CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »
Lol not surprising but, yes frustrating ...9 -
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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???13 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »
Lol not surprising but, yes frustrating ...
And it all started out so well. Sigh. 5 -
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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?2 -
endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
Because if I eat around 2500 I maintain: 2600 and over start gaining ; 2400 and undeer start losing13 -
endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
Because if I eat around 2500 I maintain: 2600 and over start gaining ; 2400 and undeer start losing
Kind of like it's a math formula or something
29 -
endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
14 -
endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
1 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?6 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk6 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
ha! Welcome to MFP.
Wait. Welcome to internet forums.1 -
I thought for sure this thread would stay on track and everyone would understand what the OP was saying...18
-
cmriverside wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
ha! Welcome to MFP.
Wait. Welcome to internet forums.
heehee from someone with 21k posts to someone with 2k posts I'm thinking I will never really get it:)0 -
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
Ok if you were seriously asking me that question, then my answer is. I don't care about precision. If anything the nonprecision aspect reinforces my point. It's overkill.
Your question is better directed at ndj1979, who brought up precision.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 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.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
Ok if you were seriously asking me that question, then my answer is. I don't care about precision. If anything the nonprecision aspect reinforces my point. It's overkill.
Your question is better directed at ndj1979, who brought up precision.
I am totally serious...for you non-precision is wonderful and great. I totally get that. But can't you acknowledge that others need to get pretty close?
I'm not knocking what works for you, in fact its the opposite I'm happy and it gives me hope I don't have to been super duper accurate about everything, BUT some folks need to, and there is nothing wrong with that. Right?2 -
MFP? Never heard of it...8
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