Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO -- what does it mean?
Replies
-
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.33 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf12 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
Maybe instead of copy and pasting text from a source you didn’t cite, you could share why you feel CICO is hocus pocus. The OP provided a good definition of what CICO is - simply an energy balance equation that has nothing to do with nutrition or satiety - and those points were also reinforced by others in this thread and countless others.
So what is it about CICO that you think is invalid?8 -
CICO is an eating equation and there are many philosophies on these boards. It's up to you to figure what works for you and I have only seen support.
What is it you are exactly looking for Lemur? We can all agree there is no magic but hard work depending on what program you choose. What do YOU want....all Mormans aside?
Do you just want an argument or an answer?
lol- you must be new here.9 -
cliffski13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Focusing just on the CICO bit:NotEmphatic wrote: »Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.
Your deal with CICO seems to be your fear that it means your weight is your fault.
CICO has nothing to do with blame. The meaning is only that the balance of CI and CO determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain weight (barring water fluctuations which don't matter for fat loss (what most are concerned about with weight loss), although they might matter for health in extreme circumstances).
Various medical conditions might affect CO, such as hypothyroid. You seem to be saying that your medical condition means less exercise, which would affect CO, but hardly contradicts CICO.
Other things also affect CI -- some people naturally get more calories from food than others (which, ironically, is the body acting more efficiently, so would in most circumstances be good). Some medications increase appetite. So on.
You still do "eat too much" (if too much means enough to gain weight), but you are the one putting the negative spin on this, not anyone else. And it may or may not be "your fault." I don't see self-recrimination here as useful so certainly don't phrase it that way, and if someone is hypothyroid and untreated, trying to eat super low cal isn't a great idea (so eating "too much" might be better in the short term). Treatment should resolve the issue, though.
I'm not aware of anything else that could affect CO significantly (I know about metabolic adaptation, but don't think it interferes with CICO working or is that significant). However, I believe that both CI and CO can be affected, so am open to an explanation. I think you are misunderstanding in thinking that changes to CI and CO mean that CICO is wrong -- no one says everything can be boiled down to known numbers or that everyone's numbers are the same. This just seems like a very basic misunderstanding.
Actually metabolic adaptation totally screws CICO up....it renders it a non existent principle.
No, that's not even close and adaptive thermogenesis (the actual term) has both short-term and long-term changes, but none of them are particularly powerful in terms of changing metabolic rates. Your body MUST generate energy in order for you to survive, and generating energy (your metabolism) is the primary goal of your body above all else. The body is very restricted in it's ability to alter it's metabolism other than consuming itself, e.g. skeletal muscular atrophy, it can do things like increase mitochondria to improve energy efficiency and it can reduce thyroid hormones to slightly reduce metabolism plus a few other noted changes, but none of these really change the bodies metabolism greatly.
Even if you could greatly alter metabolism, as in the case of some genetic and thyroid disease, you would only be altering the components of the equation. There is still a point where CI=CO, but it might be very low. You can't defeat a principle merely by changing the numbers.9 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
You claim that something is hocus pocus, then proceed to enter into the realm of pseudoscience at breakneck pace to show you don't understand what you are talking about.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
moosmum1972 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
You claim that something is hocus pocus, then proceed to enter into the realm of pseudoscience at breakneck pace to show you don't understand what you are talking about.
Even worse.
They stole the text. ..
Ahh, plagiarism is something I really can't abide. Quoting is fine but site your sources.7 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf
Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf
Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.
Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf
Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.
Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.
That and they don't actually have a working understanding of the thing they're trying to argue so use a "source", usually from a blog or some such, of the theories they've bought into but are unable to articulate themselves.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf
Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.
Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.
Cherry picking is a vital strategy to crackpots like Fung, Taubes, Mercola, et al. It's the only way they can make their silly arguments appear even halfway valid. "If the facts don't fit the theory, they must be discarded!".4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf
Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.
Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.
Cherry picking is a vital strategy to crackpots like Fung, Taubes, Mercola, et al. It's the only way they can make their silly arguments appear even halfway valid. "If the facts don't fit the theory, they must be discarded!".
Which is complete *kitten* backwards, in science the facts are what we measure the theory by not vice versa and if the theory doesn't fit the facts then the theory must be discarded. In practise, bad science never dies.4 -
cliffski13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Focusing just on the CICO bit:NotEmphatic wrote: »Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.
Your deal with CICO seems to be your fear that it means your weight is your fault.
CICO has nothing to do with blame. The meaning is only that the balance of CI and CO determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain weight (barring water fluctuations which don't matter for fat loss (what most are concerned about with weight loss), although they might matter for health in extreme circumstances).
Various medical conditions might affect CO, such as hypothyroid. You seem to be saying that your medical condition means less exercise, which would affect CO, but hardly contradicts CICO.
Other things also affect CI -- some people naturally get more calories from food than others (which, ironically, is the body acting more efficiently, so would in most circumstances be good). Some medications increase appetite. So on.
You still do "eat too much" (if too much means enough to gain weight), but you are the one putting the negative spin on this, not anyone else. And it may or may not be "your fault." I don't see self-recrimination here as useful so certainly don't phrase it that way, and if someone is hypothyroid and untreated, trying to eat super low cal isn't a great idea (so eating "too much" might be better in the short term). Treatment should resolve the issue, though.
I'm not aware of anything else that could affect CO significantly (I know about metabolic adaptation, but don't think it interferes with CICO working or is that significant). However, I believe that both CI and CO can be affected, so am open to an explanation. I think you are misunderstanding in thinking that changes to CI and CO mean that CICO is wrong -- no one says everything can be boiled down to known numbers or that everyone's numbers are the same. This just seems like a very basic misunderstanding.
Actually metabolic adaptation totally screws CICO up....it renders it a non existent principle.
Strong first post.
Dead wrong on metabolic adaptation. This manifests short term in direct response to the amount of food present. Similar to how a fire burns. More fuel = hotter fire, but shorter burn. Less fuel = lower fire. After ~24-72 hours MBR trends towards mean.6 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
I'm going with a no to all of this...6 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It really is that easy and many people actually don't want an easy answer. The fact that so many ridiculous theories continue to try to argue the law of thermodynamics proves it.
But even if whatever the above plagiarized quote means is true, it's still 100% CI-CO regardless if evil carbs, neurohormones, processed foods or whatever today's demon is magically make changes to your CO.3 -
I think the biggest issue is that CO can be affected by a LOT of things depending on the individual.
As an example, a couple years ago when I first decided to start losing some weight (because my pants didn't fit), I started with just counting calories. Pounds fell off, and then at about 15 pounds lost, I plateaued. Didn't change a thing about my CI, but couldn't get the scale to budge. I then took a look at macros, and started adding more fat back into my diet - my CI stayed the same, but the weight started to drop again. My CO, in terms of activity or other "normal" changes didn't change - but the way my body was processing things DID affect my CO (obviously).
I think that's where the debates start to happen - it's not that it doesn't work, it's just that CO can vary quite a bit depending on a lot of different factors. Our bodies are a dynamic, diverse system and every individual is unique. Our microbe make up is unique. It's not a closed system that just process things simply, BUT, that doesn't change the basic premises that you have to eat less than your body is using. How or why your body is using things a certain way can change dramatically for a lot of different reason, but the basic answer still applies.10 -
CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.18
-
Please stop derailing threads with your nonsense.8
-
Please stop derailing threads with your nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Tell me anything wrong with what I've said. I wouldn't push back so much if others were not so in the attack mode. I've said nothing wrong and I also said use CICO. I only ask that you all be a little open minded. I don't think you all are very open minded.18 -
Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
And CICO is a reflection of The First Law of Thermodynamics. Doesn't change the fact that you are getting definitions confused.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
"The energy expenditure rate includes the work to maintain basic metabolic function (resting metabolic rate), to digest, absorb and transport the nutrients in food (thermic effect of feeding), to synthesize or break down tissue, and to perform physical activity, together with the heat generated." If you understand thermo, you would not state that wasted heat is nonsense.9 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
And CICO is a reflection of The First Law of Thermodynamics. Doesn't change the fact that you are getting definitions confused.
No I am not.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.14 -
So now (I think!) we all agree that CICO and calorie counting is different.
From a practical perspective, there are many ways to adjust CICO so that you lose weight. Calorie counting is one. Other methods also may work (I've lost weight twice in my life, years apart, maintained for years, and the first time and the beginning of the second time I did not count, so obviously it is possible). Some of the common methods that people use are changing their diets in a way that increases satiety from fewer calories FOR THEM or makes casual overeating harder (again, for them -- for me this might be a bigger effect). Examples of this are keto, WFPB, paleo, etc. Other methods are changing eating patterns (which has the same two effects). While IF is an example of this, so is my preferred method (3 meals, no snacking). The thing with all these methods is that they assume the person will not overeat while using the method, and of course plenty who do IF or keto or my no snacking thing will still overeat. But also some won't be able to log well or will hate it too much to sustain it.
Whatever method you use, I do think that focusing on things like TEF and trying to "waste" calories is pretty much a waste of time (although worth knowing about, sure). That's because (among other things) you don't get any particular benefit from eating more "on the label" calories, especially if the way you do so is less satisfying to you. If it IS satisfying for you, do it for that reason.
I am somewhat a volume eater, not as much as some -- I did fine during my experiment with keto, although I still ate a decent amount of vegetables. I eat volume because I find it satisfying and enjoyable, not because I think it's inherently beneficial to eat the greatest volume you possibly can. Similarly, if including more protein in your diet is satiating to you (it is for many), do that, but NOT because the TEF is higher. Eating 2000 estimated calories that end up being 1600 when everything is taken into account is not inherently more satisfying or enjoyable or "optimal" than eating 1750 estimated calories that are 1600 when everything is taken into account.
The idea that it's optimal to eat as much as possible more than you actually digest is really puzzling to me. Might as well say the optimal thing is that icky gadget that lets you remove food after you eat it, and, well, ick. But if YOU PERSONALLY find that eating in a particular way is more satisfying (having one big meal rather than 3 smaller ones), that's totally reasonable. People will differ on what they find satisfying, though, and it's not based on maximizing label calories. I would HATE eating a bunch of mini meals or grazing in lieu of meals, but some love that and find it far more satisfying than other ways of eating. Some find apples make them hungry and bread is satisfying, I am (usually) the opposite. That's why preaching OMAD or whatever as optimal is wrong (optimal for you, sure, but it wouldn't work for me -- I can't eat that much at one meal if it has sufficient protein and vegetables and I dislike feeling overstuffed, it would ruin the pleasure not increase it).3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here is everything wrong with what you post.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.
Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.
Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?
What does that have to do with anything? No, I haven't, but that's not at issue here. The reason I said that what you were spewing about heat being garbage was because your understanding of the scientific definition of CICO is flawed.
Everything you think it doesn't account for, it does. That's the real issue. It's all covered in the paper I posted.
Every calorie not digested, every extra calorie expended... it's all part of the equation.
The fact that we as we go about dieting can't readily account for, manipulate, or implement (except maybe by macro choice) these variables doesn't discount, diminish, or negate CICO.
There are only a few variables we can get a reasonable accounting for, so we go from there and make do, but those who know what's going on understand that there's more at work. I know, for example, that by choosing to get a diet high in protein, I'm maximizing the TEF in my calories.
I actually understand most of the paper you put forth scanning it. The lingo they used is system dynamics lingo which is what I got my masters in. I hope to read the paper at some point. I've studied advanced thermo and I guarantee you that I have a working knowledge of it. I find it rich that your lecturing me on the topic and telling what the paper says. I've also agreed that CICO has the terms but not all the effects on the terms for energy in and out of the body. You do not understand what I'm saying. The paper says such that there is important research to do to understand the effects on those terms.
I do understand what you're saying just fine.
You think everyone else thinks CICO is just what you eat vs. your BMR + Exercise + NEAT, and you're saying it's more dynamic and complicated than that.
Many of us are telling you that our understanding from the science of CICO as we know it is that yes, CICO is indeed more dynamic and complicated than that, but for practical purposes, simply (if you're going to engage in counting) calculating how many calories you eat vs. your BMR + EE will give you the energy balance you need to either lose, gain, or maintain weight in a close proximation to enough to expected results. Adjust as needed based on real actual results/feedback from the scale over time.
So, don't sweat the small stuff
8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions