CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
At this stage of the game it seems you are just willfully missing the point.12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I understand some do calorie counting to spit shine their physical appearance and some like me have counted calories to stay alive until we learn how to come up with a macro (that may evolve over time) that resolves our over eating disorder.
@psuLemon I see you are trying to be helpful here to others as you teach yourself. You are not a MFP cyber bully that may be willing to run off new MFP forum members before they get started very well. CICO is a good tool but it is not a long term scientific solution as some non professionals preach.
Energy balance to me is what it takes to maintain a stable weight level.
CICO is a great tool as we work to learn how to develop the correct macro that enables our brain to take control of our eating disorders so counting calories are not required to eat that automatically have a CI=CO state of energy balance.
Counting calories for over/under eaters is like training wheels on a bicycle in that manually managing our intake and burn of food sources is possible as we work to understand we have an eating disorder and work to find the cause then solution.
A kid that for some reason (there are several that come to mind) who never develops the skill of riding a two wheel bike can just move to a three wheel bike. I see one in town all of the time that is now about 50 years old pedaling a tri.
CICO does not explain WHY we humans come to eat in an unbalanced way no more that why an alcoholic drinks in an unbalanced way. Dr. Peter Attia is concerned with overcoming eating disorders starting with himself if you have read much of his research.
Thank you for being an asset to all MFP members. I can see how you may sometimes view me as being greater than ninety degrees but less than 0ne-hundred and eight. Those are hard to set in a corner.
Gale, I mean this in the most helpful matter... i think you need to do some research on some a basic understanding of what energy balance (CICO) actually is.
I will repeat what I have said to you and others in the passed debates when it comes to CICO. We are not discussing the social, economical, behavioral, psychological or multifaceted issues that come into play when it comes to losing weight. We are debating or meaning discussing the merits of energy balance as the basis for weight management. Energy balance is a core concept to understand to drive your results and address deficiencies in plans when they occur.
Subsequently, counting calories is just as much of a tool as any other tool, such as: bathroom scale, food scale, fitbit, tape measure, etc. Failing to recognize that is a failure on your own belief. Looking for other silver bullets is not going to provide any additional justices if you do not recognize the most basic of concepts; it's the equivalent of taking supplements without addressing caloric requirements. Or doing a bro-split laden with isometric moves instead of starting with a full body routine focused on compound lifts with built in progressive overload.
healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
I did find this about CICO that meshes with the world of science as it seems to relate to healthcare. It also mentioned how the Calorie is a Calorie thought came out of Harvard- Fredrick John Stare (April 11, 1910 – April 4, 2002).1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
I understand some do calorie counting to spit shine their physical appearance and some like me have counted calories to stay alive until we learn how to come up with a macro (that may evolve over time) that resolves our over eating disorder.
@psuLemon I see you are trying to be helpful here to others as you teach yourself. You are not a MFP cyber bully that may be willing to run off new MFP forum members before they get started very well. CICO is a good tool but it is not a long term scientific solution as some non professionals preach.
Energy balance to me is what it takes to maintain a stable weight level.
CICO is a great tool as we work to learn how to develop the correct macro that enables our brain to take control of our eating disorders so counting calories are not required to eat that automatically have a CI=CO state of energy balance.
Counting calories for over/under eaters is like training wheels on a bicycle in that manually managing our intake and burn of food sources is possible as we work to understand we have an eating disorder and work to find the cause then solution.
A kid that for some reason (there are several that come to mind) who never develops the skill of riding a two wheel bike can just move to a three wheel bike. I see one in town all of the time that is now about 50 years old pedaling a tri.
CICO does not explain WHY we humans come to eat in an unbalanced way no more that why an alcoholic drinks in an unbalanced way. Dr. Peter Attia is concerned with overcoming eating disorders starting with himself if you have read much of his research.
Thank you for being an asset to all MFP members. I can see how you may sometimes view me as being greater than ninety degrees but less than 0ne-hundred and eight. Those are hard to set in a corner.
Gale, I mean this in the most helpful matter... i think you need to do some research on some a basic understanding of what energy balance (CICO) actually is.
I will repeat what I have said to you and others in the passed debates when it comes to CICO. We are not discussing the social, economical, behavioral, psychological or multifaceted issues that come into play when it comes to losing weight. We are debating or meaning discussing the merits of energy balance as the basis for weight management. Energy balance is a core concept to understand to drive your results and address deficiencies in plans when they occur.
Subsequently, counting calories is just as much of a tool as any other tool, such as: bathroom scale, food scale, fitbit, tape measure, etc. Failing to recognize that is a failure on your own belief. Looking for other silver bullets is not going to provide any additional justices if you do not recognize the most basic of concepts; it's the equivalent of taking supplements without addressing caloric requirements. Or doing a bro-split laden with isometric moves instead of starting with a full body routine focused on compound lifts with built in progressive overload.
healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
I did find this about CICO that meshes with the world of science as it seems to relate to healthcare. It also mentioned how the Calorie is a Calorie thought came out of Harvard- Fredrick John Stare (April 11, 1910 – April 4, 2002).
I have a feeling that the author of your link did not know the actual calories he was consuming and was eating more than he thought. It's still the math of calories consumed and burned.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
I understand some do calorie counting to spit shine their physical appearance and some like me have counted calories to stay alive until we learn how to come up with a macro (that may evolve over time) that resolves our over eating disorder.
@psuLemon I see you are trying to be helpful here to others as you teach yourself. You are not a MFP cyber bully that may be willing to run off new MFP forum members before they get started very well. CICO is a good tool but it is not a long term scientific solution as some non professionals preach.
Energy balance to me is what it takes to maintain a stable weight level.
CICO is a great tool as we work to learn how to develop the correct macro that enables our brain to take control of our eating disorders so counting calories are not required to eat that automatically have a CI=CO state of energy balance.
Counting calories for over/under eaters is like training wheels on a bicycle in that manually managing our intake and burn of food sources is possible as we work to understand we have an eating disorder and work to find the cause then solution.
A kid that for some reason (there are several that come to mind) who never develops the skill of riding a two wheel bike can just move to a three wheel bike. I see one in town all of the time that is now about 50 years old pedaling a tri.
CICO does not explain WHY we humans come to eat in an unbalanced way no more that why an alcoholic drinks in an unbalanced way. Dr. Peter Attia is concerned with overcoming eating disorders starting with himself if you have read much of his research.
Thank you for being an asset to all MFP members. I can see how you may sometimes view me as being greater than ninety degrees but less than 0ne-hundred and eight. Those are hard to set in a corner.
Gale, I mean this in the most helpful matter... i think you need to do some research on some a basic understanding of what energy balance (CICO) actually is.
I will repeat what I have said to you and others in the passed debates when it comes to CICO. We are not discussing the social, economical, behavioral, psychological or multifaceted issues that come into play when it comes to losing weight. We are debating or meaning discussing the merits of energy balance as the basis for weight management. Energy balance is a core concept to understand to drive your results and address deficiencies in plans when they occur.
Subsequently, counting calories is just as much of a tool as any other tool, such as: bathroom scale, food scale, fitbit, tape measure, etc. Failing to recognize that is a failure on your own belief. Looking for other silver bullets is not going to provide any additional justices if you do not recognize the most basic of concepts; it's the equivalent of taking supplements without addressing caloric requirements. Or doing a bro-split laden with isometric moves instead of starting with a full body routine focused on compound lifts with built in progressive overload.
healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
I did find this about CICO that meshes with the world of science as it seems to relate to healthcare. It also mentioned how the Calorie is a Calorie thought came out of Harvard- Fredrick John Stare (April 11, 1910 – April 4, 2002).
This article is making the same premise mistake that you're making...that CICO is calorie counting...it isn't. If you're losing weight, you're consuming fewer calories than you're expending and you are in a calorie restricted state...if you're maintaining weight, you're consuming a balance of energy.
And I pretty sure everyone is well aware of TEF...and they way the body uses and metabolizes macro-nutrients...I don't see how TEF somehow debunks CICO...it's actually part of the CO.
So not really sure what the point is here.
I don't count calories at all...that doesn't mean CICO (energy balance equation) isn't in play when I'm maintaining or trying to cut weight...I'm not sure how you can possibly be this dense as to not understand that CICO is simply an energy formula. Yes, it is simple...but it really doesn't need to be complicated.5 -
Just want to put this out there for some of the newbies, and others that may be a bit confused about the whole concept of "CICO"- Calories in VS Calories Out.
First, CICO is a math formula that will tell you one of three things.
If you want to lose weight, then you need to make your Calories In less than Out = calorie deficit to lose weight.
Second, if you want to maintain then you need of make your calories in = calories out = maintenance to maintain current weight.
Finally, if you want to gain, then you need to make your calories in greater than your calories out = caloric surplus.
CICO is not a way of eating, I repeat CICO is not a way of eating. If you are doing Keto, low carb, moderate protein/moderate carbs, IIFYM, etc and you are gaining, maintaining, or losing weight then you are using the fundamental principle of CICO.
CICO is not eating a diet of 100% "junk," or ignoring nutrition, or not caring about body composition, it is just a math formula that tells you to reach a goal. The formula is not perfect and it requires trial and error, but in the end it works for everyone, period.
If your goal is straight weight loss then you can just apply CICO, and eat less than you burn.
If your goal is to be more lean, or have advanced body composition goals, then you are going to need macro/micro adherence + a structured exercise regimen.
Finally, all calories are equal in that they provide the same measure of energy; however, they do not all contain the same nutritional profile.
Gale, I feel like a review of the original post might help clear up some of your confusion. As it's been stated over and over, CICO is an equation, not a tool. It exists whether you think it does or doesn't. There might be a million factors that influence each individual, but that was not the point of the post. The point of the post was to explain the simple concept that governs weight-loss, weight-gain, and maintenance. This is a fact.
Please don't over complicate weight-loss for people. By adding the 18 pages? of posts arguing this, it really jumbles up the message. Why can't you let people enjoy the "aha" moment of realizing how simple weight-loss is.
Simple =/= Easy
It's like arguing that sky is a different shade of blue vs. just blue. What's the point? Why over complicate it.17 -
I love this thread. OP your points hit it on every level, but watching this discussion is like watching a video of all the "reasons" I gave myself that I couldn't lose weight for so many years. When I finally just admitted that I needed to eat less and move more, the most amazing thing happend...... I lost weight! 17
-
hlblakeley wrote: »I love this thread. OP your points hit it on every level, but watching this discussion is like watching a video of all the "reasons" I gave myself that I couldn't lose weight for so many years. When I finally just admitted that I needed to eat less and move more, the most amazing thing happend...... I lost weight!
I'm happy for you, I had the same revelation! The message is being lost. This thread like all the ads you see online, none of them mention calories, but eat this and don't eat that. SMH3 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »hlblakeley wrote: »I love this thread. OP your points hit it on every level, but watching this discussion is like watching a video of all the "reasons" I gave myself that I couldn't lose weight for so many years. When I finally just admitted that I needed to eat less and move more, the most amazing thing happend...... I lost weight!
I'm happy for you, I had the same revelation! The message is being lost. This thread like all the ads you see online, none of them mention calories, but eat this and don't eat that. SMH
The message isn't lost. This is a refusal to admit that their behavior is the root cause of their failure to manage weight. They desperately grasp at straws, outliers, anything to deflect responsibility. Similar to the stages of grief they are stuck in denial.9 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »hlblakeley wrote: »I love this thread. OP your points hit it on every level, but watching this discussion is like watching a video of all the "reasons" I gave myself that I couldn't lose weight for so many years. When I finally just admitted that I needed to eat less and move more, the most amazing thing happend...... I lost weight!
I'm happy for you, I had the same revelation! The message is being lost. This thread like all the ads you see online, none of them mention calories, but eat this and don't eat that. SMH
The awesome thing is that many (if not most) will not read the whole thread. They will read the OP and grasp it, read a couple of the first replies and then wander on to something else.
It's kind of amazing how one or two people can take a post affirming the basic fact of energy balance and conflate it into 19 pages of whatever the heck is going on here. But I honestly believe the only people who will be confused by it are people looking for an excuse to not give the food diary an honest try. And they probably wouldn't have taken the OP to heart anyway 6 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »hlblakeley wrote: »I love this thread. OP your points hit it on every level, but watching this discussion is like watching a video of all the "reasons" I gave myself that I couldn't lose weight for so many years. When I finally just admitted that I needed to eat less and move more, the most amazing thing happend...... I lost weight!
I'm happy for you, I had the same revelation! The message is being lost. This thread like all the ads you see online, none of them mention calories, but eat this and don't eat that. SMH
The message isn't lost. This is a refusal to admit that their behavior is the root cause of their failure to manage weight. They desperately grasp at straws, outliers, anything to deflect responsibility. Similar to the stages of grief they are stuck in denial.
Fundamentally understanding energy balance AND seeing how my behavior played into it have been keys to my success.
I've recently hit a bad patch due to a stressful situation, but I knew what I was doing and was okay with having a loose hold on the reins for that spell of time food-wise. I knew that I could get back on the horse and continue on my path when the dust settled because I was well-informed and not making excuses for myself.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
I am not familiar with all of these conditions - but taking the genetic condition I am familiar with, Prader -Willi syndrome: it is not an exception to CICO.
The main problem,from a weight point of view, with Prader Willi syndrome is people with it have no sensation of feeling full.
They also have intellectual disability so they are not able to rationalise this and self monitor their intake.
Hence, if not closely supervised, they take in far more calories than they burn and become overweight - aka CICO.
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. 2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.23 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
Untrue. I have seen posts from people *insisting* they are eating more than they're burning and not gaining weight (usually these people are either doing keto or a HCLF diet). I'd like to hope that most people logging on understand that if you eat more than you burn you will gain weight, but to say everyone does . . . not true, unfortunately.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.
@A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.-1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.
@A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.
And you would be wrong.
So very very wrong.
But I must say, you take majoring in the minors/not seeing the forest for the trees to a whole new level.22 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
Untrue. I have seen posts from people *insisting* they are eating more than they're burning and not gaining weight (usually these people are either doing keto or a HCLF diet). I'd like to hope that most people logging on understand that if you eat more than you burn you will gain weight, but to say everyone does . . . not true, unfortunately.
Will you share three links that shows the validity of your last post?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.
@A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.
How is informing people how weight loss works "fake news"? How can someone be harmed by understanding how their body stores energy?8 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »geneticsteacher wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.
I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.
https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes
Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:
Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide
ETA: endocrine disorders:
Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million
@3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.
@A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.
And you would be wrong.
So very very wrong.
But I must say, you take majoring in the minors/not seeing the forest for the trees to a whole new level.
Then post links based on science that prove me wrong!1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions