CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB
I only ask as I see a trend in public health trying to identify root causes on a macro scale, but coming to conclusions based on correlation rather than following the data.
There is no one root cause, but a culmination of several societal forces. Weight gain is the result of eating more than one needs - simple as that. The rate of obesity isn't terribly concerning and just shows that the average individual is consuming ~100-250 kcals/day than they should. Availability of food, decreasing exercise, increasing convenience, etc. all come together to make for the latest government intervention excuse.
This reinforces the application of CICO. Every validated weight loss program incorporates CICO, but changes the marketing slightly to suit the target demographic.
As of CRP - as a microbiologist this is not backed by data and you may be implementing confirmational bias. You cannot address the big picture without connecting the dots (data), otherwise you descend into a conspiratorial state.
No - there is no mass conspiracy hiding cures. There is simply too much genetic variation within the host and the vectors to develop a one size fits all cure. Drug products with >50% affinity are considered goldmines statistically.
What's interesting... in the weight gaining section, we have at least one member who has an autoimmune disorder and recently had some blood test done. What was interesting is she showed greater levels of inflammation in her system, but yet was not symptomatic. The only variable that changed was she started weight training.
Lifting messes with some of the blood work values though. Micro tears in muscle fibre would increase inflammation (I suspect, I haven't looked it up, but can do), just like it will increase CK levels.
Oh, most definitely. The point is, you can't just say the increase in CRP is bad. Not all inflammation is bad (although, it's how it's currently being perceived). Some things like lifting or eating insoluble fiber are good actions that can cause an inflammatory response.
Sorry, your post was a bit ambiguous (to me, anyway). Just clarifying.
It's a similar reason why a single value isn't enough (usually) to change treatment plans. Anomalous values come up for a variety of reasons. Changes between one reading and the next don't necessarily constitute direct relation with what's been changed. This is part of the reason why I find it dubious when people are self diagnosing and treating themselves based on that. That being said, I am all for research and learning more.0 -
As I said, I didn't agree with his reasons and I had reservations. Your response gives voice to some of those. What I said was that proper hydration was important and could help with weight control. And conversely, dehydration could slow metabolism. To be honest, I don't even think that's controversial.Tacklewasher wrote: »
I'm not sure about all this, and I won't post all my disagreements/questions here, but I do think hydration is important. Dehydration is one of the many things that can affect metabolism (and thus the CO part of the equation). And proper hydration seems to be helpful in increasing metabolism. There are a bunch of studies supporting the idea that drinking water helps with weight control or weight loss, though not necessarily for the same reasons that author thinks.GaleHawkins wrote: »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)"
Except that the "threat" of dehydration is very overblown in what Gale quoted. It's fear-mongering of the Taubes/sugar variety. Most people in the modern world, if they simply drink when thirsty, will be adequately hydrated. We have enough access to good quality water that it's not an issue. The 8 glasses is a bit of a myth as it refers to the "equivalent" of 8 glasses, with some of that being provided by food (my apple is juicy) as well as other liquids (my coffee is enjoyable) and, as long as your urine is not overly dark, your fine.
To try to link obesity to under-hydration is simply ridiculous. I'm not obese because I didn't drink enough water. I ate too much food. No clue why some want to place blame on odd things.
ETA: Maybe I've misunderstood, but I want to try to figure it out. I said I thought proper hydration was helpful for weight loss. The reply said hydration isn't an issue in western society, and that weight loss has nothing to do with hydration but is solely based on the calories you eat. Then eight people (so far) responded favorably to the reply. If I'm understanding correctly, this means a bunch of people agree either that dehydration doesn't happen or that hydration is irrelevant to weight loss. Is that what people are thinking?
0 -
FindingAwesome 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.
Even if they were true, they don't necessarily mean the CICO equation doesn't work... It just means the rate at which the different body types burns calories is different. The trick is determining what your actual CO side of the equation is.
I.e. Lean and more muscle may burn cals at rate X, where as heavy with less muscle burns cals at Y. Once you determine what that variable is (CO) then you adjust what you eat to be less than that to lose weight.
I don't think you need that much of a handle on CO though. Pick a reasonable calorie target (TDEE calculators, or the calculator here can be a great srart). Track regularly for a period of time. Track weight changes over time. Adjust CI based on results.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB
I only ask as I see a trend in public health trying to identify root causes on a macro scale, but coming to conclusions based on correlation rather than following the data.
There is no one root cause, but a culmination of several societal forces. Weight gain is the result of eating more than one needs - simple as that. The rate of obesity isn't terribly concerning and just shows that the average individual is consuming ~100-250 kcals/day than they should. Availability of food, decreasing exercise, increasing convenience, etc. all come together to make for the latest government intervention excuse.
This reinforces the application of CICO. Every validated weight loss program incorporates CICO, but changes the marketing slightly to suit the target demographic.
As of CRP - as a microbiologist this is not backed by data and you may be implementing confirmational bias. You cannot address the big picture without connecting the dots (data), otherwise you descend into a conspiratorial state.
No - there is no mass conspiracy hiding cures. There is simply too much genetic variation within the host and the vectors to develop a one size fits all cure. Drug products with >50% affinity are considered goldmines statistically.
What's interesting... in the weight gaining section, we have at least one member who has an autoimmune disorder and recently had some blood test done. What was interesting is she showed greater levels of inflammation in her system, but yet was not symptomatic. The only variable that changed was she started weight training.
Lifting messes with some of the blood work values though. Micro tears in muscle fibre would increase inflammation (I suspect, I haven't looked it up, but can do), just like it will increase CK levels.
Oh, most definitely. The point is, you can't just say the increase in CRP is bad. Not all inflammation is bad (although, it's how it's currently being perceived). Some things like lifting or eating insoluble fiber are good actions that can cause an inflammatory response.
Sorry, your post was a bit ambiguous (to me, anyway). Just clarifying.
It's a similar reason why a single value isn't enough (usually) to change treatment plans. Anomalous values come up for a variety of reasons. Changes between one reading and the next don't necessarily constitute direct relation with what's been changed. This is part of the reason why I find it dubious when people are self diagnosing and treating themselves based on that. That being said, I am all for research and learning more.
Sorry about that. I should have been added a bit more clarification in my post. I was more supplementing the previous post.
ETA: I definitely agree that people should look at a variety of diagnosed factors because a single data point will never give you a good picture.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Gale, I sincerely want to know. Do you truly believe that the scientific community is trying to suppress some 'truths' from you?
I actually wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion of a media literacy class. Rude, yes. Gale, I'm sorry that I was rude.
I think that many people, like William Shatner, genuinely believe that Google curates the web pages displayed in a search. Many people wrongly think that if something appears on Google it must have some legitimacy. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/what_we_can_learn_from_william_shatner_s_twitter_meltdown.html
@RoteBook I did see your post as rude nor those from others. I just see posts like that showing a misunderstanding about the complex human body in general.
After digging through medical research for over 40 years now I have developed some logic in understanding and reading research as well as in the process of earning my terminal degree in healthcare so I read everything that I find. Being able to do my own peer reviewing of others research takes away the fear of falling for false data long term like for example what has come out supporting Low Fat High Carb WOE's over the past 50 years for everyone. No one WOE fits everyone.
nhe.net/ebook/CleanArteriesForever.pdf was just an ebook that I came across last night with some info about urine and saliva pH ranges. It made reference out of Germany that points out the failure of over simplification of the concept of CICO when the concept is being applied to weight loss.
Just curious - your degree is in public health?
OD but in earning it I have to say the public health area of study was very interesting.
The first book I plan to publish some day most likely will be geared more to my life of pain and what I finally found that worked in my specific case to start recovering years of lost health and the associated effects.
I am only three years of my current research on my current way of eating and a lot of it is fitting in well with what I have researched over the past 40 years as to my personal health case. Patterns start to appear and sometimes it will be just one line in a low grade paper that will make past readings click. Close to 100% of research papers will contain statements that are highly questionable but that is just fine. I am going for the big picture.
One thing that I have learned about the CICO concept is to do it in a way that lowers my CRP test score. Almost no human diseases develop so they can harm or kill us without decades of low levels of body inflammation. The test is cheap in the USA and can be ordered myself online so it can be done as often as I wish. Below is just one option in my local area.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC120766/C-Reactive-Protein-CRP-Cardiac-Blood-Test?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=CjwKEAjwz9HHBRDbopLGh-afzB4SJABY52oFqWpcW_b5JqZ4C1FhYDAW9ToinVTU0N6ruJm27-jvQxoCKjTw_wcB
I only ask as I see a trend in public health trying to identify root causes on a macro scale, but coming to conclusions based on correlation rather than following the data.
There is no one root cause, but a culmination of several societal forces. Weight gain is the result of eating more than one needs - simple as that. The rate of obesity isn't terribly concerning and just shows that the average individual is consuming ~100-250 kcals/day than they should. Availability of food, decreasing exercise, increasing convenience, etc. all come together to make for the latest government intervention excuse.
This reinforces the application of CICO. Every validated weight loss program incorporates CICO, but changes the marketing slightly to suit the target demographic.
As of CRP - as a microbiologist this is not backed by data and you may be implementing confirmational bias. You cannot address the big picture without connecting the dots (data), otherwise you descend into a conspiratorial state.
No - there is no mass conspiracy hiding cures. There is simply too much genetic variation within the host and the vectors to develop a one size fits all cure. Drug products with >50% affinity are considered goldmines statistically.
What's interesting... in the weight gaining section, we have at least one member who has an autoimmune disorder and recently had some blood test done. What was interesting is she showed greater levels of inflammation in her system, but yet was not symptomatic. The only variable that changed was she started weight training.
Lifting messes with some of the blood work values though. Micro tears in muscle fibre would increase inflammation (I suspect, I haven't looked it up, but can do), just like it will increase CK levels.
Oh, most definitely. The point is, you can't just say the increase in CRP is bad. Not all inflammation is bad (although, it's how it's currently being perceived). Some things like lifting or eating insoluble fiber are good actions that can cause an inflammatory response.
Sorry, your post was a bit ambiguous (to me, anyway). Just clarifying.
It's a similar reason why a single value isn't enough (usually) to change treatment plans. Anomalous values come up for a variety of reasons. Changes between one reading and the next don't necessarily constitute direct relation with what's been changed. This is part of the reason why I find it dubious when people are self diagnosing and treating themselves based on that. That being said, I am all for research and learning more.
Sorry about that. I should have been added a bit more clarification in my post. I was more supplementing the previous post.
ETA: I definitely agree that people should look at a variety of diagnosed factors because a single data point will never give you a good picture.
Probably just my sleep deprived brain :laugh:1 -
As I said, I didn't agree with his reasons and I had reservations. Your response gives voice to some of those. What I said was that proper hydration was important and could help with weight control. And conversely, dehydration could slow metabolism. To be honest, I don't even think that's controversial.Tacklewasher wrote: »
I'm not sure about all this, and I won't post all my disagreements/questions here, but I do think hydration is important. Dehydration is one of the many things that can affect metabolism (and thus the CO part of the equation). And proper hydration seems to be helpful in increasing metabolism. There are a bunch of studies supporting the idea that drinking water helps with weight control or weight loss, though not necessarily for the same reasons that author thinks.GaleHawkins wrote: »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)"
Except that the "threat" of dehydration is very overblown in what Gale quoted. It's fear-mongering of the Taubes/sugar variety. Most people in the modern world, if they simply drink when thirsty, will be adequately hydrated. We have enough access to good quality water that it's not an issue. The 8 glasses is a bit of a myth as it refers to the "equivalent" of 8 glasses, with some of that being provided by food (my apple is juicy) as well as other liquids (my coffee is enjoyable) and, as long as your urine is not overly dark, your fine.
To try to link obesity to under-hydration is simply ridiculous. I'm not obese because I didn't drink enough water. I ate too much food. No clue why some want to place blame on odd things.
Nah. Was more commenting on the "75% of Americans are dehydrated" than anything you wrote. I just don't see hydration as being much of an issue in the Western World. It's being made an issue, but I just don't think data supports it. Yes, it can be an issue in theory, but it isn't in reality so it's not something to even fuss about.6 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »FindingAwesome 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.
Even if they were true, they don't necessarily mean the CICO equation doesn't work... It just means the rate at which the different body types burns calories is different. The trick is determining what your actual CO side of the equation is.
I.e. Lean and more muscle may burn cals at rate X, where as heavy with less muscle burns cals at Y. Once you determine what that variable is (CO) then you adjust what you eat to be less than that to lose weight.
I don't think you need that much of a handle on CO though. Pick a reasonable calorie target (TDEE calculators, or the calculator here can be a great srart). Track regularly for a period of time. Track weight changes over time. Adjust CI based on results.
Agreed. This is what I've done, and it's the only way I was able to lose those "last ten pounds" - even WITH my love for all things donutty and pizza related.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I just learned more about Vitamin K2 MK7 being essential in preventing heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc last week yet the research has been out on the web for years. Main stream medical reporting seldom is covering leading edge medical concepts and treatments that can make for interesting reading.
So here's where I call BS on all the "the cure is out there but the establishment just doesn't care/ or want to know/ or take the time to delve into the evidence". There are doctors and researchers out there who are dedicating their entire lives to the treatment of cancer. They watch people struggle and die, day by day. They cry along with the patient's family. Do you think all of these professionals are too dumb to find this info? Do you think that despite the personal impact their patients have on their lives they still value their profitability over prevention of the disease? Every single one of them?
And one more time for emphasis - Nothing you have posted negates the fact that our bodies run on an energy balance. You are arguing against the TDEE formula being absolute. Everyone here knows that the figure that MFP or some other calculator spits out is an estimate. You start there, and then you tweak until you find the right number for you. If you aren't patient enough to do the work, and would rather troll the interwebs for handfuls of magic pills and foods you need to swallow every day, go for it. But if you are maintaining your weight, that means you are consuming the same amount of calories your body is burning. Full stop. We're not talking about disease. We are not talking about optimal health. We are not talking about pain management. We are talking about weight.
@kimny72 where did you come up with your statement in quotes? "the cure is out there but the establishment just doesn't care/ or want to know/ or take the time to delve into the evidence"
When one uses the word CURE referring to a disease state most likely they have gone beyond science that will stand up in a courtroom.
Sure most of the medical community work to do the best they can within the scope of tools they have to use. That varies from government to government. Keep in mind people do die from magic pills and magic food.
I totally agree with you that TDEE is the CO side of CICO.
Since most that show up obese are that way for any number of reasons to talk about weight before talking a health can be self deceiving for that person. As long as one has a low to normal CRP test score and CI<CO they should lose weight relative easy. The body can gain weight for many reasons. Fat is one place the body can store toxic items that many overwhelm the body's ability to remove them through normal means especially if the weight loss is fast.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3569688/
Toxicological Function of Adipose Tissue: Focus on Persistent Organic Pollutants
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.
1 -
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
As others have mentioned, those body types have been debunked. In terms of CICO you could think of ectomorph as having a relatively high Calories Out so they tend to stay thinner at the same Calories In... endomorph as having relatively low Calories Out so they tend to gain fat/weight... mesomorph is basically an ectomorph with high testosterone.
In other words, CICO is the formula no matter what your metabolism/body type is. People are all different in terms of the CO. And it changes as you age also.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »...
Nah. Was more commenting on the "75% of Americans are dehydrated" than anything you wrote. I just don't see hydration as being much of an issue in the Western World. It's being made an issue, but I just don't think data supports it. Yes, it can be an issue in theory, but it isn't in reality so it's not something to even fuss about.
OK thanks.
Hydration in developed nations really hasn't been studied much, so it's hard to say how prevalent chronic dehydration is. It's not uncommon though. This article speaks to all that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908954/
Drinking water does seem to have a significant effect on weight control. These articles speak to that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27376070
(I'm guessing the effect would be greater on those who are chronically dehydrated.)
Just a personal observation, as well. When I wasn't very well attuned to what real hunger feels like, I often mistook slight dehydration for hunger. It's easy to do, and I expect is probably pretty common. I'm now much more aware of whether I'm genuinely hungry, or whether it's something else (thirst, boredom, etc.). Also, dehydration usually makes people feel sluggish, so we're likely to dial down our physical activity.0 -
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
- 396.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 450 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions