CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
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
- 391.4K 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
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions