CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
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: »
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: »
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: »
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 -
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.
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: »
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 -
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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 -
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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
- 397K 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
- 456 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
- 4.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions