!
A simple caloric yardstick can be very helpful for 99.9999% of people trying to reduce body fat. YES THANK YOU!
I don't see many other places for this to go...0 -
Yeah, I'm confuzzled.
I understand CICO is a euphemism for a bunch of complex & arcane inter related processes... but while it can be wrong on certain details, in the aggregate it is 'mostly' right also! Like a yardstick won't work for manufacturing a computer chip, but it's damned handy if you want to mulch your yard!
So when someone jumps on here & swears they're eating 1200 cals a day but they weigh 200 lbs, referring them to CICO is way more helpful than trying to help them find out if they've got some esoteric little variance in absorption or whatnot.
So I've lost track of the point....
Human bodies are weird arcane highly individualized nonrational beasts. YES!
Excess calories get stored as fat. YES!
Human personalities have a hard time reliably self reporting simple facts about how much they eat & how much they burn. YES SQUARED!!
A simple caloric yardstick can be very helpful for 99.9999% of people trying to reduce body fat. YES THANK YOU!
I don't see many other places for this to go...
I used to be confuzzled. I once thought that I needed a "program," I once thought that I had to follow a "plan" and maybe even pay for a plan in order to lose weight. I once thought that I had to eat or not eat certain foods to lose weight or drink / not drink certain liquids/shakes/smoothies to lose weight. Then I discovered MFP and the calories in / calories out equation. Beautiful in it's simplicity. Balance one with the other? Really? Control portions? Move more? What?????
It works -- I don't need to know anything else. If I'm not losing I'm eating too much so I eat less and move more. If I'm losing what I expect to lose over time then I keep doing what I'm doing. If I'm not losing but maintaining then I've balanced the amount I eat with the amount I move. I'm not confuzzled any more. The. End.
0 -
I'm not seeing where these supposed nuances of difference are supposed to be helpful.
Can we have some practical information illustrating your point instead of yet another post telling us how non-linear CICO is?
I said it in the last thread, you are majoring in the minors and none of this means one whit in the face of practicability and a sustainable way of eating for the average person.
Prove me wrong.0 -
CICO is a worthy tool and a place to start, but not the end of the story IMO. We are animals, not Bunsen burners. Besides health issues/illness there are variations in digestion, absorption, allergies/intolerance, insulin sensitivity, and metabolic rate.
Which isn't to say calories don't matter, just that not everyone gets equally good results from equal amounts of effort.
I've tracked at times in the past and found I was maintaining at a weight 20 pounds heavier than what MFP thought I should. I'm a middle aged woman with no gall bladder (digestion), no appendix (reservoir of helpful gut bacteria), generally low blood pressure/heart rate/respiration. Not to say I'm a slug...had a cardio stress test and was told my result were excellent for my age.
IME I have to eat less and move more to get an equal result, so for some of us who have to make a bigger effort hearing CICO is frustrating and even insulting because that person really may be doing it right, just not getting results. For some people CICO is a place to start, but may not be enough to get the job done without pushing into a much larger deficit.0 -
IME I have to eat less and move more to get an equal result, so for some of us who have to make a bigger effort hearing CICO is frustrating and even insulting because that person really may be doing it right, just not getting results. For some people CICO is a place to start, but may not be enough to get the job done without pushing into a much larger deficit.
I think this is a misunderstanding -- CICO doesn't give you the specific numbers that you will need to hit. The calculators (including MFP's projections) are just estimates. Will people be higher and lower? Of course, especially when there are natural variations in how much people move without doing so intentionally or how much one's body conserves energy at a deficit (some good studies about this are cited in the Alan Aragon/Lou Schuler book with the unfortunate title, the Lean Muscle Diet).
I do hear warning bells when someone presumes to judge how much effort others are putting in, though. How could you possibly know if you were exerting more effort than someone else?0 -
CICO is a worthy tool and a place to start, but not the end of the story IMO. We are animals, not Bunsen burners. Besides health issues/illness there are variations in digestion, absorption, allergies/intolerance, insulin sensitivity, and metabolic rate.
Which isn't to say calories don't matter, just that not everyone gets equally good results from equal amounts of effort.
I've tracked at times in the past and found I was maintaining at a weight 20 pounds heavier than what MFP thought I should. I'm a middle aged woman with no gall bladder (digestion), no appendix (reservoir of helpful gut bacteria), generally low blood pressure/heart rate/respiration. Not to say I'm a slug...had a cardio stress test and was told my result were excellent for my age.
IME I have to eat less and move more to get an equal result, so for some of us who have to make a bigger effort hearing CICO is frustrating and even insulting because that person really may be doing it right, just not getting results. For some people CICO is a place to start, but may not be enough to get the job done without pushing into a much larger deficit.
What in all of your post in any way counters that you needed to burn more than you took in to lose weight?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think this is a misunderstanding -- CICO doesn't give you the specific numbers that you will need to hit. The calculators (including MFP's projections) are just estimates. Will people be higher and lower? Of course, especially when there are natural variations in how much people move without doing so intentionally or how much one's body conserves energy at a deficit (some good studies about this are cited in the Alan Aragon/Lou Schuler book with the unfortunate title, the Lean Muscle Diet).
I do hear warning bells when someone presumes to judge how much effort others are putting in, though. How could you possibly know if you were exerting more effort than someone else?
Bolded part. This ^
I know that my numbers are lower than the MFP estimate. I took a month's worth of data and worked it out. So? Just means I've set a custom goal and altered my expectations. The principle still works for me. And every time I grumble about not burning calories as fast as others, I remember what my doctor told me years ago ... if there was a famine, I'd survive *rolls eyes*
0 -
Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???0
-
Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines0 -
Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
CICO doesn't say that if you eat exactly 3500 calories less than you burn then you will lose exactly one pound. Mainly because there is no way to measure with 100% accuracy what you eat and how many calories you burn. CICO says, very generally, if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight. If you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight. Exactly how much, when, and effects on body composition are dependent on hundreds of variables you could never accurately keep track of.0 -
Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
because weight loss is not linear and your body is not a perfect fat burning machine ….0 -
Ok makes sense. I just notice some ppl get really heated on these threads - and insist it's all very simple CICO - which it is in a way - but I think maybe ppl reading get confused as there seems to be these variables. So it may come off discouraging to those wondering why they haven't lost when they are convinced they've been logging right and they are asking for an explanation and they get told they must be logging wrong because it's simple CICO. All I can contribute is from my own experience my weight loss has been pretty wonky at times and I've felt so impatient at times waiting for a lb to drop off - but ultimately hang in there because overall it works.0
-
OP - you are not really moving the needle here. You need to try and get a little more specific. We seem to be debating the nuances of the CI and CO sides of CICO and fiddling around the edges.
A pretty simple rule of thumb:
1. CiCO for straight weight loss.
2. Micro/Macoro adherence and structured lifting program for body recomp and better overall health.
3. strict logging, strict eating, micro/macor adherence, structured lifting program to get extremely lean (sub 10% for men, and sub 12% for females)
that is about it...0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »The number of times you've conceded to CICO just to then go onto further rants that require taking the outliers on a bell curve into a lab setting to address would be funny if you didn't appear so serious about it.CICO is a worthy tool and a place to start, but not the end of the story IMO. We are animals, not Bunsen burners. Besides health issues/illness there are variations in digestion, absorption, allergies/intolerance, insulin sensitivity, and metabolic rate.
Which isn't to say calories don't matter, just that not everyone gets equally good results from equal amounts of effort.
I've tracked at times in the past and found I was maintaining at a weight 20 pounds heavier than what MFP thought I should. I'm a middle aged woman with no gall bladder (digestion), no appendix (reservoir of helpful gut bacteria), generally low blood pressure/heart rate/respiration. Not to say I'm a slug...had a cardio stress test and was told my result were excellent for my age.
IME I have to eat less and move more to get an equal result, so for some of us who have to make a bigger effort hearing CICO is frustrating and even insulting because that person really may be doing it right, just not getting results. For some people CICO is a place to start, but may not be enough to get the job done without pushing into a much larger deficit.
This is what im talking about.0 -
Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
This is what I'm talking about. If the model is linear you would gain 1lb of fat for every 3500 cals you eat.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.0 -
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
A lot of research and development to go before the models of the biochemical processes and hormonal control loops are up to scratch. Look at the inter subject variability in any study and it's clearly not trivial.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
sorry, but that is a pretty absurd claim. If our bodies were machines then when one was bulking with a structured progressive overload program you would be able to convert 100% of excess calories to muscle building and have zero fat gains, or, conversely, one would be able to cut with a structured lifting program and adequate protein intake and have 100% fat loss with zero muscle loss.
our bodies are complex systems, yes, but they are not machines…
0 -
I must be getting old but I'm struggling SO much to follow this train of thought and the trend that the other thread has taken.....
Is OP looking for the "Holy Grail" of micro-managing the macro principle of CI-CO so ALL possible variables of every individual can be assessed and then addressed in a tailor made programme that has laser point accuracy???
For what it is worth despite wild differences in my body's ability to perform at 'optimum' levels the CI-CO has held true and never lost validity.
Seems to me that (and please help a girl out here if I've got this totally wrong) for someone who had success despite age and health issues which compromise all of my systems then looking for reasons outside of inaccurate logging 1st seems to have put the cart before the horse.
I started losing weight in my late 40's, once I dropped the excuse that anti-depressant meds. caused me to gain weight and it would be so forever more....I soothed myself with the idea that it 'really' wasn't the fact that I didn't adjust my thinking and planning to be aware of the increased appetite the meds. caused and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.
Then, I soothed my shattered nerves with the tales and predictions of inevitable weight gain from menopause, plus no gall bladder making weight loss impossible, these are just a glimpse of the 'variables' I grasped onto for dear life before I was ready to take responsibility for myself.
The last few years have seen me go from extremely active to very sedentary (so that must mean I'm going to gain), taking steroids (well I am certainly doomed now because - STEROIDS people!!!!).....Massive doses of HEAVY drug therapy that Meh causes weight gain or loss (roll the dice on this one).
Over this time too I have changed my way of eating often in an effort to combat the illnesses (with no change to my symptoms that I can detect....) I have multiple malabsorption issues and intolerances so I do have a restricted diet within these parameters....in a panicked state I started to by into "Woo" by going from vegetarian to Paleo (Yeah I know, don't hate me) back to semi-vegetarian.....fun times (Not). Now I eat whatever my body can deal with so my form of IIFYM....I dabbled in IF, 5:2 as well........so many many unnecessary complications.
If anyone was going to be a perfect outlier or lab-rat for how important and significant medical conditions, age, ability to exercise. and the influence of medication has on the usefulness of CI-CO - I must be up there with the best of them.
OK I will concede that you need to get any medical issues sorted ie get treated if you have thyroid issues, get treatment and your diet sorted if you have gut issues but in the long run once these are controlled then the underlying principle is as sound as a bell.
My numbers have not changed since I 1st started here on MFP in 2011 (without the Lupus and steroids) just the lingering weight of stuffing my face from anti-depressants and denial.....I still lose at the same level of CI verses CO as before.....despite lack of exercise.
I worry that there is now becoming too much focus on the minutiae of weight loss biological differences....and I confess I'm lost as too why anyone would want too make it more complicated than it need be....just adds to stress IMHO.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
sorry, but that is a pretty absurd claim. If our bodies were machines then when one was bulking with a structured progressive overload program you would be able to convert 100% of excess calories to muscle building and have zero fat gains, or, conversely, one would be able to cut with a structured lifting program and adequate protein intake and have 100% fat loss with zero muscle loss.
our bodies are complex systems, yes, but they are not machines…
Define a machine then.0 -
Thanks for the constructive comments! Most were of that sort.
What drives me crazy is when people say stuff like the body isn’t a machine and you can’t mathematically model it. YES WE CAN for all physical processes. It might take a lot of work and experimentation to figure it out but it can be done. It might take some new math to do it also. A lot of the math we have now came about to model the physics of phenomenon that we observed. At a Decision Control Conference I attended a few years ago, Edwardo Sontag of Rutgers University gave the plenary talk and stated that he believed that the furtherance of math would be accomplished with the motivating force being trying to understand biological systems (He is a PhD mathematician and is the head or was the head of Rutger’s Quantitative Biology program). When I did my masters at UC Santa Barbara in Electrical Engineering (I studied Control Theory which is a branch of applied mathematics where understanding the system your trying to control is important), I attended a guest lecture from some people who modeled calcium dynamics of cows. Apparently a certain percentage of cows would get calcium deficient and die when they started lactating. They had a treatment that cut the numbers down but they thought they might be able to do better. They did some dynamic systems modeling that has a lot more complexity than just assigning some probability distribution to parameters. This type of modeling typically has some non-linear terms and usually has magnitude and rate limit terms in them (all physical processes are magnitude and rate limited). The equations are differential equations that are integrated to estimate a future state of the system. Elements in the equations may be of a random nature. They were able to come up with a model that directed them to treat the cows with the problems in a very different way than they were treating them and they SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the mortality rate of the cows that went into this calcium deficiency state. I also was associates with some folks working on their doctorate that were modeling drug delivery schedules for the treatment of AIDS patients.
I do think that there are significant things that can be discovered to help outlier people and those who plateau. Those who say it’s majoring in the minors or is insignificant didn’t offer any studies as evidence and only gave their opinion as if it was fact (there was one poster that reference some material). Prove it that what you said is true! I wouldn’t ask someone dieting to try crazy things. There may be simple things (notice I said may be) that you could tell them, and each one of us, that would be easy to implement. I’m not trying or promoting some plan that will cost money. I didn’t ever say CICO was broke but said there are possibilities for improving it. If you don’t have something to contribute and just want to naysay, then please by all means ignore the post.
I was athletic for a long time when younger and then I started having a lot of allergy problems and would get sick a lot which made it very difficult to lose weight. I also developed gout and have had some injuries too. All those made it hard to exercise. I remember saying things like, if your fat why don’t they just go run 10-miles, lazy bums! Now I understand not everyone can go out and run 10-miles for various reasons. I tried to lose weight through exercise only numerous times but always ended up sick or injured. I tried to diet once before and was successful but I didn’t maintain it because it made me crazy hungry. I’m doing an IF diet now (21:3) that I think is way more sustainable because I get to eat tell full each day which allows me to fast the next day. I’ve lost 32 lbs in 14 weeks. I do hope I can keep it off. This type of dieting, counting my calories, and other things, some of which I still hope to discover, I think will enable me to do it. I am doing cardio 4xweek and am lifting weights twice a week presently. I feel way better doing that now than I’ve felt in a lot of years.
I counted calories once in college when I was running a lot because I ate a lot and was curious how much I was eating. It was between 4000 to 5000 cals a day. I couldn't gain weight to save myself at the time. Right now, I think I'm loosing more than the standard 3500 cal/day model would predict. My base cals needed are probably higher than what MFP estimated. Also, here goes, my IF diet might be playing a role also because for various reasons, one being that the body is rate limited in producing the enzymes needed to lay down fat as fast as I'm putting away the cals in the time I eat. I know food is in the stomach for a long time, but I'm sure the mechanical mixing isn't complete and absorption isn't as complete as way when you eat a candy bar between meals where probably every single calorie is absorbed.0 -
Bah nvm...0
-
HippySkoppy wrote: »I must be getting old but I'm struggling SO much to follow this train of thought and the trend that the other thread has taken.....
Is OP looking for the "Holy Grail" of micro-managing the macro principle of CI-CO so ALL possible variables of every individual can be assessed and then addressed in a tailor made programme that has laser point accuracy???
For what it is worth despite wild differences in my body's ability to perform at 'optimum' levels the CI-CO has held true and never lost validity.
Seems to me that (and please help a girl out here if I've got this totally wrong) for someone who had success despite age and health issues which compromise all of my systems then looking for reasons outside of inaccurate logging 1st seems to have put the cart before the horse.
I started losing weight in my late 40's, once I dropped the excuse that anti-depressant meds. caused me to gain weight and it would be so forever more....I soothed myself with the idea that it 'really' wasn't the fact that I didn't adjust my thinking and planning to be aware of the increased appetite the meds. caused and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.
Then, I soothed my shattered nerves with the tales and predictions of inevitable weight gain from menopause, plus no gall bladder making weight loss impossible, these are just a glimpse of the 'variables' I grasped onto for dear life before I was ready to take responsibility for myself.
The last few years have seen me go from extremely active to very sedentary (so that must mean I'm going to gain), taking steroids (well I am certainly doomed now because - STEROIDS people!!!!).....Massive doses of HEAVY drug therapy that Meh causes weight gain or loss (roll the dice on this one).
Over this time too I have changed my way of eating often in an effort to combat the illnesses (with no change to my symptoms that I can detect....) I have multiple malabsorption issues and intolerances so I do have a restricted diet within these parameters....in a panicked state I started to by into "Woo" by going from vegetarian to Paleo (Yeah I know, don't hate me) back to semi-vegetarian.....fun times (Not). Now I eat whatever my body can deal with so my form of IIFYM....I dabbled in IF, 5:2 as well........so many many unnecessary complications.
If anyone was going to be a perfect outlier or lab-rat for how important and significant medical conditions, age, ability to exercise. and the influence of medication has on the usefulness of CI-CO - I must be up there with the best of them.
OK I will concede that you need to get any medical issues sorted ie get treated if you have thyroid issues, get treatment and your diet sorted if you have gut issues but in the long run once these are controlled then the underlying principle is as sound as a bell.
My numbers have not changed since I 1st started here on MFP in 2011 (without the Lupus and steroids) just the lingering weight of stuffing my face from anti-depressants and denial.....I still lose at the same level of CI verses CO as before.....despite lack of exercise.
I worry that there is now becoming too much focus on the minutiae of weight loss biological differences....and I confess I'm lost as too why anyone would want too make it more complicated than it need be....just adds to stress IMHO.
You are amazing! You cannot argue CICO. Not machines but humans! 0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »HippySkoppy wrote: »I must be getting old but I'm struggling SO much to follow this train of thought and the trend that the other thread has taken.....
Is OP looking for the "Holy Grail" of micro-managing the macro principle of CI-CO so ALL possible variables of every individual can be assessed and then addressed in a tailor made programme that has laser point accuracy???
For what it is worth despite wild differences in my body's ability to perform at 'optimum' levels the CI-CO has held true and never lost validity.
Seems to me that (and please help a girl out here if I've got this totally wrong) for someone who had success despite age and health issues which compromise all of my systems then looking for reasons outside of inaccurate logging 1st seems to have put the cart before the horse.
I started losing weight in my late 40's, once I dropped the excuse that anti-depressant meds. caused me to gain weight and it would be so forever more....I soothed myself with the idea that it 'really' wasn't the fact that I didn't adjust my thinking and planning to be aware of the increased appetite the meds. caused and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.
Then, I soothed my shattered nerves with the tales and predictions of inevitable weight gain from menopause, plus no gall bladder making weight loss impossible, these are just a glimpse of the 'variables' I grasped onto for dear life before I was ready to take responsibility for myself.
The last few years have seen me go from extremely active to very sedentary (so that must mean I'm going to gain), taking steroids (well I am certainly doomed now because - STEROIDS people!!!!).....Massive doses of HEAVY drug therapy that Meh causes weight gain or loss (roll the dice on this one).
Over this time too I have changed my way of eating often in an effort to combat the illnesses (with no change to my symptoms that I can detect....) I have multiple malabsorption issues and intolerances so I do have a restricted diet within these parameters....in a panicked state I started to by into "Woo" by going from vegetarian to Paleo (Yeah I know, don't hate me) back to semi-vegetarian.....fun times (Not). Now I eat whatever my body can deal with so my form of IIFYM....I dabbled in IF, 5:2 as well........so many many unnecessary complications.
If anyone was going to be a perfect outlier or lab-rat for how important and significant medical conditions, age, ability to exercise. and the influence of medication has on the usefulness of CI-CO - I must be up there with the best of them.
OK I will concede that you need to get any medical issues sorted ie get treated if you have thyroid issues, get treatment and your diet sorted if you have gut issues but in the long run once these are controlled then the underlying principle is as sound as a bell.
My numbers have not changed since I 1st started here on MFP in 2011 (without the Lupus and steroids) just the lingering weight of stuffing my face from anti-depressants and denial.....I still lose at the same level of CI verses CO as before.....despite lack of exercise.
I worry that there is now becoming too much focus on the minutiae of weight loss biological differences....and I confess I'm lost as too why anyone would want too make it more complicated than it need be....just adds to stress IMHO. You are amazing! You cannot argue CICO. Not machines but humans!
Aw @queenliz99 Thank you 0 -
If the human body were a machine that could be mathematically modeled, weight loss would be linear. Show me ONE person who can achieve that.0
-
HippySkoppy wrote: »I must be getting old but I'm struggling SO much to follow this train of thought and the trend that the other thread has taken.....
Is OP looking for the "Holy Grail" of micro-managing the macro principle of CI-CO so ALL possible variables of every individual can be assessed and then addressed in a tailor made programme that has laser point accuracy???
For what it is worth despite wild differences in my body's ability to perform at 'optimum' levels the CI-CO has held true and never lost validity.
Seems to me that (and please help a girl out here if I've got this totally wrong) for someone who had success despite age and health issues which compromise all of my systems then looking for reasons outside of inaccurate logging 1st seems to have put the cart before the horse.
I started losing weight in my late 40's, once I dropped the excuse that anti-depressant meds. caused me to gain weight and it would be so forever more....I soothed myself with the idea that it 'really' wasn't the fact that I didn't adjust my thinking and planning to be aware of the increased appetite the meds. caused and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.
Then, I soothed my shattered nerves with the tales and predictions of inevitable weight gain from menopause, plus no gall bladder making weight loss impossible, these are just a glimpse of the 'variables' I grasped onto for dear life before I was ready to take responsibility for myself.
The last few years have seen me go from extremely active to very sedentary (so that must mean I'm going to gain), taking steroids (well I am certainly doomed now because - STEROIDS people!!!!).....Massive doses of HEAVY drug therapy that Meh causes weight gain or loss (roll the dice on this one).
Over this time too I have changed my way of eating often in an effort to combat the illnesses (with no change to my symptoms that I can detect....) I have multiple malabsorption issues and intolerances so I do have a restricted diet within these parameters....in a panicked state I started to by into "Woo" by going from vegetarian to Paleo (Yeah I know, don't hate me) back to semi-vegetarian.....fun times (Not). Now I eat whatever my body can deal with so my form of IIFYM....I dabbled in IF, 5:2 as well........so many many unnecessary complications.
If anyone was going to be a perfect outlier or lab-rat for how important and significant medical conditions, age, ability to exercise. and the influence of medication has on the usefulness of CI-CO - I must be up there with the best of them.
OK I will concede that you need to get any medical issues sorted ie get treated if you have thyroid issues, get treatment and your diet sorted if you have gut issues but in the long run once these are controlled then the underlying principle is as sound as a bell.
My numbers have not changed since I 1st started here on MFP in 2011 (without the Lupus and steroids) just the lingering weight of stuffing my face from anti-depressants and denial.....I still lose at the same level of CI verses CO as before.....despite lack of exercise.
I worry that there is now becoming too much focus on the minutiae of weight loss biological differences....and I confess I'm lost as too why anyone would want too make it more complicated than it need be....just adds to stress IMHO.
I'm with you, K. Hypothyroidism, menopause, no appendix (what? that's an issue?)... so what? Chronic migraines and psoriatic arthritis making it difficult to exercise consistently...
I ate less, moved more and lost weight.
It does not matter that it's not linear.
It does not matter that 3500/calories per pound works as predicted or not.
The simple cause/effect relationship of CI/CO working no matter to what degree is what ultimately matters
BECAUSE
Losing the weight is not the whole game.
Managing your weight is an ongoing, life-long endeavor.
Caring about how linear something is and if it works as predicted only matters if you're worried about it happening within the time frame you expect it to happen. Otherwise, slower than expected results should satisfy you as long as the overall trend towards an ultimate goal is happening.
If you have the mindset that you'll be managing your weight for a lifetime, the issues raised in this thread are useless.
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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