CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Here is why I went from 175 to 220.... it's called college. I ate and drink like complete crap. In fact, I had a whole month where I ate burgers every night because a few of my friends and I supported our dance team and bought cards which allowed buy one get one at McDonalds. I frequently drank alcohol, had cheesesteaks pretty much 2 to 3 nights a week, chinese several nights a week and much more. I got fat because I stopped playing soccer and ice hockey, and still ate like I used to.
That assumption always baffles me. Why do some people think that if you're not doing low carb you're constantly starving, craving and torturing yourself with minuscule amounts of food. The minuscule amounts of food is one reason I DID NOT do well on low carb and I was constantly starving, craving and torturing myself. Stuffing my face poked full of awesome tasting food would have required me to eat twice my maintenance calories. Mileage may vary, you know.
Yeah, this is probably my number one pet peeve on MFP. No, Gale, people who aren't keto aren't all suffering from cravings and starving. Not all of us got fat because of uncontrollable hunger (I suspect most did not). Not everyone who eats carbs eats a ton of low nutrient carbs, either. Sigh.
I think what happens is that everyone assumes that if it is true for them...it must be true for everyone. There is that old saying that misery loves company. I also think that it applies to both sides of the debate. The moderation group can be adamant about if you eliminate something it means that you will end up binging. That is no more true than if you don't eat Keto(I wish they would call that something else) you must be starving, eating junk or stuffing your face with pasta, rice and/or bread.
I personally eat lower carb (about 125g net)...I moderate some things...and I have eliminated certain foods. It is what I have found works for me for various reasons.
However...there are days when I go off the grid...I just don't worry about any of it. Then I just jump back on and pick up where I left off.9 -
I particularly love how Richard Feinman, the owner of that site, is capitalizing on the similarity of his name to Richard Feynman to make his physics claims look better.
*kitten*. I totally missed that. I was going to see if I could find Feynman's paper on it.
Thanks for pointing that out.
4 -
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/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Here is why I went from 175 to 220.... it's called college. I ate and drink like complete crap. In fact, I had a whole month where I ate burgers every night because a few of my friends and I supported our dance team and bought cards which allowed buy one get one at McDonalds. I frequently drank alcohol, had cheesesteaks pretty much 2 to 3 nights a week, chinese several nights a week and much more. I got fat because I stopped playing soccer and ice hockey, and still ate like I used to.
That assumption always baffles me. Why do some people think that if you're not doing low carb you're constantly starving, craving and torturing yourself with minuscule amounts of food. The minuscule amounts of food is one reason I DID NOT do well on low carb and I was constantly starving, craving and torturing myself. Stuffing my face poked full of awesome tasting food would have required me to eat twice my maintenance calories. Mileage may vary, you know.
Yeah, this is probably my number one pet peeve on MFP. No, Gale, people who aren't keto aren't all suffering from cravings and starving. Not all of us got fat because of uncontrollable hunger (I suspect most did not). Not everyone who eats carbs eats a ton of low nutrient carbs, either. Sigh.
I think what happens is that everyone assumes that if it is true for them...it must be true for everyone. There is that old saying that misery loves company. I also think that it applies to both sides of the debate. The moderation group can be adamant about if you eliminate something it means that you will end up binging.
I thought there were a number of people who did this when I first started (in early 2014), since I'd want to argue with them. I really don't see it much anymore, so have to disagree. I do see people saying THEY would end up bingeing.
I argue for moderation as a good approach, but never say that everyone should use it, and never claim that cutting something out leads to bingeing. It doesn't for me -- more likely I just change my mind later if I don't think there's a real reason to do it.I personally eat lower carb (about 125g net)...I moderate some things...and I have eliminated certain foods. It is what I have found works for me for various reasons.
That's what I find I fall into when I eat as I prefer. But I've been eating higher carb (probably more like 175 g, not counting though) during Lent since I've been vegetarian, and I haven't found that I am hungrier. I just find that the diet that is most satisfying for me (not because of hunger, but because of what I like to eat) is a bit higher in fat and protein and lower in carbs. This is actually not because I have uncontrollable cravings for carbs, but because a lot of carbs aren't that exciting to me or I find them just as satisfying in smaller quantities.1 -
I particularly love how Richard Feinman, the owner of that site, is capitalizing on the similarity of his name to Richard Feynman to make his physics claims look better.
OMG, as a huge Feynman fan, I'm aghast....
Anyone who has to resort to something so low, obviously cannot know what they're talking about.
1 -
French_Peasant 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/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
Are you sure you really want the maths?
Well, enjoy:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/7 -
French_Peasant 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/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
I love the math discussions but they always make me feel like I should be sitting in the corner with the glitter and safety scissors eating glue.
However, I can do enough math to balance my calories in vs. calories out and, yes, I even have some spreadsheets for it!16 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »French_Peasant 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/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
Are you sure you really want the maths?
Well, enjoy:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
Aw man!! I feel like I'm catching all the Pokemons, with all the Greek letters! Sweet! 4 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »French_Peasant 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/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
Are you sure you really want the maths?
Well, enjoy:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
I'm bookmarking that. It's now going to be my goto page when someone new asks questions 3 -
My brain hurts reading through this thread!
But with that said, its been a great read and I've gathered some great info! 2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, this is probably my number one pet peeve on MFP. No, Gale, people who aren't keto aren't all suffering from cravings and starving. Not all of us got fat because of uncontrollable hunger (I suspect most did not). Not everyone who eats carbs eats a ton of low nutrient carbs, either. Sigh.
I got fat because I enjoy food and ate when bored too often. Hell, I still do. Had an apple last night just cuz. But it wasn't a family sized bag of chips.
Yep me too, I was in a chocolate shop this week (picking up easter eggs for my godchildren). And my husband asked if I wanted anything. I had a long think (Yes I wanted everything) but because I couldn't easily pick something I knew I only wanted it was because I was tired and bored and wanted to go home.
So I went past Itsu and got some nori snacks. I didn't need them either but was less damaging than the chocolate.
ETA: Not that there is anything wrong with chocolate, just wasn't worth it to me that day.1 -
It's funny how some people like to watch the world burn by over complicating the simplest of things.. lol.
4 -
French_Peasant 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/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
I love the math discussions but they always make me feel like I should be sitting in the corner with the glitter and safety scissors eating glue.
However, I can do enough math to balance my calories in vs. calories out and, yes, I even have some spreadsheets for it!
Let's glitter these equations together!
Next we will bake cupcakes for all the math majors and cheer for them as they play speed chess!
9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, this is probably my number one pet peeve on MFP. No, Gale, people who aren't keto aren't all suffering from cravings and starving. Not all of us got fat because of uncontrollable hunger (I suspect most did not). Not everyone who eats carbs eats a ton of low nutrient carbs, either. Sigh.
I got fat because I enjoy food and ate when bored too often. Hell, I still do. Had an apple last night just cuz. But it wasn't a family sized bag of chips.
Yep me too, I was in a chocolate shop this week (picking up easter eggs for my godchildren). And my husband asked if I wanted anything. I had a long think (Yes I wanted everything) but because I couldn't easily pick something I knew I only wanted it was because I was tired and bored and wanted to go home.
So I went past Itsu and got some nori snacks. I didn't need them either but was less damaging than the chocolate.
ETA: Not that there is anything wrong with chocolate, just wasn't worth it to me that day.
Joining the club. I'm a super grazer used to buy 1-1.5 kg of nuts and graze on them all day in addition to meals and snacks just because. Now my grazing is limited to only some of my previous snack choices (namely vegetables).1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »French_Peasant 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/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
So for the maths experts, what would be the proper way to represent the CICO equation to take into account the presence/impact of known and unknown variables?
CIabc=COxyz?
Or perhaps we should be digging into our bag of fancy math bling and adding in some Σ and such?
Are you sure you really want the maths?
Well, enjoy:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
My conclusion of this article is...
Eat what you think you should be eating...move how much that you think that you should be. If that doesn't work then change one side of the equation or the other (maybe even possibly both sides). Keep trying until you get the results that you want.
10 -
I don't think anyone at work knows about CICO even though they use this site. They all cut out anything 'bad' and basically eat very little, or at least think they do (their eating 'healthy' remember!). So many fail at the very start or just put it back on once they re-introduce foods.1
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
I think you fail to understand that CICO is not calorie counting. CICO is finding a way to make your CI < CO or CI>CO or CI=CO...
how you get there does not matter.13 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
I think you fail to understand that CICO is not calorie counting. CICO is finding a way to make your CI < CO or CI>CO or CI=CO...
how you get there does not matter.
Yeah, but if we don't move the goalposts and nitpick at things your post didn't even say, how can we argue and derail your thread???
18 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
I think you fail to understand that CICO is not calorie counting. CICO is finding a way to make your CI < CO or CI>CO or CI=CO...
how you get there does not matter.
Didn't someone post about this earlier in this thread?
Honestly, this is why it's a pet peeve of mine. It always comes back to someone who doesn't like to calorie count bitching about CICO.8 -
tuitnutrition.com/2016/11/obesity-is-hormonal.html
Obesity is (mostly) a Hormonal Issue: Let's Stop Pretending it's Solely About Calories
I agree with the rest CICO just being a math formula can't help us understand why we overeat to the point of becoming obese. We know if we can not find the cause of our own obesity that we will never be able to lose and maintain weight long term with a high degree of success. While hormones are clearly a factor it is but one of several yet it needs to be understood and addressed.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013623/
Obesity and Its Metabolic Complications: The Role of Adipokines and the Relationship between Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
While CICO is a useful tool to estimate Calories In and Calories Out it gets down to hormone management to manage weight successfully long term in humans per weight loss/gain science.
Obesity, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Dyslipidemia and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease all seem to impact obese humans at some point before, as or obesity develops.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions