CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
Mfp helped me estimate how to lose weight and its working quite well WHEN I stick to my calorie goal.
ETA - It really isn't that complicated to me.5 -
I find the idea that people mistake thirst for hunger so bizarre, but then I'm someone who always has a drink (usually water, sometimes coffee, because I love it too much, occasionally tea), and who can't imagine eating something without also having something to drink. It used to annoy me on planes when they'd serve the meal before bringing drinks. I'd sit there wondering how anyone was supposed to eat without something to drink with it.5
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I find the idea that people mistake thirst for hunger so bizarre, but then I'm someone who always has a drink (usually water, sometimes coffee, because I love it too much, occasionally tea), and who can't imagine eating something without also having something to drink. It used to annoy me on planes when they'd serve the meal before bringing drinks. I'd sit there wondering how anyone was supposed to eat without something to drink with it.
It seems to me when I don't drink several glasses of water a day I tend to be hungrier. I'm not sure if I'm confusing dehydration with hunger but it sure seems to help me not be hungrier.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
CICO has never been disproven. There are a few people in various fields with letters behind their name who have attempted to extrapolate a greater specificity of CICO than is rational or reasonable and pushed this forward as "debunked".
I can tell you a reasonable estimation of my CI and I can tell you a reasonable estimation of my CO. I can even tell you a reasonable estimation of my body composition and the overall results of my cutting/bulking cycles.
This is similar to telling me that fuel mileage has been debunked because I can't tell you exactly what speed I was traveling at or the precise amount of ethanol/impurities/octane are in the gas I filled up with. Majoring in irrelevant details.28 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.
That is true about CICO only being a reality concept. What I said was the professionals have debunked CICO as being more than a helpful tool since CI and CO are basically unknown values in humans. CICO does not stand for provable science.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.
That is true about CICO only being a reality concept. What I said was the professionals have debunked CICO as being more than a helpful tool since CI and CO are basically unknown values in humans. CICO does not stand for provable science.
It hasnt been debunked... its people dont know how to utilize tools to track it. Peoples inability to use tools doesnt debunk energy balance.18 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.
That is true about CICO only being a reality concept. What I said was the professionals have debunked CICO as being more than a helpful tool since CI and CO are basically unknown values in humans. CICO does not stand for provable science.
It hasnt been debunked... its people dont know how to utilize tools to track it. Peoples inability to use tools doesnt debunk energy balance.
Add to that some people like me are/were totally uneducated about CICO.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.
That is true about CICO only being a reality concept. What I said was the professionals have debunked CICO as being more than a helpful tool since CI and CO are basically unknown values in humans. CICO does not stand for provable science.
So you're saying, math is hard = junk science?
Ironic, don't ya think?22 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?
)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.
That is true about CICO only being a reality concept. What I said was the professionals have debunked CICO as being more than a helpful tool since CI and CO are basically unknown values in humans. CICO does not stand for provable science.
Yes, we know this is what you said, but we stand by the fact that you are incorrect in this statement. It has not been debunked by anyone that has a single scientific leg to stand on. Maybe Dr. Oz or Mr. Miscellaneous Blog Writer said it wasn't true, but I could care less what they make up.8 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
They're about as elusive as a snail. Your CO isn't going to vary wildly from one day to another, it just won't be 2500 precisely every day but fluctuate in a range depending on your typical activity. That's where that little thing we like to call "being diligent for 4 weeks and checking how your weight develops" comes in to get that average CO that is good enough. And your CI is entirely in your own hands.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I think all that read and understand this science paper realize while CICO is a valid relative concept to weight loss but it stated to be the only factor to consider in weight loss could kill or injury some people if the loss rate was too fast for the body to cope with this potential toxic dump.
Perhaps this is why a 25 year old may embrace CICO as the main factor in weight loss/gain where a 65 year old obese man may understand there can be factors that are also important and not just an energy balance point of view.
Gale, no one here has said that CICO is the only factor. They are saying that CICO is the math formula that governs the process. Everyone has acknowledged that there are myriad factors that can affect a person's CI or CO, but that those factors don't change the fact that CI=CO means maintenance. You are basically arguing with imaginary posters making imaginary posts. I'm out, I'm no longer going to participate in your rude and willful threadjack of the OP14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »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."
The calories involved in the "thermogenic effect of water" are part of CO, just like the calories involved in digestion, winking at cute guys/gals, chasing rabid minks, thinking about E=MC2, sweating, chewing okra, and about six zillion other things.
It's undeniable fact that we can't discretely identify and measure each and every one of those separate subcomponents of CO, but rather we bundle them up in to some general categories (BMR, TEF, EAT, etc.) for discussion purposes, and finally into a big bundle (usually NEAT or TDEE) for estimation purposes. That kind of approximation doesn't make CICO invalid.
Of course we implicitly over-estimate some sub-components and under-estimate others, include some that aren't relevant to very specific individuals (I have no TEF for chicken consumption because I'm vegetarian), while leaving out others that are relevant to some specific individuals (I burn more calories by rowing than most people). That variation doesn't make CICO invalid either.
For CICO to be useful, those things really don't matter. Why?
Because when we examine the big bundles of aggregated unknown subcomponents in the form of NEAT and EAT, the unders and overs tend to compensate for one another (akin to the law of large numbers), and we get a statistical distribution for the population's CO that has a reasonably small standard deviation. From that, we get a useful (if inexact) way to make a working estimate (not a calculation) of CO. Then we adjust it based on our personal results.
That's all we need.20 -
stevencloser wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
They're about as elusive as a snail. Your CO isn't going to vary wildly from one day to another, it just won't be 2500 precisely every day but fluctuate in a range depending on your typical activity. That's where that little thing we like to call "being diligent for 4 weeks and checking how your weight develops" comes in to get that average CO that is good enough. And your CI is entirely in your own hands.
Hey lots of people don't care for snails, don't know them so they are elusive. HA.
2 -
This is a nice rabbit hole.10
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
I don't know how to compute gravitational forces but gravity still applies to me.
28 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm. That doesn't debunk the equation.
That is true about CICO only being a reality concept. What I said was the professionals have debunked CICO as being more than a helpful tool since CI and CO are basically unknown values in humans. CICO does not stand for provable science.
If people can't figure out CO or CI how do they lose or gain weight????2 -
9
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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions