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 is overrated in my opinion
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Exactly.
If one person says something and it gets 20 "woos" and then thirty more people give a completely different view (and they mostly agree) m a y b e the person who everyone disagrees with could take that as a learning moment.15 -
I’m new to MFP and have also noticed that you are attacked when you ever bring up a different point of view . Proves that people only want to hear what their doing is the right and only way.
From the perspective of an outsider (someone who reads these forums a lot but doesn't generally comment), I don't see people being "attacked" for having a different point of view. You might be questioned on your statements and reasoning if they can't be adequately backed up. Particularly when those statements might be misinformed or misconstrued by others. However, the people you're referring to who question such statements (whether they are from new or old posters) are usually also the ones who take the time to think critically, formulate their ideas, and offer scientific evidence to back up their opinions. I've learnt a lot this way - it might be worth keeping an open mind.19 -
I’m new to MFP and have also noticed that you are attacked when you ever bring up a different point of view . Proves that people only want to hear what their doing is the right and only way.
In 81 posts, a lot of them in the debate subforum, you are surprised at having your views challenged? And you have told people they're wrong, are they too to be offended? Or, as they have done, do they defend their position and back up those views with facts rather than hyperbole?14 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I’m new to MFP and have also noticed that you are attacked when you ever bring up a different point of view . Proves that people only want to hear what their doing is the right and only way.
In 81 posts, a lot of them in the debate subforum, you are surprised at having your views challenged? And you have told people they're wrong, are they too to be offended? Or, as they have done, do they defend their position and back up those views with facts rather than hyperbole?
Especially when said views have absolutely no factual/scientific backing?5 -
hungrywombat wrote: »I’m new to MFP and have also noticed that you are attacked when you ever bring up a different point of view . Proves that people only want to hear what their doing is the right and only way.
From the perspective of an outsider (someone who reads these forums a lot but doesn't generally comment), I don't see people being "attacked" for having a different point of view. You might be questioned on your statements and reasoning if they can't be adequately backed up. Particularly when those statements might be misinformed or misconstrued by others. However, the people you're referring to who question such statements (whether they are from new or old posters) are usually also the ones who take the time to think critically, formulate their ideas, and offer scientific evidence to back up their opinions. I've learnt a lot this way - it might be worth keeping an open mind.
You should speak your mind more often.14 -
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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.15
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »hungrywombat wrote: »I’m new to MFP and have also noticed that you are attacked when you ever bring up a different point of view . Proves that people only want to hear what their doing is the right and only way.
From the perspective of an outsider (someone who reads these forums a lot but doesn't generally comment), I don't see people being "attacked" for having a different point of view. You might be questioned on your statements and reasoning if they can't be adequately backed up. Particularly when those statements might be misinformed or misconstrued by others. However, the people you're referring to who question such statements (whether they are from new or old posters) are usually also the ones who take the time to think critically, formulate their ideas, and offer scientific evidence to back up their opinions. I've learnt a lot this way - it might be worth keeping an open mind.
You should speak your mind more often.
Agreed. Very well spoken.2 -
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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
You waste a lot of time majoring in the minors. You, or anyone else, short of a metabolic lab, have not ability to quantify any of this with any more exactness than calorie counting. You are trying to reinvent the wheel and it is truly a waste of time.13 -
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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
You waste a lot of time majoring in the minors. You, or anyone else, short of a metabolic lab, have not ability to quantify any of this with any more exactness than calorie counting. You are trying to reinvent the wheel and it is truly a waste of time.
I said the CICO is a good tool. What are you getting bent about. I'm just stating a fact and the effects I mentioned only help. I'm not trying to re-invent anything. It is just of intellectual curiosity to me and I do think there are factors that can help and augment deficits if understood. Why do you say I'm trying to re-invent something?9 -
CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool. CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body. Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food? Most people don't use it that way. Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't. A car operates more efficiently at different power settings but a body doesn't? CICO as used by most here at MFP is a very rough tool and is an estimate only. If you included all waste heat and unused calories excreted from the body then CICO would be 100% accurate and not an estimate anymore and would accurately describe the physics going on.20 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool.
No, CICO is not an estimate of the energy balance, it refers to the energy balance.
Calorie counting is based on estimating CI and CO.
Again, you seem to be mixing up calorie counting and CICO, beats me why.CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body.
Name one that cannot be encompassed by CICO.
Wasted calories? IMO, not calories in -- they bypass the system.
You could also describe them as calories out, but I think my way makes more sense.
Increased metabolism/TEF? That increases calories out.
It's like you are trying really, really hard to misinterpret everyone.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool.
No, CICO is not an estimate of the energy balance, it refers to the energy balance.
Calorie counting is based on estimating CI and CO.
Again, you seem to be mixing up calorie counting and CICO, beats me why.CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body.
Name one that cannot be encompassed by CICO.
Wasted calories? IMO, not calories in -- they bypass the system.
You could also describe them as calories out, but I think my way makes more sense.
Increased metabolism/TEF? That increases calories out.
It's like you are trying really, really hard to misinterpret everyone.
See the post above this one.12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It would be very difficult for me to figure out how many calories I eat with high accuracy because I don't do the majority of our cooking and we eat mostly everything made from scratch.
I mostly cook everything from scratch and did when losing weight and it was super easy for me.
I do cook, though. If someone else does all your cooking for you, I'm sure that would be harder unless that person was also into logging.
Doing portions/servings doesn't make it hard, but not being the cook would.
Like I said before, I don't plan to log at maintenance, but your consistent claims that it's super hard to log or requires being uptight and anal and all that are kind of offensive and mostly just show you don't know what you are talking about. It's a super easy thing to add to the cooking process for many of us.
I said some may have it down and it is easy for them. Good for them. I did count for awhile when I started my diet (not to control how much I ate but just our of curiosity) and it did take a long time so I do know a little bit about it. I've also seen many people complain about it. This whole thread was started I think because if the concern of having to keep doing it. Many people do have issues with it and others are super anal about it.
CICO IS NOT Calorie Counting.
This thread is about CICO, NOT calorie counting.
The only reason people count is so that they can stay under what CICO says will bring a loss. CICO is the physics of the body and will predict the loss. Counting is a way to use CICO to your advantage. I think I understand that. You can have losses due to CICO without counting also. Your right they are different. Counting is NOT a pre-requisite for having a deficit due to CICO. Counting is just a tool, there are other tools also.
CICO does not say what specific calorie level will bring a loss for any specific person. It doesn't, itself, generate predictions.
Yet because of the CICO equation, one can rationally predict that for any generally sort-of-healthy person X, there exists some calorie level Y at which, on any specific given day, their body fat weight will remain stable. Humans being creatures of habit, there will likely be some average calorie level Z (or TDEE
) that represents the central tendency of X's various daily Ys over time. Y and Z are virtually impossible to measure. But useful estimates are possible.
OP's point seems to have been that one can employ this type of useful estimate,
employ calorie counting as a tool (not necessarily the only possible tool), get adequate nutrition eating foods that would make a prescriptive "clean eater" shudder, and still achieve significant improvements in body composition. In my understanding - possibly flawed - I think that's what the thread is about.
Personal opinion: That point, this clearly illustrated, is some powerful myth-busting.
Arguing about whether and how to calorie count is fun, but kind of beside the point.
I'm just saying the dynamic equation is a lot more complicated than CI the mouth minis CO due to work and static BMR. The traditional definition of CICO is conservative (worst case) estimate for deficits and you are guaranteed to get at least a deficit equal to the calories consumed minus the average static bmr and the work the body does. I know CICO isn't a prediction. It is the physics. I'm just saying the physics is a lot more complicated than CICO but CICO is a very useful approximation and conservative estimate of what the physics is doing.
But why? Why make it complicated?
I'm not making it complicated. I said CICO was a great approximation and useful tool. If you really want to get deep and maybe understand things better, then you have to get more complicated. That's science.
CICO is not an approximation. It doesn't give you the numbers. It doesn't give you differing scenarios which may affect those numbers. It is literally just the function. You have to work out as usefully accurate as is possible what those numbers are for you. That's it. Time eating at X calorie level will give you enough data to to make a good close approximation of what your own CICO is. Not complicated.
CI in the mouth and CO of the body are an approximation of CI the fat cell and CO of a fat cell.
No, it's not. I'm not sure why you continue to confuse CICO with calorie counting when it's been said a million times (that's an approximation, I did not count) that it is not, CICO simply refers to the fact that calorie balance determines weight loss, gain, or maintenance.
YES, there are a number of things that affect calorie balance, but -- and this is about counting --watching the things we can easily control and adjusting if results aren't what you want is going to be good enough for the vast majority of people (those without medical issues -- people with medical issues may need to correct that first, and I mostly just mean hypothyroid). But this last paragraph is a separate thing from the fact that calorie balance determines weight gain, loss, or maintenance (i.e., CICO).
If not all food is digested and there is wast heat then that proves that CI the mouth minus cal out due to a static bmr minus work done by the body is not equal to CICO for a fat cell. Calorie balance for a fat cell is what determines if you lose fat or not. There will always be a greater deficit of calories out of a fat cell to produce work from the body due to waste heat. That is simple thermodynamics and accounting for where the energy goes. I know physics and I now what counting is. I've said CICO as you use it is sufficient and a good tool. Why do you attack when I've said that over and over again? I'm not so sure you grasp what I'm saying.
Moved the above from the other thread.
I think one thing you don't understand (based on the above) is that when we say a brazil nut is 30 calories, that is NOT a certain number. It's an estimate. The calorie value of the brazil nut might be more or less (due to the specific nut), AND (importantly for this discussion, not really otherwise), it might be LESS for you specifically if you don't digest it well or (obviously) have a stomach bug when you eat it or whatever. (And probably nuts all have fewer calories when it comes to actual calories in than they are listed at, and they have a particular TEF also.)
If you eat a brazil nut and only get 25 calories from it, and burn another 2 in digesting (random numbers), it's not "what happened to the missing 7 calories, CICO is wrong). It's that you only ingested (CI) 25 calories, and you had a CO of 2 calories (plus whatever else came into play).7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool. CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body. Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food? Most people don't use it that way. Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't. A car operates more efficiently at different power settings but a body doesn't? CICO as used by most here at MFP is a very rough tool and is an estimate only. If you included all waste heat and unused calories excreted from the body then CICO would be 100% accurate and not an estimate anymore and would accurately describe the physics going on.
The answer to all of your questions is “YES”
Your questions also show that you continue to incorrectly describe CICO as a calorie-counting “tool” rather than a unifying principle.
10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool. CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body. Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food? Most people don't use it that way. Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't. A car operates more efficiently at different power settings but a body doesn't? CICO as used by most here at MFP is a very rough tool and is an estimate only. If you included all waste heat and unused calories excreted from the body then CICO would be 100% accurate and not an estimate anymore and would accurately describe the physics going on.
The answer to all of your questions is “YES”
Your questions also show that you continue to incorrectly describe CICO as a calorie-counting “tool” rather than a unifying principle.
You simply do not understand what I'm saying.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool.
No, CICO is not an estimate of the energy balance, it refers to the energy balance.
Calorie counting is based on estimating CI and CO.
Again, you seem to be mixing up calorie counting and CICO, beats me why.CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body.
Name one that cannot be encompassed by CICO.
Wasted calories? IMO, not calories in -- they bypass the system.
You could also describe them as calories out, but I think my way makes more sense.
Increased metabolism/TEF? That increases calories out.
It's like you are trying really, really hard to misinterpret everyone.
See the post above this one.
That's supposed to identify things not part of CICO?
You said:Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food?
Yes, that is part of CO.Most people don't use it that way.
CICO is a concept, not a tool, so it is not used to determine calories. It's like I'm hitting my head against a wall. You cannot seem to accept that CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting.
Mostly, yes, people do not bother with TEF with calorie counting because it is irrelevant. However, if it made a significant difference (if you changed from a mostly fat and refined carbs diet to a mostly protein one -- neither recommended, IMO), then you might find you were losing more than expected and adjust. That's why no one needs to calculate the actual CI and CO numbers (which would be impossible absent a lab and probably even then).
One example, when I was losing I consistently lost more than expected. I think it was mainly that my activity was higher than I realized (I walk a lot, live on the 4th fl, yadda, yadda). But I also eat lots of fiber, was doing (when at low cal) about 30%+ protein, so on -- it may have been in part TEF. In that I adjusted based on results (or kept at it based on results), I did in a way take that into account.
But again that is calorie counting, not CICO, which of course includes TEF as an element of CO.Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't.
It does. All calories burned (from exercise or otherwise) are part of CO.
Does that help you understand at all?6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool. CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body. Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food? Most people don't use it that way. Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't. A car operates more efficiently at different power settings but a body doesn't? CICO as used by most here at MFP is a very rough tool and is an estimate only. If you included all waste heat and unused calories excreted from the body then CICO would be 100% accurate and not an estimate anymore and would accurately describe the physics going on.
The answer to all of your questions is “YES”
Your questions also show that you continue to incorrectly describe CICO as a calorie-counting “tool” rather than a unifying principle.
You simply do not understand what I'm saying.
That's because you don't know what you're talking about - thus continually use incorrect terminology.14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool.
No, CICO is not an estimate of the energy balance, it refers to the energy balance.
Calorie counting is based on estimating CI and CO.
Again, you seem to be mixing up calorie counting and CICO, beats me why.CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body.
Name one that cannot be encompassed by CICO.
Wasted calories? IMO, not calories in -- they bypass the system.
You could also describe them as calories out, but I think my way makes more sense.
Increased metabolism/TEF? That increases calories out.
It's like you are trying really, really hard to misinterpret everyone.
See the post above this one.
That's supposed to identify things not part of CICO?
You said:Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food?
Yes, that is part of CO.Most people don't use it that way.
CICO is a concept, not a tool, so it is not used to determine calories. It's like I'm hitting my head against a wall. You cannot seem to accept that CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting.
Mostly, yes, people do not bother with TEF with calorie counting because it is irrelevant. However, if it made a significant difference (if you changed from a mostly fat and refined carbs diet to a mostly protein one -- neither recommended, IMO), then you might find you were losing more than expected and adjust. That's why no one needs to calculate the actual CI and CO numbers (which would be impossible absent a lab and probably even then).
One example, when I was losing I consistently lost more than expected. I think it was mainly that my activity was higher than I realized (I walk a lot, live on the 4th fl, yadda, yadda). But I also eat lots of fiber, was doing (when at low cal) about 30%+ protein, so on -- it may have been in part TEF. In that I adjusted based on results (or kept at it based on results), I did in a way take that into account.
But again that is calorie counting, not CICO, which of course includes TEF as an element of CO.Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't.
It does. All calories burned (from exercise or otherwise) are part of CO.
Does that help you understand at all?
Ok, I will now take your just given definition of CICO as taking into account all forms of energy into the body and out of the body. Then as long as people don't equate CI in the mouth and a static bmr and work the body does as the only contributors to CI and CO, then I will agree. There are a lot of things that effect the waste heat of the body, absorption of calories, and excretion of calories, some that you just mentioned. I do understand the difference in counting and the physics.16 -
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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool. CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body. Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food? Most people don't use it that way. Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't. A car operates more efficiently at different power settings but a body doesn't? CICO as used by most here at MFP is a very rough tool and is an estimate only. If you included all waste heat and unused calories excreted from the body then CICO would be 100% accurate and not an estimate anymore and would accurately describe the physics going on.
The answer to all of your questions is “YES”
Your questions also show that you continue to incorrectly describe CICO as a calorie-counting “tool” rather than a unifying principle.
You simply do not understand what I'm saying.
I’m sure it’s important for you to believe that, but I actually do know the subject quite well.
15 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is not a tool.
Calorie counting is a tool.
energy balance in the body is not a tool. CICO is an estimate of the energy balance and therefore is a tool.
No, CICO is not an estimate of the energy balance, it refers to the energy balance.
Calorie counting is based on estimating CI and CO.
Again, you seem to be mixing up calorie counting and CICO, beats me why.CICO does not describe all the dynamics of the energy balance of the body.
Name one that cannot be encompassed by CICO.
Wasted calories? IMO, not calories in -- they bypass the system.
You could also describe them as calories out, but I think my way makes more sense.
Increased metabolism/TEF? That increases calories out.
It's like you are trying really, really hard to misinterpret everyone.
See the post above this one.
That's supposed to identify things not part of CICO?
You said:Does CICO take into account thermogenic effects of different types of food?
Yes, that is part of CO.Most people don't use it that way.
CICO is a concept, not a tool, so it is not used to determine calories. It's like I'm hitting my head against a wall. You cannot seem to accept that CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting.
Mostly, yes, people do not bother with TEF with calorie counting because it is irrelevant. However, if it made a significant difference (if you changed from a mostly fat and refined carbs diet to a mostly protein one -- neither recommended, IMO), then you might find you were losing more than expected and adjust. That's why no one needs to calculate the actual CI and CO numbers (which would be impossible absent a lab and probably even then).
One example, when I was losing I consistently lost more than expected. I think it was mainly that my activity was higher than I realized (I walk a lot, live on the 4th fl, yadda, yadda). But I also eat lots of fiber, was doing (when at low cal) about 30%+ protein, so on -- it may have been in part TEF. In that I adjusted based on results (or kept at it based on results), I did in a way take that into account.
But again that is calorie counting, not CICO, which of course includes TEF as an element of CO.Also does CICO take into account rates of energy used say like for HIIT exercise? It doesn't.
It does. All calories burned (from exercise or otherwise) are part of CO.
Does that help you understand at all?
Ok, I will now take your just given definition of CICO as taking into account all forms of energy into the body and out of the body. Then as long as people don't equate CI in the mouth and a static bmr and work the body does as the only contributors to CI and CO, then I will agree. There are a lot of things that effect the waste heat of the body, absorption of calories, and excretion of calories, some that you just mentioned. I do understand the difference in counting and the physics.
People have told you time and again that this stuff is accounted for in what scientists consider to be the models for the energy balance equations.
You keep equating what lay people put into practical usage for implementing CICO with the scientific understanding of what CICO actually is. Everyone knows they are two different things.
The main point, though, is that the things you keep banging on are really, really on the margins and aren't major players. Close enough is good enough with knowing the major players and working with them. Most people don't need to worry about the margins.12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
And even calorie estimations on packages and calculations to estimate your TDEE take all of those things in consideration, because they were made by people who are smart. Blambo isn't the first person to think about things like absorption of the calories, though he clearly seems to think he is.12 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
And even calorie estimations on packages and calculations to estimate your TDEE take all of those things in consideration, because they were made by people who are smart. Blambo isn't the first person to think about things like absorption of the calories, though he clearly seems to think he is.
The thing that gets me is that several of us have communicated time and time again that we all know and understand exactly what he's talking about, and that these things are accounted for in the scientific understanding of energy balance.
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
And even calorie estimations on packages and calculations to estimate your TDEE take all of those things in consideration, because they were made by people who are smart. Blambo isn't the first person to think about things like absorption of the calories, though he clearly seems to think he is.
The thing that gets me is that several of us have communicated time and time again that we all know and understand exactly what he's talking about, and that these things are accounted for in the scientific understanding of energy balance.
You don't understand and neither do the authors in the paper you provided based on what they said in the paper. Food goes in, work and heat and excretion go out. We (you, me and the whole of science) totally understand what effects those things. The people in the paper you gave state so and suggest important research to understand these things.18 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
And even calorie estimations on packages and calculations to estimate your TDEE take all of those things in consideration, because they were made by people who are smart. Blambo isn't the first person to think about things like absorption of the calories, though he clearly seems to think he is.
The thing that gets me is that several of us have communicated time and time again that we all know and understand exactly what he's talking about, and that these things are accounted for in the scientific understanding of energy balance.
You don't understand and neither do the authors in the paper you provided based on what they said in the paper. Food goes in, work and heat and excretion go out. We (you, me and the whole of science) totally understand what effects those things. The people in the paper you gave state so and suggest important research to understand these things.
You. Are. Delusional.14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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 (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
And even calorie estimations on packages and calculations to estimate your TDEE take all of those things in consideration, because they were made by people who are smart. Blambo isn't the first person to think about things like absorption of the calories, though he clearly seems to think he is.
The thing that gets me is that several of us have communicated time and time again that we all know and understand exactly what he's talking about, and that these things are accounted for in the scientific understanding of energy balance.
You don't understand and neither do the authors in the paper you provided based on what they said in the paper. Food goes in, work and heat and excretion go out. We (you, me and the whole of science) totally understand what effects those things. The people in the paper you gave state so and suggest important research to understand these things.
You. Are. Delusional.
Name calling does not add anything to the conversation.9 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »This is dumb.
CICO is everything.
CICO is everthing, but what effects CICO?7
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