CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
...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.
You're going to have to link me to some threads where a poster asks about gaining weight and how to deal with that, and the answer they get are "CICO is all you need to know" with no specific advice, suggestions on what worked for the indifucual, discussion about working in more exercise, comments about finding satiating foods, etc. I can't say I've ever seen a thread where someone asks for help and the only answers they get are "CICO!"
Now if a person says "can I still eat doughnuts and lose weight" then the correct answer is, "yes! All that matters for weight loss is CICO".3 -
This seems to me a bit like stating the distance on a road between A and B is a mile.
Sure, there can be discussion about whether to travel it by walking,cycling, driving a car, skateboarding, riding a donkey etc
And will the conditions be more difficult in rainy weather, hot weather, snow, what shoes should I wear, can I stop along the way,is there a shop en route etc..
But that doesn't change the basic equation - A to B is one mile.
Because a mile is a unit of measure and the variables on how to get there don't change that.18 -
Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Gosh, I love your postings!1 -
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?
Well, it certainly shows that one is bigger than the other, even though they weigh the same. If you put a pound of feathers next to a pound of bricks, your whole room could be filled with feathers (aka fat) while the brick (aka muscle) takes up this teeny weeny corner....hidden behind all that fat.
Same with muscle (aka brick) and fat (aka feathers)-one takes up less space than the other, but they scale weight is exactly the same.
I used to argue about incessantly because I knew what I meant (what I'm saying above), but other people were never sure if I meant a pound of fat literally weighs less than a pound of feathers or whether a pound of fat takes up more space than a pound of feathers.
So, why not show a picture that illustrates the fact?2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
Why do this?
Because fat doesn't weigh more than muscle at the same weights.
Which is exactly why it's a given that you aren't comparing the same weights. Do I need to mention the marbles and feathers comparison again?
I suspect there might be some confusion here because the saying is usually that "muscle weighs more than fat" and not "fat weighs more than muscle" which is what was stated by @dfwesq.
(Although "muscle is denser than fat" is what is actually meant).
I'm fine with "muscle weighs more than fat" because people generally understand that we're talking about muscle being heavier than fat per unit of volume resulting in a more compact look at the same or heavier weight. It's a common thing to say and understand. "Muscle is denser than fat" may not be understood right away because it's not as common of a phrase and some might have to mull it in their head a bit to visualize the concept of density and how it relates to weight. That's semantic nitpicking to me.
ETA: I agree with what you are saying and I quoted your post to append not to disagree.
I agree with all of this. It's easier to get the point across to people, albeit not explicitly accurate verbiage.1 -
@stanmann571stanmann571 wrote: »
Surplus not deficit.
@dfwesq
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.
If you manage to do a perfect recomp - adding muscle and losing fat while staying the same weight then you are actually in a small energy deficit.
Between CI and CO there is also stored energy (potential energy if you prefer that terminology).
Think of your entire body as an energy store - fat has a far higher energy density than muscle. So the total calorific value of a fat 200lb person will be higher than the total calorific value of a lean 200lb person.
Eric Helms / Lawrence Judd article explains in more detail, long but good read....
https://muscleandstrengthpyramids.com/calorie-deficit-gain-weight/
While the caloric "value" of a fat person is higher, the NEAT of a 200lb 12% BF person is greater than the NEAT of a 200lb 18% BF person.
No deficit, not surplus.
The 200lb person losing fat/gaining muscle over time is in a deficit. Read the article.
(Wasn't comparing the NEAT of two different people or the same person with different body comp.)
So bottom line from the study is that CICO isn't true.
6 groups gained weight on a deficit.
0 -
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.
I'm a copy editor and I put them in, actually.
It depends on the style guide you follow - academic writing guides mostly require it rather than ban it, so just tell your daughter you're writing at a higher level than the stuff she normally edits.2 -
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???
[/quote]
2 likes for this!!
0 -
-
Thanks - this is helpful.
@dfwesq
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.
If you manage to do a perfect recomp - adding muscle and losing fat while staying the same weight then you are actually in a small energy deficit.
Between CI and CO there is also stored energy (potential energy if you prefer that terminology).
Think of your entire body as an energy store - fat has a far higher energy density than muscle. So the total calorific value of a fat 200lb person will be higher than the total calorific value of a lean 200lb person.
Eric Helms / Lawrence Judd article explains in more detail, long but good read....
https://muscleandstrengthpyramids.com/calorie-deficit-gain-weight/
I think this is worth remembering when people equate CI<CO with weight loss. It's really describing net calorie or energy loss. (I'm still not completely sure how to account for tissue other than fat. Is it considered stored, or does it count as CO?)
For overweight or obese people that will usually, but not necessarily, result in weight loss. But the rate of weight loss isn't necessarily predictable, because weight on the scale measures the whole body, not just fat. Other things that affect weight, like muscle gain, cause CICO not to be a very accurate predictor of the rate of weight loss. (I'm using muscle gain as an example because a lot of people who start dieting also start exercising or increase their exercise and may start building muscle mass.) In other words, "My calorie intake is X and my calorie use is Y, so CICO predicts I will lose Z pounds per week" is only correct if the person's body is losing fat but not gaining or losing significant amounts of any other tissue. That doesn't mean CICO not helpful or that someone isn't losing fat.0 -
It was a useless point, because I wasn't saying a kilogram of fat weighs less than a kilogram of muscle. Also, I only posted the "I'm aware..." remark so that people could give a meaningful answer to the main question I asked.So, why not show a picture that illustrates the fact?
I could see someone posting a response like that as a joke, but the reactions suggest to me a couple of people somehow got confused.
1 -
Fwiw, for purposes of answering my question it doesn't really matter whether it's a deficit or surplus. If someone treats CICO as a predictor of weight gain or loss, a person who's maintaining the same weight can't be eating either a deficit or a surplus. So there must be something else going on (such as gaining lean muscle mass.)@stanmann571
No deficit, not surplus.
The 200lb person losing fat/gaining muscle over time is in a deficit. Read the article.
(Wasn't comparing the NEAT of two different people or the same person with different body comp.)
ETA: sorry for the four posts in a row! But maybe this will make it easier for anyone who wants to respond to just one.
0 -
Thanks - this is helpful.
@dfwesq
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.
If you manage to do a perfect recomp - adding muscle and losing fat while staying the same weight then you are actually in a small energy deficit.
Between CI and CO there is also stored energy (potential energy if you prefer that terminology).
Think of your entire body as an energy store - fat has a far higher energy density than muscle. So the total calorific value of a fat 200lb person will be higher than the total calorific value of a lean 200lb person.
Eric Helms / Lawrence Judd article explains in more detail, long but good read....
https://muscleandstrengthpyramids.com/calorie-deficit-gain-weight/
I think this is worth remembering when people equate CI<CO with weight loss. It's really describing net calorie or energy loss. (I'm still not completely sure how to account for tissue other than fat. Is it considered stored, or does it count as CO?)
For overweight or obese people that will usually, but not necessarily, result in weight loss. But the rate of weight loss isn't necessarily predictable, because weight on the scale measures the whole body, not just fat. Other things that affect weight, like muscle gain, cause CICO not to be a very accurate predictor of the rate of weight loss. (I'm using muscle gain as an example because a lot of people who start dieting also start exercising or increase their exercise and may start building muscle mass.) In other words, "My calorie intake is X and my calorie use is Y, so CICO predicts I will lose Z pounds per week" is only correct if the person's body is losing fat but not gaining or losing significant amounts of any other tissue. That doesn't mean CICO not helpful or that someone isn't losing fat.
I think you're overlooking relative magnitude.
Once one has a handle on one's basic data (non-trivial), CI < CO is likely to be a reasonably good predictor of weight loss, as a trend over time (tuning out water weight fluctuations), within the limits of estimating error for both CI and CO. ("Over time" means weeks, possibly longer depending on deficit - it certainly doesn't mean days.)
Yes, during weight loss, some amount of non-fat tissue may be lost along with fat (usually is, in fact).
But, at least with a sane loss rate, the amount of non-fat tissue lost is relatively small compared to the amount of fat lost. And the non-fat tissue lost does have a weight, even though it's not as voluminous as an equal weight of fat tissue. Also, it's common here to see people recommend strategies to minimize lean tissue loss (such as resistance exercise, solid protein intake, good nutrition, conservative loss rate, etc.).
Yes, from exercise, non-fat mass (muscle, basically) can be gained. But the rate of such gain is agonizingly slow, even under the best conditions (and the best conditions include a calorie surplus). For women, a quarter pound of muscle gain a week would be excellent. A quarter pound of fat loss per week would be considered virtually invisible over any time scale shorter than months.
An aside: If lean tissue loss is relatively small compared with fat loss, why are we so rabidly encouraging people to minimize it as much as feasible? Two reasons: (1) It's so darned slow and difficult to gain back - so much easier/quicker/healthier to hang onto it in the first place; and (2) loss of even small amounts of muscle tissue can be meaningful in terms of everyday strength, functioning, and health - muscle is important.
Another aside: Just because someone is getting stronger, it doesn't necessarily mean they're gaining muscle. It's very possible to gain strength through exercise without adding muscle tissue, especially for people who are pretty new to exercise. It has to do with recruitment and efficiency, among other things.5 -
It was a useless point, because I wasn't saying a kilogram of fat weighs less than a kilogram of muscle. Also, I only posted the "I'm aware..." remark so that people could give a meaningful answer to the main question I asked.So, why not show a picture that illustrates the fact?
I could see someone posting a response like that as a joke, but the reactions suggest to me a couple of people somehow got confused.
But, I was not responding directly to you, I was responding to the person who basically asked why the picture was posted. It looks like you removed most of the prior text in the post.1 -
I removed the chain of quotes so the post wouldn't be a mile long. The photo was in response to my post. So I was part of the conversation that you were joining.But, I was not responding directly to you, I was responding to the person who basically asked why the picture was posted. It looks like you removed most of the prior text in the post.
ETA: I'm not sure if this is the same for other users, but if there are a lot of nested quotes and I click on "show previous quotes," they all cascade onto the page, making it hard to read.
0 -
@dfwesq We get it. The "muscle weighs more than fat" thing has been debated before for about - oh - roughly - 14,000 pages. Yes. 14K.
1 -
I get it too. I don't know why anyone decided to argue with me about it.cmriverside wrote: »@dfwesq We get it. The "muscle weighs more than fat" thing has been debated before for about - oh - roughly - 14,000 pages. Yes. 14K.
Did someone genuinely not understand? A joke gone wrong? Spite? I have no idea.
0 -
Thanks - this is helpful.
@dfwesq
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.
If you manage to do a perfect recomp - adding muscle and losing fat while staying the same weight then you are actually in a small energy deficit.
Between CI and CO there is also stored energy (potential energy if you prefer that terminology).
Think of your entire body as an energy store - fat has a far higher energy density than muscle. So the total calorific value of a fat 200lb person will be higher than the total calorific value of a lean 200lb person.
Eric Helms / Lawrence Judd article explains in more detail, long but good read....
https://muscleandstrengthpyramids.com/calorie-deficit-gain-weight/
I think this is worth remembering when people equate CI<CO with weight loss. It's really describing net calorie or energy loss. (I'm still not completely sure how to account for tissue other than fat. Is it considered stored, or does it count as CO?)
For overweight or obese people that will usually, but not necessarily, result in weight loss. But the rate of weight loss isn't necessarily predictable, because weight on the scale measures the whole body, not just fat. Other things that affect weight, like muscle gain, cause CICO not to be a very accurate predictor of the rate of weight loss. (I'm using muscle gain as an example because a lot of people who start dieting also start exercising or increase their exercise and may start building muscle mass.) In other words, "My calorie intake is X and my calorie use is Y, so CICO predicts I will lose Z pounds per week" is only correct if the person's body is losing fat but not gaining or losing significant amounts of any other tissue. That doesn't mean CICO not helpful or that someone isn't losing fat.
People aren't saying you can predict rate of weight loss exactly with CICO -- biggest issue is you don't have exact numbers anyway. Once you track for a while you can get close, though.
Someone focused on muscle building and recomp will typically understand this and not get mislead by the fact that you can perhaps build some muscle and gain while at maintenance or a small deficit (depending on other factors). We also all understand that factors like size of deficit and protein consumption may affect fat vs. muscle loss, again varying with how close you are to goal.
But for most people with lots to lose, FAT loss is what they care about, not just weight loss (it's easy to gain and lose water), AND estimating CI vs. CO (assuming your inputs are good and you correct for experience) is going to be quite accurate overall (weeks will vary, of course) because you will mostly lose fat.
If someone is trying to predict exactly what they will lose, let alone in a given week, based on a calculator estimate, they aren't quite understanding yet, but not because of the information in that link.
Are you imagining that someone with lots to lose at a significant deficit won't lose actual weight because of muscle gain? Because that doesn't happen. We don't gain muscle that fast (and that's especially so if you aren't a young man, which most on MFP are not).0 -
Fwiw, for purposes of answering my question it doesn't really matter whether it's a deficit or surplus. If someone treats CICO as a predictor of weight gain or loss, a person who's maintaining the same weight can't be eating either a deficit or a surplus. So there must be something else going on (such as gaining lean muscle mass.)@stanmann571
No deficit, not surplus.
The 200lb person losing fat/gaining muscle over time is in a deficit. Read the article.
(Wasn't comparing the NEAT of two different people or the same person with different body comp.)
And based on the article/chart this is happening with someone eating near maintenance and making an effort to gain muscle.0 -
annaskiski wrote: »So the article posted on the previous page....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
says
The human body obeys the law of energy conservation [20], which can be expressed as
(1)
where ΔU is the change in stored energy in the body, ΔQ is a change in energy input or intake, and ΔW is a change in energy output or expenditure.
So......
ΔU = The change in your stored energy (i.e fat)
ΔQ = The change in your energy input (i.e your CI)
ΔW = Change in energy output (i.e. your CO)
Guess what this is saying....go ahead, guess....
Ummmm....
Not all calories are created equal?
No?
I'll be in the corner thinking about my life decisions when it came to course selections.3 -
0
-
cmriverside wrote: »
Chchchchchanges11 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Delta!!! It means change!
Change in stored energy = Change in input - Change in output
So maintenenace:
(no change, or zero) = Change in input - Change in output =>
or Change in input = Change in output
in other words CI = CO
2 -
@ndj1979 below are some factors that most people do not have when trying to compute CICO that I ran upon this evening when studying the use of pH strips.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf
Page 14:
"You exercise and diet in order to make your fat go away. But your body says to itself, “I need
that Fat. That is my warehouse for stored toxins.” So it holds onto the fat. It resists losing weight.
And you get frustrated because you remain fat because you do not understand the real problem....."
Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Also page 20:
"......And German researchers found that drinking water increases the rate at which you
burn calories Just two cups of water increased metabolic rate by almost a third-and it stayed for
up for about half an hour. (pg. 56)"
1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@ndj1979 below are some factors that most people do not have when trying to compute CICO that I ran upon this evening when studying the use of pH strips.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf
Page 14:
"You exercise and diet in order to make your fat go away. But your body says to itself, “I need
that Fat. That is my warehouse for stored toxins.” So it holds onto the fat. It resists losing weight.
And you get frustrated because you remain fat because you do not understand the real problem....."
Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Also page 20:
"......And German researchers found that drinking water increases the rate at which you
burn calories Just two cups of water increased metabolic rate by almost a third-and it stayed for
up for about half an hour. (pg. 56)"
Curious. What does this have to do with the mathematics of calories in/ calories out?6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@ndj1979 below are some factors that most people do not have when trying to compute CICO that I ran upon this evening when studying the use of pH strips.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf
Page 14:
"You exercise and diet in order to make your fat go away. But your body says to itself, “I need
that Fat. That is my warehouse for stored toxins.” So it holds onto the fat. It resists losing weight.
And you get frustrated because you remain fat because you do not understand the real problem....."
Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Also page 20:
"......And German researchers found that drinking water increases the rate at which you
burn calories Just two cups of water increased metabolic rate by almost a third-and it stayed for
up for about half an hour. (pg. 56)"
All of those "citations" are from a book self-published by this guy: https://www.google.com/amp/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-criminal-trial-robert-young-ph-miracle-2016feb03-story,amp.html
Gale, I highly recommend an online course in media literacy.25 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »@ndj1979 below are some factors that most people do not have when trying to compute CICO that I ran upon this evening when studying the use of pH strips.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf
Page 14:
"You exercise and diet in order to make your fat go away. But your body says to itself, “I need
that Fat. That is my warehouse for stored toxins.” So it holds onto the fat. It resists losing weight.
And you get frustrated because you remain fat because you do not understand the real problem....."
Page 20:
"The Dangers of Dehydration: 75 percent of Americans are dehydrated, meaning they don't get
the eight, 8 oz. glasses (about two liters or quarts) of servings of water recommended by
mainstream health experts. (pg. 53)
If you don't get enough water then you'll get fat. Simple as that. (pg. 53)
An acid body pulls water into the tissues to try to neutralize the acids there. (pg. 53)
Most important, the body uses water to neutralize the acids, to dilute excess acid, and to literally
wash them (and all toxins) out of the body via urine and sweat and through the bowels. Without
enough water your body becomes too acidic and goes into preservation (fat storing) mode. A
drop of just over 2 percent in body water content is enough to make that happen. (pg. 53)"
Also page 20:
"......And German researchers found that drinking water increases the rate at which you
burn calories Just two cups of water increased metabolic rate by almost a third-and it stayed for
up for about half an hour. (pg. 56)"
Curious. What does this have to do with the mathematics of calories in/ calories out?
How would you compute the calorie burned due to two liters of water drank per the German research?
"Therefore, the thermogenic effect of water should be considered when estimating energy expenditure, particularly during weight loss programs."
1 -
@RoteBook what grounds do you have for putting down pubmed.gov as a legit source?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14671205
Water-induced thermogenesis.
Boschmann M1, Steiniger J, Hille U, Tank J, Adams F, Sharma AM, Klaus S, Luft FC, Jordan J.
Author information
1
Franz-Volhard Clinical Research Center and Helios-Klinikum-Berlin, Medical Faculty of the Charité, Humboldt-University, D-13125 Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
Drinking lots of water is commonly espoused in weight loss regimens and is regarded as healthy; however, few systematic studies address this notion. In 14 healthy, normal-weight subjects (seven men and seven women), we assessed the effect of drinking 500 ml of water on energy expenditure and substrate oxidation rates by using whole-room indirect calorimetry. The effect of water drinking on adipose tissue metabolism was assessed with the microdialysis technique. Drinking 500 ml of water increased metabolic rate by 30%. The increase occurred within 10 min and reached a maximum after 30-40 min. The total thermogenic response was about 100 kJ. About 40% of the thermogenic effect originated from warming the water from 22 to 37 C. In men, lipids mainly fueled the increase in metabolic rate. In contrast, in women carbohydrates were mainly used as the energy source. The increase in energy expenditure with water was diminished with systemic beta-adrenoreceptor blockade. Thus, drinking 2 liters of water per day would augment energy expenditure by approximately 400 kJ. Therefore, the thermogenic effect of water should be considered when estimating energy expenditure, particularly during weight loss programs.
PMID: 14671205 DOI: 10.1210/jc.2003-030780
[Indexed for MEDLINE]1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@RoteBook what grounds do you have for putting down pubmed.gov as a legit source?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14671205
Water-induced thermogenesis.
Boschmann M1, Steiniger J, Hille U, Tank J, Adams F, Sharma AM, Klaus S, Luft FC, Jordan J.
Author information
1
Franz-Volhard Clinical Research Center and Helios-Klinikum-Berlin, Medical Faculty of the Charité, Humboldt-University, D-13125 Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
Drinking lots of water is commonly espoused in weight loss regimens and is regarded as healthy; however, few systematic studies address this notion. In 14 healthy, normal-weight subjects (seven men and seven women), we assessed the effect of drinking 500 ml of water on energy expenditure and substrate oxidation rates by using whole-room indirect calorimetry. The effect of water drinking on adipose tissue metabolism was assessed with the microdialysis technique. Drinking 500 ml of water increased metabolic rate by 30%. The increase occurred within 10 min and reached a maximum after 30-40 min. The total thermogenic response was about 100 kJ. About 40% of the thermogenic effect originated from warming the water from 22 to 37 C. In men, lipids mainly fueled the increase in metabolic rate. In contrast, in women carbohydrates were mainly used as the energy source. The increase in energy expenditure with water was diminished with systemic beta-adrenoreceptor blockade. Thus, drinking 2 liters of water per day would augment energy expenditure by approximately 400 kJ. Therefore, the thermogenic effect of water should be considered when estimating energy expenditure, particularly during weight loss programs.
PMID: 14671205 DOI: 10.1210/jc.2003-030780
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
I haven't read the study yet, and probably won't tonight. But just off the top of my head the entire observed effect of drinking 2L of water is a difference of 400 kJ. That's fewer than 100 calories per day. Not even close to the 30% difference implied by the author's vague writing. As others have already pointed out many, many times in this thread, yes, there will be variables that make one person's NEAT different than another person of the same height and weight, making MFP's initial calculations not pinpoint accurate. That still doesn't mean that weight loss is caused by anything other than eating fewer calories than you expend.11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions