CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
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?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
CIabc=COxyz?
You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.
Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.
In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.
Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.
I gotcha! I thought you were yelling at me, and I was like, dude, we agree!
I see what you are saying. I was just trying to think of an easy way to illustrate the variables when they are brought up. Here's how I imagine the conversation:
Me: Hey, CI=CO!
Nonanalytical person: Starvation mode bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Well.... x=adaptive thermogenesis so CI=CO[variable impact of adaptive thermogenesis]. If x = -200 then you have to have [CI-200]=[CO-200] to maintain weight, aka, you will need to eat less if your metabolism has been screwed up, but it probably hasn't. If your equation is CI=[CO-200] you are going to gain because in this case CI>CO.
Nonanalytical person: Magic fat burning foods bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Okay, so y=thermic effect of food. Etc. (I am not sure if that would be on the CI or the CO side of the equation).
But it should be set up as abc = xyz to be mathematically precise.
***edited a number
Sorry, I realize that you yourself were not saying this, but when people say that that CICO doesn't work 'cause hormones, I get a little nuts
Yeah....I'm usually pretty creative but I can't even begin to imagine how to work "muh hormones!" into the equation. I guess that would be b on the CI side...?
3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
You don't have to calculate it, you just need to understand how it works, and know that it always works.
Gravitational force is assumed to be the same everywhere on earth because the vast majority of applications don't need the precise number variations brought about by the shape of the earth and difference in uniformity. All you know need to know that jumping off a bridge is a bad idea is to know that gravity works and that there is a simple cause and effect to jumping due to gravity (no extra calculations regarding the force needed to damage your body necessary). Saying that some people jump off bridges just fine when attached to a bungee cord does not invalidate the gravity equation. Similarly, ranting about air friction in a simple case of jumping off a bridge is majoring in minors.16 -
French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
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?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
CIabc=COxyz?
You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.
Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.
In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.
Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.
I gotcha! I thought you were yelling at me, and I was like, dude, we agree!
I see what you are saying. I was just trying to think of an easy way to illustrate the variables when they are brought up. Here's how I imagine the conversation:
Me: Hey, CI=CO!
Nonanalytical person: Starvation mode bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Well.... x=adaptive thermogenesis so CI=CO[variable impact of adaptive thermogenesis]. If x = -200 then you have to have [CI-200]=[CO-200] to maintain weight, aka, you will need to eat less if your metabolism has been screwed up, but it probably hasn't. If your equation is CI=[CO-200] you are going to gain because in this case CI>CO.
Nonanalytical person: Magic fat burning foods bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Okay, so y=thermic effect of food. Etc. (I am not sure if that would be on the CI or the CO side of the equation).
But it should be set up as abc = xyz to be mathematically precise.
***edited a number
Sorry, I realize that you yourself were not saying this, but when people say that that CICO doesn't work 'cause hormones, I get a little nuts
Yeah....I'm usually pretty creative but I can't even begin to imagine how to work "muh hormones!" into the equation. I guess that would be b on the CI side...?
It depends what effect your hormones have on you.
Hormones affect women every day of the month.
First half of cycle, women are estrogen dominant. Estrogen has a hunger-suppression affect. (i.e you may feel less hungry, eat less, stick to your goals more.) Its a good time to start a healthier diet/fast whatever since you may have more self-control.
Second half of cycle, progesterone dominant. Progesterone makes you hungry (i.e the chocolate cravings!)
Maybe better to schedule some treats? (depends on person) At least don't be too hard on yourself if you go a little over.....
But hormones can also affect Calorie Out... Tired? Sluggish? Not taking the stairs? Parking on the other side of the lot?4 -
cmriverside wrote: »+1 for the Oxford comma.
I just looked it up - this is how I was taught to use commas! My daughter is a copy-editor (as well as a writer) and she drives me nuts when she proofs stuff for me and takes out the commas that I so carefully put in! It doesn't look right to me.6 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
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?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I have to wonder how useful the equation is with variables. How many of them can even be quantified? Could someone with a metabolic disorder take a % off their calculated CI, for instance?
I'm not saying they can be quantified--maybe they can be ballparked through trial and error. I think where this would be useful is when people say that some variable invalidates CICO. At that point it might be helpful to illustrate how that variable is part of the equation. You don't know what "x" is but by playing with the other side of the equation over time you can accommodate for it.
So useful more as a teaching point than a starting point. I could see that. I tire of seeing people say that CICO doesn't work because they're insulin resistant, uncontrolled hypothyroid, etc. I believe it was Tacklewasher who said that there's a feedback loop. Because we're all working from estimates, we all have to adjust the numbers in our personal equation up or down on a regular basis. It's not something unique to individuals with medical problems, disabilities, etc., but their adjustments are likely to be more drastic than someone without those variables, which could be why so many believe CICO is invalid.
But that means people have to put in effort.5 -
annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
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?
See, this is the problem.....
The formula is CI=CO for energy balance.
CALCULATING those two things might be tricky for some people. (Though probably not for most).
i.e.
CI = exactly how much you eat/is cal information for that food correct etc
CO = how much muscle mass you have/daily exercise/hormonal influence.
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUATION IN ANY WAY. You may just not have the right numbers.
And trying to say its invalid because you have problems sticking to a calorie limit is ridiculous. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA..
First of all, calm down and put the capital letters away.
I am not saying it changes the equation. The formula I have above *IS* CI=CO. I was just musing whether there would be an easy accommodation to represent assorted variables for people who are worried about the variables without bringing in the equations from Gianfranco's article. You appear to be imagining I am saying things I am not saying.
I'm merely trying to point out that when you say...
CIabc=COxyz?
You are implying that there are some functions at play in addition to CICO.
Technically it is more correct to say CI[/i] = abc[/i] etc, etc.
In other words, calculating the CI or CO is a function of multiple variables, not that CICO needs more variables.
Perhaps this is not what you are trying to imply, but it IS what many in this thread are trying to imply.
I gotcha! I thought you were yelling at me, and I was like, dude, we agree!
I see what you are saying. I was just trying to think of an easy way to illustrate the variables when they are brought up. Here's how I imagine the conversation:
Me: Hey, CI=CO!
Nonanalytical person: Starvation mode bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Well.... x=adaptive thermogenesis so CI=CO[variable impact of adaptive thermogenesis]. If x = -200 then you have to have [CI-200]=[CO-200] to maintain weight, aka, you will need to eat less if your metabolism has been screwed up, but it probably hasn't. If your equation is CI=[CO-200] you are going to gain because in this case CI>CO.
Nonanalytical person: Magic fat burning foods bloo bloo bloo!
Me: Okay, so y=thermic effect of food. Etc. (I am not sure if that would be on the CI or the CO side of the equation).
But it should be set up as abc = xyz to be mathematically precise.
***edited a number
Sorry, I realize that you yourself were not saying this, but when people say that that CICO doesn't work 'cause hormones, I get a little nuts
Yeah....I'm usually pretty creative but I can't even begin to imagine how to work "muh hormones!" into the equation. I guess that would be b on the CI side...?
It depends what effect your hormones have on you.
Hormones affect women every day of the month.
First half of cycle, women are estrogen dominant. Estrogen has a hunger-suppression affect. (i.e you may feel less hungry, eat less, stick to your goals more.) Its a good time to start a healthier diet/fast whatever since you may have more self-control.
Second half of cycle, progesterone dominant. Progesterone makes you hungry (i.e the chocolate cravings!)
Maybe better to schedule some treats? (depends on person) At least don't be too hard on yourself if you go a little over.....
But hormones can also affect Calorie Out... Tired? Sluggish? Not taking the stairs? Parking on the other side of the lot?
Also, not to be cheeky any longer, but there is also all the research going into the gut bacteria that make us eat cupcakes potentially or in part by manipulating hormones. I assume that would be predominently on the CI side of the ledger unless they have a way to "punish" us for not giving them the cupcakes or whatnot that they want, for example by influencing our moods. I could see that as having an impact on the CO side of the ledger.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201400071/full
Good thing we have 26 letters in the alphabet plus 24 additional greek characters!
1 -
There is no equation that explains, in full and infinite detail, all of life, the universe and everything.
Similarly, AFAIK, no one here is advocating that CICO explains everything about weight loss - physiology, psychology, nutrition, satiation, strategy, etc. In fact, it's kind of the point that it doesn't explain those.
Like OP said: It's. Just. The. Energy. Balance.10 -
Question: could you maintain the same weight (or even gain body weight) while eating a caloric deficit? For example, if you are increasing muscle mass but losing fat?ladyreva78 wrote: »
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.
ETA: I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle. Part of the reason for asking this is to understand what "CO" means. Calories that are converted into body fat obviously aren't part of CO, but what about proteins that the body uses to build muscle tissue? I could see this being answered either way. One way to think about it might be to say that body is using the proteins, so it's CO, just like other caloric nutrients. Another way might be to say that the protein is being stored as part of the body, like fat, so it's not CO.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
Please read the post above and stop confusing calorie counting with CICO?
If you have an issue with calorie counting, can you at least use the proper terminology?
While estimating calories is easy what is hard to understand if CICO is a math formula per the OP then how does one compute CICO without counting calories?
I know this has been addressed above, but I really have to ask, why are you asking this? Your question makes no sense. It's like asking how do you make an inch? It is really confusing the topic at hand. Measuring something is not defining it.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
Why are you derailing this thread into a topic it's not? ndj's post was not about why people overeat, of which there are many reasons. His post was about the fact that every way of eating comes down to balancing calories eaten to calories expended, regardless of how you reach it. Also, see @Tacklewasher's post above. CICO does not equal calorie counting.
To be fair, the OP does not pose a question or explicitly suggest a single point for discussion. It makes a minimum of four separate points (or seven separate points if you split out what appear to be intended as elaborations on more general points), including two separate points labeled "finally." You have to expect that people will wander down different paths when so many are presented.
(I'm not saying I don't find Gale's theme that knowing about CICO solves nothing unless you address every factor on both sides of the equation, plus any psychological or behavioral issues that affect adherence, to be a tiresome example of majoring in the minors. But he's attacking the basic premise of the OP, and if that's derailing, the large majority of threads on MFP are derailed by the third post.)
The thing is, he's disputing the indisputable. It's his modus operandi.
Absolutely. I'm just saying that a better response than "you can't even talk about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise" would be to say "here's why your statements about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise miss the point." Fight bad facts and bad logic with good facts and good logic, not by saying "you can't make that argument here." Or ignore him. There's even a button for that.
And I'm just saying that GH isn't even talking about why the OP is wrong.
In fact, he agreed further back that CICO is an equation, just as the OP stated. His posts are twisting the thread into the topic of "CICO doesn't explain why people overeat and become obese," which has nothing to do with the OP.
That seems like a response to this from the OP: "If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn." The OP covers a lot of ground, so there's a lot to react to.What was more useful was the discussion about whether it's helpful to talk to people about the math behind weight loss instead of just telling them "eat less, move more." I'm a numbers person, so understanding the math and science behind losing/gaining/maintaining weight works for me. I absolutely found it useful to know that my body has a set number of calories it needs to maintain its weight and that the food I eat needs to balance that. Knowing there are two sides of an equation I can manipulate has helped me not only decrease the number of calories I was eating but also increase my normal activity level. I'd question whether it's ever unhelpful for someone to understand CICO.
I can't remember a time when I didn't understand how the math of CICO works; the problem for me was finding a way to obtain reasonable approximations for the data on both sides of the equation without the effort to do so consuming an unreasonable amount of time. Didn't work with paper and a limited database in a book 30 years ago. Didn't work with a computer and a limited database on a CD 20 years. Works sufficiently well for my purposes with the Internet and a crowd-sourced, interactive database (MFP). Halleluia! (seriously)
But I've known an awful lot of people who just seem to shut down in the face of numbers. I've had colleagues (grown people with college degrees who manage to find their way to work every day) to whom I've had to explain repeatedly how to calculate percent change. There's only two number involved, and the difference between them, and they can't remember from one day to the next which number to divide by which other number. And when I explain, I don't hand them the fish; I try to teach them how to fish. And it just won't sink in. It's like their brains go, "NUMBERS!! Engage force field! Fire photon torpedos! Evasive pattern delta!"
And it's not just basic arithmetic. Their minds resist concepts that don't even require you to manipulate numbers at all. I work in a field where people are frequently presented with survey data, and many of them are completely unable to understand that a statement like 75% of people who are X are also Y is absolutely meaningless without data on the prevalence of Y among people who aren't X -- for example, to draw from the world of weight control, findings that 75% of people in a population who have maintained weight loss for a year or more eat breakfast every day, is not even evidence of a correlation between eating breakfast and maintenance of weight loss, if you don't have data on the percentage of people who were unsuccessful in maintaining weight loss who eat breakfast every day. "But most of the people who maintained their weight ate breakfast. That has to mean it helps!"
The level of innumeracy, at least in the U.S., is shockingly high.
So, once again, what works for me and you may not work for everybody, or even most people.
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
Why are you derailing this thread into a topic it's not? ndj's post was not about why people overeat, of which there are many reasons. His post was about the fact that every way of eating comes down to balancing calories eaten to calories expended, regardless of how you reach it. Also, see @Tacklewasher's post above. CICO does not equal calorie counting.
To be fair, the OP does not pose a question or explicitly suggest a single point for discussion. It makes a minimum of four separate points (or seven separate points if you split out what appear to be intended as elaborations on more general points), including two separate points labeled "finally." You have to expect that people will wander down different paths when so many are presented.
(I'm not saying I don't find Gale's theme that knowing about CICO solves nothing unless you address every factor on both sides of the equation, plus any psychological or behavioral issues that affect adherence, to be a tiresome example of majoring in the minors. But he's attacking the basic premise of the OP, and if that's derailing, the large majority of threads on MFP are derailed by the third post.)
The thing is, he's disputing the indisputable. It's his modus operandi.
Absolutely. I'm just saying that a better response than "you can't even talk about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise" would be to say "here's why your statements about why you think the OP is based on a completely wrong premise miss the point." Fight bad facts and bad logic with good facts and good logic, not by saying "you can't make that argument here." Or ignore him. There's even a button for that.
And I'm just saying that GH isn't even talking about why the OP is wrong.
In fact, he agreed further back that CICO is an equation, just as the OP stated. His posts are twisting the thread into the topic of "CICO doesn't explain why people overeat and become obese," which has nothing to do with the OP.
That seems like a response to this from the OP: "If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn." The OP covers a lot of ground, so there's a lot to react to.What was more useful was the discussion about whether it's helpful to talk to people about the math behind weight loss instead of just telling them "eat less, move more." I'm a numbers person, so understanding the math and science behind losing/gaining/maintaining weight works for me. I absolutely found it useful to know that my body has a set number of calories it needs to maintain its weight and that the food I eat needs to balance that. Knowing there are two sides of an equation I can manipulate has helped me not only decrease the number of calories I was eating but also increase my normal activity level. I'd question whether it's ever unhelpful for someone to understand CICO.
I can't remember a time when I didn't understand how the math of CICO works; the problem for me was finding a way to obtain reasonable approximations for the data on both sides of the equation without the effort to do so consuming an unreasonable amount of time. Didn't work with paper and a limited database in a book 30 years ago. Didn't work with a computer and a limited database on a CD 20 years. Works sufficiently well for my purposes with the Internet and a crowd-sourced, interactive database (MFP). Halleluia! (seriously)
But I've known an awful lot of people who just seem to shut down in the face of numbers. I've had colleagues (grown people with college degrees who manage to find their way to work every day) to whom I've had to explain repeatedly how to calculate percent change. There's only two number involved, and the difference between them, and they can't remember from one day to the next which number to divide by which other number. And when I explain, I don't hand them the fish; I try to teach them how to fish. And it just won't sink in. It's like their brains go, "NUMBERS!! Engage force field! Fire photon torpedos! Evasive pattern delta!"
And it's not just basic arithmetic. Their minds resist concepts that don't even require you to manipulate numbers at all. I work in a field where people are frequently presented with survey data, and many of them are completely unable to understand that a statement like 75% of people who are X are also Y is absolutely meaningless without data on the prevalence of Y among people who aren't X -- for example, to draw from the world of weight control, findings that 75% of people in a population who have maintained weight loss for a year or more eat breakfast every day, is not even evidence of a correlation between eating breakfast and maintenance of weight loss, if you don't have data on the percentage of people who were unsuccessful in maintaining weight loss who eat breakfast every day. "But most of the people who maintained their weight ate breakfast. That has to mean it helps!"
The level of innumeracy, at least in the U.S., is shockingly high.
So, once again, what works for me and you may not work for everybody, or even most people.
Yes. Most people were especially bad at "story problems" in K-12 math classes besides, and weight loss is just a giant story problem.
One sees posts all the time here that underscore that. "I've been losing 2 pounds a week. Now how do I slow down my loss rate to 1 pound?" "I just ate 2000 calories more than my goal; I've gained 5 pounds!", "If the serving size in the database is 3 ounces and I only ate one ounce, what do I do?" etc.
Two digressions:
#1: My dad taught me a little mnemonic jingle for the percent thing: Gain or loss, divided by the cost, gives gain or loss percent.
#2: Weight loss math is bad enough. I've also participated in some online groups for cancer patients and survivors. Yikes! to the inability to understand that a 50% increase in disease incidence in a disease that .0005% of the population get is not really a very big risk change for the average person . . . or that a 100% cure rate improvement from taking, say, Peruvian Hippo Phlegm (PHP), for a disease that only 1 in a hundred now survive doesn't mean that we're all gonna live if we chug that PHP. Add innumeracy to big-time wishful thinking, and the situation's worse. (Now that I think of it, I guess that does apply to 'weight loss miracle' advertising, too.)3 -
There are so many math equations that apply to bodily functions.
For example, cardiac output = stroke volume x heart rate.
Does this mean that only stroke volume and heart rate affect cardiac output? Not really, cause things like peripheral resistance an preload and so on impact both components of that equation.
Likewise CICO is the formula, sure. But so many factors impact th CI an CO components so is knowing/understanding the equation going to make you lose weight? Not necessarily. A person needs to be able to apply an equation with understanding of the greater variables.
........................
Example, there are relatively too many calories in ... why? Is it the caloric value of foods their choosing? Why are they choosing those foods? Are they not planning their meals? Is their concept of portion size off? Are they eating too much from boredom? Stress? Hormonal upset or medication?
Relatively too many calories out ... why? Are the sedentary? Is their energy expenditure less than the people they live with but they eat the same? Are medical factors or drugs making the use less than they used to? Would increasing their exercise and general activity help adress the CICO imbalance? What is holding them back from moving more? Depression? Lack of time/motivation? Injury? Expense?
.....................
It's easy to give the formula that explains energy balance.
It more individualised to consider the factors to an imbalance.
I think many times on this forum people present the equation without offering any actual suggesting for managing the peripheral factors.
1 -
...I think many times on this forum people present the equation without offering any actual suggesting for managing the peripheral factors.
The peripheral factors (of which there are many) are so individualized and complex that it would take writing a huge book about it to offer useful suggestions. Psychological factors, cultural factors, socio-economic factors, medical/hormonal factors, food preferences, eating/exercise habits, etc. It would also take a lot of back and forth with each individual person to gather enough information to make useful suggestions. And chances are very good that if somebody is qualified enough to sift through all that, they ain't doing it for free. That's a dietician, doctor, psychologist and personal trainer all rolled into one. And those people get paid for what they do.
And none of that changes the fact that CICO applies to everybody. How you manage to do it is up to the individual, but in the end it all comes down to that simple equation. It's just unfortunate that a lot of people want to make it a lot more complicated than it really is.14 -
...I think many times on this forum people present the equation without offering any actual suggesting for managing the peripheral factors.
The peripheral factors (of which there are many) are so individualized and complex that it would take writing a huge book about it to offer useful suggestions. Psychological factors, cultural factors, socio-economic factors, medical/hormonal factors, food preferences, eating/exercise habits, etc. It would also take a lot of back and forth with each individual person to gather enough information to make useful suggestions. And chances are very good that if somebody is qualified enough to sift through all that, they ain't doing it for free. That's a dietician, doctor, psychologist and personal trainer all rolled into one. And those people get paid for what they do.
And none of that changes the fact that CICO applies to everybody. How you manage to do it is up to the individual, but in the end it all comes down to that simple equation. It's just unfortunate that a lot of people want to make it a lot more complicated than it really is.
Yeah, never said it changes the equation.
And are you suggesting that because external factors are varied an complex mfp forums should ignore them and only ever speak about the underlying CI:CO ratio?
If someone post something like, 'I've gained 15 kg over the last year since I started my new job' ... it might be more helpful to
acknowledge things such as incorporating more activity, bringing portion controlled meals/snacks, getting organised to have a planned dinner organised, prioritising exercise, suggesting the person look at stressors in their life that an impacting their diet, exercise etc than to just write 'all you have to do is eat fewer calories than you expend, it's all CICO'.
...................
I have never actually seen anyone refute the energy equation that is CICO on the boards.
I have however seen many people expressing frustration with different aspects of weight loss shut down by others insisting CICO is the only thing they need to consider.
....................
As I wrote in my previous post, there are numerous equations that can be applied to the human body. Each component of such an equation is subject to variables.
Although the equation is true and correct it is extremely naive to consider that the equation itself is the sole contributing factor.
.....................
I thing you'll find may people are looking for help with HOW to do things, not just x = y = z
... which in is self IS more complicated.
4 -
Question: could you maintain the same weight (or even gain body weight) while eating a caloric deficit? For example, if you are increasing muscle mass but losing fat?ladyreva78 wrote: »
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.
ETA: I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle. Part of the reason for asking this is to understand what "CO" means. Calories that are converted into body fat obviously aren't part of CO, but what about proteins that the body uses to build muscle tissue? I could see this being answered either way. One way to think about it might be to say that body is using the proteins, so it's CO, just like other caloric nutrients. Another way might be to say that the protein is being stored as part of the body, like fat, so it's not CO.
No.
It takes up more space.
4 -
Question: could you maintain the same weight (or even gain body weight) while eating a caloric deficit? For example, if you are increasing muscle mass but losing fat?ladyreva78 wrote: »
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.
ETA: I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle. Part of the reason for asking this is to understand what "CO" means. Calories that are converted into body fat obviously aren't part of CO, but what about proteins that the body uses to build muscle tissue? I could see this being answered either way. One way to think about it might be to say that body is using the proteins, so it's CO, just like other caloric nutrients. Another way might be to say that the protein is being stored as part of the body, like fat, so it's not CO.
No.
It takes up more space.
Compare equal volumes of fat and muscle and rethink your answer.
If someone asks you if marbles weigh more than feathers do you answer, "Of course not, one pound of feathers equals one pound of marbles"? Of course you don't, because it's a given that the comparison is between equal volumes not equal weights.4 -
Question: could you maintain the same weight (or even gain body weight) while eating a caloric deficit? For example, if you are increasing muscle mass but losing fat?ladyreva78 wrote: »
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.
ETA: I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle. Part of the reason for asking this is to understand what "CO" means. Calories that are converted into body fat obviously aren't part of CO, but what about proteins that the body uses to build muscle tissue? I could see this being answered either way. One way to think about it might be to say that body is using the proteins, so it's CO, just like other caloric nutrients. Another way might be to say that the protein is being stored as part of the body, like fat, so it's not CO.
You can gain some muscle in a deficit but there's only so much you can gain. Even eating in a surplus, half a pound per week would be a good outcome, in a deficit it's even less. It won't ever be the same amount as the fat you lose unless you only do a tiny deficit where your weight wouldn't move more than a pound per month or slower to begin with. That's called recomposition then.0 -
Question: could you maintain the same weight (or even gain body weight) while eating a caloric deficit? For example, if you are increasing muscle mass but losing fat?ladyreva78 wrote: »
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.
ETA: I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle. Part of the reason for asking this is to understand what "CO" means. Calories that are converted into body fat obviously aren't part of CO, but what about proteins that the body uses to build muscle tissue? I could see this being answered either way. One way to think about it might be to say that body is using the proteins, so it's CO, just like other caloric nutrients. Another way might be to say that the protein is being stored as part of the body, like fat, so it's not CO.
No.
It takes up more space.
Why do this?
2 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »
Question: could you maintain the same weight (or even gain body weight) while eating a caloric deficit? For example, if you are increasing muscle mass but losing fat?ladyreva78 wrote: »
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.
ETA: I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle. Part of the reason for asking this is to understand what "CO" means. Calories that are converted into body fat obviously aren't part of CO, but what about proteins that the body uses to build muscle tissue? I could see this being answered either way. One way to think about it might be to say that body is using the proteins, so it's CO, just like other caloric nutrients. Another way might be to say that the protein is being stored as part of the body, like fat, so it's not CO.
No.
It takes up more space.
Compare equal volumes of fat and muscle and rethink your answer.
If someone asks you if marbles weigh more than feathers do you answer, "Of course not, one pound of feathers equals one pound of marbles"? Of course you don't, because it's a given that the comparison is between equal volumes not equal weights.
Oh sorry, I thought when PP said "I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle", he was comparing the weight of two different materials. That would be why I failed algebra.2 -
Question: could you maintain the same weight (or even gain body weight) while eating a caloric deficit? For example, if you are increasing muscle mass but losing fat?ladyreva78 wrote: »
Step on the scale. Check the number. Compare the number to 4 weeks previous.
Higher? Eat less.
Same? Eat less.
Lower? keep eating the same.
You don't need to count calories for that. Counting calories just makes it easier to track how much less you need to eat.
ETA: I'm aware that fat weighs more than muscle. Part of the reason for asking this is to understand what "CO" means. Calories that are converted into body fat obviously aren't part of CO, but what about proteins that the body uses to build muscle tissue? I could see this being answered either way. One way to think about it might be to say that body is using the proteins, so it's CO, just like other caloric nutrients. Another way might be to say that the protein is being stored as part of the body, like fat, so it's not CO.
No.
It takes up more space.
Why do this?
Because fat doesn't weigh more than muscle at the same weights.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions