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.

Things that affect CICO

2

Replies

  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,756 Member
    slossia wrote: »
    Hey for all the women out their, I read that 30 minutes of sex burns 500 calories!

    Top or bottom?
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 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. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.

    My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/

    I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.

    There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.

    This touches on something that I think gets lost in a lot of noise in discussions like this that verge on what seems to make an issue of optimizing things and that's the topic of adherence or compliance.

    Satiety is something that has a major impact on compliance, and if there is one thing I've learned in all the years I've been at this the one thing that trumps EVERYTHING else is compliance. I don't care about optimal this that or the other thing, whatever works for an individual in terms of making compliance easier is the answer for them.

    These variables that everyone makes mountains that should be molehills of preference out of are usually the sorts of things that people can sort and arrange into a series of choices and habits to construct a lifestyle that easy for them to live with, be compliant with and works best for them.

    The only over riding factor is that they maintain the principles of energy balance.

    True about the energy balance if we had perfect will power but we don't. If we did, non of us would have gotten fat. Satiety is very important also.

    Agreed. Satiety is one of the keys for compliance, which is why I think optimizing it is important. The means of optimizing it vary on an individual basis, though.
  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 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. Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be. Many things also influence hunger which plays a big role in eventually our CI.

    My standard reply is that science is aware of what you think it isn't. You don't know what CICO is.

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/

    I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure science knows the macro terms for energy in and out of the body (food in, waste heat, work, and excretion out). What I'm claiming is that a lot of people here only think food in (without taking into account type, quantity, timing, etc..) and work (without taking into account type, rate, etc..) effect CICO. That is plainly not true.

    There are tons of threads, and other debates, discussing food quality, and timing. I don't understand why you think it is not thought about? Most people without health conditions find these factors don't make much difference outside satiety for them.

    This touches on something that I think gets lost in a lot of noise in discussions like this that verge on what seems to make an issue of optimizing things and that's the topic of adherence or compliance.

    Satiety is something that has a major impact on compliance, and if there is one thing I've learned in all the years I've been at this the one thing that trumps EVERYTHING else is compliance. I don't care about optimal this that or the other thing, whatever works for an individual in terms of making compliance easier is the answer for them.

    These variables that everyone makes mountains that should be molehills of preference out of are usually the sorts of things that people can sort and arrange into a series of choices and habits to construct a lifestyle that easy for them to live with, be compliant with and works best for them.

    The only over riding factor is that they maintain the principles of energy balance.

    True about the energy balance if we had perfect will power but we don't. If we did, non of us would have gotten fat. Satiety is very important also.

    Agreed. Satiety is one of the keys for compliance, which is why I think optimizing it is important. The means of optimizing it vary on an individual basis, though.

    Totally agree with that!