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
Options
Replies
-
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 -
JerSchmare wrote: »This is dumb.
CICO is everything.
CICO is everthing, but what effects CICO?7 -
The effects of CICO...hmmm..weight goes up...weight goes down...weight stays the same.6
-
JerSchmare wrote: »This is dumb.
CICO is everything.
CICO is everthing, but what effects CICO?
It doesn't matter. For practical purposes, you deal with the major players and let the minors sort themselves out. Adjust as needed based on scale results. Does this really need to be gone over again and again?12 -
I know it's petty but what *affects CICO or what *effect does food have on CICO. They're not interchangeable words and in the interests of scientific discussion it irks me.23
-
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.
I concur. He thinks he knows more than the researchers who wrote a paper.8 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »We do NOT ever promote malnutrition.
What Wheelhouse says is evidenced by the fact that you can target and track your micros and macros. I doubt many - if any - MFP users are *only* looking at calories - they are also looking at whatever macros / micros they have set their diaries to track on a regular basis.
So so much discussion in the forums is on Protein, and on lifting weights. So I think the OP perhaps doesn't understand how MFP is promoting these things and is not just pushing solely a CICO agenda - although, if you want to loose weight/fat, then CICO must be the overriding principle.
Most of us have learned so much about nutrition, toning, whatever your goals - through using the app and through the forums.
PPS -
Woops - my comment is replying to the original OP and the discussions on page 1 ... I now see that the discussion has taken a mysterious turn ... with a heated debate about what CICO is. Um, since CICO is obvious and self-explanatory, I will stay *out* of this current who-hah. Or grab some popcorn, but let me log the popcorn first - before prepping it - to make sure it fits into my day.
8 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
I concur. He thinks he knows more than the researchers who wrote a paper.
IKR? And how many times have you told him that excretion is already accounted for in the Atwater factors?
6 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »CICO is important definitely but i think it shouldn't be a priority we want to LOSE FAT not just WEIGHT because weight includes those wonderful muscles you work so hard to build (and other stuff) . Also the human body is very intelligent if you eat low calorie for a long time like i did in the past you might come to find that your body adjust to your low calorie lifestyle and you lose weight but you look unhealthy . If you want to make your body let go of fat you have to be healthy , being malnourished is not healthy or pleasant. So please promote fat loss not weight loss .
Pssst: I even eat chocolate every day and pizza on a weekly basis because I know it's not the what but the how much that matters for weight loss.
WHAAAAAT? How much you eat matters? You mean I can't make 5 trips to an all you can eat salad bar every day & lose weight? But I'm eating healthy! What kind of sorcery is this?0 -
I was raised Christian, United Methodist specifically, and my mother was a believer to her bedrock, the kindest and warmest sort, not a rigid or overbearing type. While I think my dad was at heart a deist, he was a bit more of a free thinker.
I was a strong believer into my teens, but began to struggle with doubt. I'm fundamentally rationalist at my core, and that makes faith a viscerally hard sell.
Sometime in my late teens or early twenties, I came to a realization: Whether I believed in a deity or not, my behavior would be exactly the same. I have a very strong sense of ethics and morality (maybe an idiosyncratic one, but strong, and fairly Golden Rule oriented ). To me, my actual actions seemed at least as ethically based as those of the believers around me.
At that moment - and it really was kind of just a moment - I decided I didn't care whether there was a god, and I literally stopped worrying about it.
These days, I remain a committed agnostic. I deeply respect others' faiths, and don't argue with them about metaphysics. It's faith, not logic. I expect others to respect my beliefs, too. I grow big scary metaphorical teeth if they try to convert me. And to the extent I form judgements about people - which I try to keep to a practical minimum - I judge based on actions.
I love this. Almost identical to myself, except I was raised Mormon. I've never been able to put it into words like this though.3 -
I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.1
-
Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
I think you mean calorie counting instead of CICO.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions