CICO, It's a math formula

Options
1232426282931

Replies

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Options
    So the whole argument is (Gale) that the prediction isn't 100%? That's your argument?

    It doesn't matter. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

    No that is not my argument.

    My statement is starting a thread addressed to new MFP forum members that contains misleading/false statements when it comes to diet health can be harmful to new members as well a the mission goal in general.

    We know CICO is not a math formula or someone would have posted it by now.

    No one here even knows their own CI or CO and that does not matter when it comes to losing/maintaining/gaining weight. If CO is the same daily then we could just make a change in the calories we eat or the macro we eat since all calories are not the same when consumed a food for the human body. CO could be the variable as well.

    Using an accurate set of bathroom scales is all that is needed when thinking about the concept of CICO that has no functional formula to compute.

    CICO in no way teaches us how we lost our natural ability to eat to maintain a healthy weight that occurred before we became obese or how to fix it.

    The main reason most people that lose weight will have a 100%+ regain in the following years is not due to CICO concept failure but will be due to understand WHY and HOW they had gained the weight in the first place that they just lost.

    All I am saying is do not mislead new MFP forum members with misleading and false info that would never stand up in most courtrooms if challenged. There are good things that can be helpful to all members that can be shared about why we gain weight and how we can lose weight and never regain it.



  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,082 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    So the whole argument is (Gale) that the prediction isn't 100%? That's your argument?

    It doesn't matter. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

    No that is not my argument.

    My statement is starting a thread addressed to new MFP forum members that contains misleading/false statements when it comes to diet health can be harmful to new members as well a the mission goal in general.

    We know CICO is not a math formula or someone would have posted it by now.

    No one here even knows their own CI or CO and that does not matter when it comes to losing/maintaining/gaining weight. If CO is the same daily then we could just make a change in the calories we eat or the macro we eat since all calories are not the same when consumed a food for the human body. CO could be the variable as well.

    Using an accurate set of bathroom scales is all that is needed when thinking about the concept of CICO that has no functional formula to compute.

    CICO in no way teaches us how we lost our natural ability to eat to maintain a healthy weight that occurred before we became obese or how to fix it.

    The main reason most people that lose weight will have a 100%+ regain in the following years is not due to CICO concept failure but will be due to understand WHY and HOW they had gained the weight in the first place that they just lost.

    All I am saying is do not mislead new MFP forum members with misleading and false info that would never stand up in most courtrooms if challenged. There are good things that can be helpful to all members that can be shared about why we gain weight and how we can lose weight and never regain it.



    Pretty ridiculous argument. Dietary advice doesn't go to courtrooms. It's not a law.


    And I can guarantee you, that I have helped more people than most on this board and have done a significant amounts of one on one work with members all base done CICO as done over the law of averages. It does NOT need to be exact. It needs to be consistent, that is it.


    And you know why we got fat.. it's because we ate too much fat.

    um

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,402 MFP Moderator
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    So the whole argument is (Gale) that the prediction isn't 100%? That's your argument?

    It doesn't matter. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

    No that is not my argument.

    My statement is starting a thread addressed to new MFP forum members that contains misleading/false statements when it comes to diet health can be harmful to new members as well a the mission goal in general.

    We know CICO is not a math formula or someone would have posted it by now.

    No one here even knows their own CI or CO and that does not matter when it comes to losing/maintaining/gaining weight. If CO is the same daily then we could just make a change in the calories we eat or the macro we eat since all calories are not the same when consumed a food for the human body. CO could be the variable as well.

    Using an accurate set of bathroom scales is all that is needed when thinking about the concept of CICO that has no functional formula to compute.

    CICO in no way teaches us how we lost our natural ability to eat to maintain a healthy weight that occurred before we became obese or how to fix it.

    The main reason most people that lose weight will have a 100%+ regain in the following years is not due to CICO concept failure but will be due to understand WHY and HOW they had gained the weight in the first place that they just lost.

    All I am saying is do not mislead new MFP forum members with misleading and false info that would never stand up in most courtrooms if challenged. There are good things that can be helpful to all members that can be shared about why we gain weight and how we can lose weight and never regain it.



    Pretty ridiculous argument. Dietary advice doesn't go to courtrooms. It's not a law.


    And I can guarantee you, that I have helped more people than most on this board and have done a significant amounts of one on one work with members all base done CICO as done over the law of averages. It does NOT need to be exact. It needs to be consistent, that is it.


    And you know why we got fat.. it's because we ate too much fat.

    um

    Umm.. its a joke ;)
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,874 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    As I stepped on the scale last night and it read 222.....20lbs down from 242lbs in 6 weeks I thought to myself, this is such a simple program The key for me has been to OVERESTIMATE the calories eaten and UNDERESTIMATE any exercise I do. "To thine on self be true" is the code to follow. I chose the most sedentary job catagory as well!. As stated here it is a simple addition & subtraction if your using the correct numbers. And by the way, not all the calories numbers are correct in the library, look at a few items and figure out the real total.

    The other truth I have found that makes this program sustainable...If I want to eat more, do more exercise, walk the dogs, hit the machines at gym

    Another thing I've learned is that I like to eat at night, I'm learning to skip big breakfasts and lunch to save it for dinner.... unless I know I have a big day of activity and can get away with it

    And last but not least I know that when I get to 205 (target weight) I can up my calories to 2500 a day...... BEFORE any exercise.

    I'm blown away at how well it has worked, just tracking calories and watching the scale.

    I think many of us were (pleasantly) surprised to discover how simple it can be! Glad you've joined the ranks :smile: All the more reason why it's so *kitten* frustrating when threads that start off so great get completely derailed and twisted by one or two particular users' personal agenda. @ironheadallen
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,082 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    Not to mention the ODs.

    Or is it DO?

    Regardless.
This discussion has been closed.