CICO, It's a math formula

GaleHawkins wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

@3bambi3 CICO works fine for say a closed loop system like a steam engine but of very limited day to day value for humans unless you are looking at it just as a concept and not valid science to explain why some of us became obese.

Calories are just one part of obesity.

foxnews.com/story/2006/06/28/10-causes-obesity-other-than-over-eating-inactivity.html

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEXBxijQREo&feature=youtu.be
It is just 5 minutes and with CC on no speakers are needed.

drnicoleavena.com/

wrong again ..

The cause of obesity is overeating calories coupled with inactivity. Please list additional ways, absent a caloric surplus, that one gains weight. So again, it is CICO, which is a math formula.

OK then what do you say causes people to overeat?

I hope #7 in the first link below and #8 in the second link will help you see why CICO can not be a valid math formula.

caloriegate.com/calories-in-calories-out/11-experts-demolish-the-calories-in-calories-out-cico-model-of-obesity

caloriegate.com/calories-in-calories-out/9-more-experts-lay-waste-to-the-calories-in-calories-out-cico-model-of-obesity

But that's NOT what this thread is about. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. CICO explains how the body adds or loses weight. WHY some people overeat is an entirely different question and it seems like an effort to derail that you keep bringing this up here.

I don't know enough to debate #7 in the first link, but #8 in the second link is complete nonsense - "a calorie excess is weight gain" isn't the issue, it's a calorie excess causes weight gain. If he can't even get that simple statement correct, I have no confidence in his input on anything else.

endlessfall16 wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

endlessfall16 wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.

And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.

Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.

Geek.

Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.

Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.

French_Peasant wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.

And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.

Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.

Geek.

Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.

Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.

*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.

I'll allow it...

The math really isn't even that hard though. I'm a stay at home mom with an English/political science degree and I can't even help my 6th grader with her math homework. Somehow I still figured out CICO and lost 50lbs. If I can do it, then everyone can do it

No, the math isn't hard at all...when I'm talking about people in those fields and similar, I'm not really talking about the math...this is about as simple from a math standpoint as you get...but typically people in those fields and similar like data...they're a bit OCD in analyzing such data and other things...they like keeping ledgers and spreadsheets for everything...they tend to be very detail oriented and analytical, etc.

Anyone can do this for sure...the math is super easy...but I think in general there's a certain type of personality that does well with calorie counting in particular...it's definitely not for everyone which is why there are so many different diet plans out there...for a lot of people, those are easier even though CICO is still in play whether they know it or not.

This is what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. CICO loving arguers are stuck in the same crude gear arguing on a nonargument. As someone else put it...majoring in minor? Trolling?

There's no argument from me re CICO. I have no problem or misunderstanding with it. Nothing complex about it. I just don't care for the jargon. It's crude as a term used for describing something. "Eat less, move more", "Eat less, exercise more" are better language, but none of these, CICO included, is significant a piece of info. or any real revelation for me.

It would be million times better if someone posted new insights, ways to make dieting better, more effortless, even that would only help a handful of people... That would be worthwhile.

Lol, you have that now. It's advertised all over the internet. Nutrisystem, paleo, Weight watchers, Atkins, etc. are ALL "insights" on how easy and effortless it is to do THEIR DIET PLAN. All it really is is CICO hidden behind a money making scheme. Tell me, how is that a million times better than just figuring out that you need to eat less than you burn?


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I'm not going to speak for those systems. I rather keep an open mind and extract useful elements if there's any from anything.

I, and many people I know, already figured out the fact that I need to eat less than I burn, just as I figured out fire is hot. That piece of knowledge alone doesn't help anyone or anything.

Just yesterday there was a post from a woman who thought you had to be in ketosis to lose weight. There was another post from a young man who wanted to know if eating right before bed would make him gain weight. And at least one reply told him that yes, you should stop eating hours before going to sleep to lose weight. There are post every day from people who believe you need to eat "clean" to lose weight, regardless of calories. The current Nutrisystem plan includes "Belly Buster" shakes that they say will burn away your belly fat.

It would seem logical that you have to eat less than you burn to lose weight would be common knowledge. But some time in this forum should tell you differently. Many many people think it is way more complicated than that. That's why we keep saying it, as annoying as it may be to someone who never questioned it in the first place.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.

The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.

The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.

If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.

This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.

What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).

Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.

And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.

endlessfall16 wrote: »

TR0berts wrote: »

"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"

That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."

I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.

As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.

Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.

This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

dfwesq wrote: »

* ducks in *

@GaleHawkins:
I think this article from a peer-reviewed journal is probably better for your purposes. The link was included in the Time magazine article you mentioned.
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

Also, in your the second list on the Caloriegate website, I think #5 (Dr. Attia's post) makes a better point, namely that it's important to figure out why someone is overeating calories and try to address it, not just to know that they are. Knowing that you're doing something can be helpful, but it isn't the same as controlling it. NB: I'm not endorsing Dr. Attia or anything else he might have said. Just that I think he makes a helpful point here. And I'm not disputing anything in the OP.

* ducks out *

Thanks for the great link: A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics

Dr. Peter Attia blog was how I learned to do nutritional ketosis back in 2014 but now he is eating more like 100 carbs daily. The man knows his stuff and is a true professional in my experience as are the others.

His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.

The problem with arguments against CICO is there is no evidence against energy balance. The problem is the understanding of the parameters of what CICO is. The arguments are overly flawed because they argue against response from one food against another, failing to most mediocre understanding that diets aren't may up of one food (looking at your Dr. Fung). There is NEVER a scientific article that can dispute energy balance. If you can show me one, I'd be surprised and would completely alter my way of thinking. Having said that, if you really want to look at this more, look for any metabolic ward study and see what the first step is? Have a guess? It's to measure energy balance. And that is where they make caloric adjustments.

endlessfall16 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

endlessfall16 wrote: »

TR0berts wrote: »

"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"

That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."

I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.

As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.

Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.

This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.

I think you are trying too hard to find flaws.


Majority of people eat the same foods in a cycle (a week, 5 days, 10 days)

I couldn't say what the majority of people do, as I have not conducted a scientifically valid study that doesn't rely on self-reporting and somehow manages not to influence behavior by the knowledge of the subjects that they are being studied. But it's certainly not what I do, and not what a lot of my friends and family do, who are always interested in trying new things. Yes, I did eat that way as a child, when my mother had a repertoire of meals to feed her large family, within a budget, and repeated them -- but even she had more than 10 days' worth of meals she could make (roast beef, sliced beef in gravy, beef stew, swiss steak, corned beef and cabbage, beef liver, ham, ham and potato casserole, ham sandwiches, ham and eggs, pork chops, pork roast, sliced roast pork in gravy, kielbasa and eggs, fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken livers and bacon, fish sticks, fried or poached fish, spaghetti with meat sauce, sloppy joe, hamburgers, meat loaf, tuna casserole, homemade baked macaroni and cheese, grilled cheese, homemade soup and homemade bread...plus of course a variety of veggie and starch sides).

You can focus on only calorie dense foods such as meat and pasta, and ignore boiled veggies, tsp of sauces here and there. You gotta be very food obsessed or very undisciplined to overshoot vegetable calories.

I sometimes consume the majority of my calories in a given meal or even a given day in vegetables (not necessarily boiled, but often steamed, roasted, baked, or raw, and I account for any added fats). I have many meals and even whole days in which I consume no meat or pasta. And that was the way I was eating when I gained the weight I've lost since counting calories. I was just consuming too many calories. And throwing pejoratives at people like "food obsessed" or "undisciplined" says more about you than about the people you're judging.

My family eats from the same plates and bowls. It's easy to get similar amounts.

A similar "amount" (volume) is meaningless for the purposes of comparison and reducing calorie intake if the foods are different.

I find it surprising that you have a complete crazy schedule that you can't manage to keep a semi consistent eating schedule. I don't mean everyday has to be the same. Mine isn't. I can manage 2 or 3 meals for any time and I vaguely know the amount of foods that fill me up and importantly, absolutely keep me going healthily.

When did I say anything about a completely crazy schedule? But I do have a job that sometimes forces me to have lunch at noon, and other days when I don't get time for lunch until 3 p.m. That's surprising? I think lots of people who don't work for unions or under contracts that guarantee set break times have jobs like that.

I know much better than "vaguely" what amount of foods fill me up and provide me with the nutrition I need. How do I know that so well? From tracking and logging my food. Information is so weird that way.

You can go with 25%, but 20% doesn't hurt. Consult with the bathroom scale. If you're honest with yourself and dedicated, mix in a 30%. Point is, it doesn't have to be precisely measured.

You were the one who said one-fourth (which is 25%); I was just responding to your imaginary advisor's advice.

I weigh myself on a scale. I'm very honest with myself. I lost 15% of my initial BW and have kept if off for more than three years.

I agree that it doesn't have to be precisely measured. I just don't understand your insistence that there's something crazy complicated about actually tracking the calories one consumes. Yes, 30 years ago, when you had to do it on a piece of paper after looking calorie counts up in a book, it was tiresomely burdensome, and I was unsuccessful. Twenty years ago, when I could log on a rudimentary program on a CD using my computer, it was still extremely burdensome, and the database was extremely limited, and I was unsuccessful. For all its faults, MFP is so easy compared to those earlier options, and it lets me eat whatever I want, because I have a way of comparing different foods to each other (by their calorie counts) and I know with a reasonable degree of certainty how what I'm eating for the day compares to my maintenance calorie needs.

I don't measure anything. I don't even know the number of calories I consume day to day. If I look at a donut as 350 Calories, I won't be able to fully enjoy it. I've been maintaining my goal range for forever.

And if I had to eat "the same foods in a cycle," always dishing out the same 25% less than some amount I think I remember from years ago as what I used to eat, I wouldn't be able to fully enjoy it. It's bad enough that, cooking for one, I pretty much have to stick with one or two fresh veggies and one or two fresh fruits for the week or risk spoilage and food waste. If I have a food "cycle," it's more like a year, taking advantage of what's in season, cooking dishes that go in the oven or simmer on the stove in the winter, sticking more with raw, sauteed, and stir-fried meals in the summer.

I'm glad you found something that works for you. I'm sure it will work for some other people too. I'm also sure there are a lot of people it won't work for.

endlessfall16 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

endlessfall16 wrote: »

TR0berts wrote: »

"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"

That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."

I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.

As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.

Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.

This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.

I think you are trying too hard to find flaws.


Majority of people eat the same foods in a cycle (a week, 5 days, 10 days)
You can focus on only calorie dense foods such as meat and pasta, and ignore boiled veggies, tsp of sauces here and there. You gotta be very food obsessed or very undisciplined to overshoot vegetable calories.

My family eats from the same plates and bowls. It's easy to get similar amounts.


I find it surprising that you have a complete crazy schedule that you can't manage to keep a semi consistent eating schedule. I don't mean everyday has to be the same. Mine isn't. I can manage 2 or 3 meals for any time and I vaguely know the amount of foods that fill me up and importantly, absolutely keep me going healthily.


You can go with 25%, but 20% doesn't hurt. Consult with the bathroom scale. If you're honest with yourself and dedicated, mix in a 30%. Point is, it doesn't have to be precisely measured.

I don't measure anything. I don't even know the number of calories I consume day to day. If I look at a donut as 350 Calories, I won't be able to fully enjoy it. I've been maintaining my goal range for forever.

Lol, this is EXACTLY how most people who are overweight/obese think. How the heck do you think they got that way? It surely WASN'T cause they were counting calories.
Again, if it wasn't an issue to just eat what people believed is less (and I hear it all that time that people say "I DON'T EAT THAT MUCH), there SHOULDN'T be questions on the forums about calories. And that's certainly not the case. And the forums don't even represent half the people on the actually world wide application.
You can bury your head in the sand on what you anecdotally believes should be the way to teach. Then you can come and try to do my job and tell me you can do it better with better results your way. I doubt it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition