Do you believe it is ALL just CICO?

Options
2456

Replies

  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    Options
    Fat gain/loss is all about energy surpluses and deficits. CICO is a simple model that captures most of the factors in the energy surplus/deficit equation but not all. If you stick to CICO and have deficits, you MUST lose at least as much fat (or muscle) as the deficit (in energy terms with 1lb of fat =3500kcals) because the energy has to come from somewhere (we don't create energy out of thin air). If you have a surplus, you MAY gain as much but no more fat equal to the surplus (you will actually gain something less cause the body can't convert the surplus to fat at 100% efficiency).
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    seska422 wrote: »
    collectingblues wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    collectingblues wrote: »
    Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.

    But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you ovulation, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...

    And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.

    So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.

    And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
    Water weight is always there, always bounces around, and isn't part of the Calories In Calories Out discussion. CICO refers to the weight of actual body parts rather than the water.

    But why? The OP asked if it was *all* about CICO. From a dietary perspective, it is. From a weight loss perspective, it isn't.
    Water weight isn't real body weight that's gained or lost. It's water and will always come and go. People say "weight loss isn't linear" because actual body weight loss can hide behind water weight fluctuations.

    For short term "ALL" I guess that water would count. So would getting a hair cut.

    Perhaps it's a perception issue. I find the idea of "real" versus false weight to be ludicrous. It's a number on the scale. Sure, there's trending, and I generally agree with that, but if one lives a lifestyle that basically has one in a constant state of water retention, there comes a point where you have to start taking those numbers at face value.

    Maybe in my situation, I have built muscle in that time. I'm certainly smaller. But considering you've also got people who insist that you can't build muscle in a deficit even with strength training, it gets to the point where it all becomes very nebulous.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    andreayup wrote: »
    For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?

    We wondered recently, in response to a thread like this, why they were posted. In your case, do you really think you are going to be getting most of your diet from these kinds of foods (from what you go on to say, I doubt it) or are you asking if you include SOME less nutritious foods will you lose? In any case, yes, calories are what matter for weight loss, but nutrition can be important for health and just all around feeling good, and what you eat may make it easier or harder to make your calorie goal.

    This doesn't mean you need to strive for all nutrient-dense foods, most diets are a mix, and personally I focus on planning in adequate protein and lots of vegetables and then use my extra calories as I like. I find for me that nuts often are a nice alternative to something like chips, but occasionally I might have chips instead, sure.

    I don't find snacking a satisfying way to eat for me--I do better with fewer, larger meals, but that's 100% about what makes it easier for me, others feel differently.
    Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.

    If you don't go over your calories on those days, it's not a problem for weight loss. (I might find myself going over.) But if you think you aren't eating very nutritiously on those days or are hungry, you might want to see if you can plan to fit in some more filling and nutritious stuff (if you aren't one of those who finds such snacks perfectly filling). But as an occasional thing, it's not going to matter, and of course you can fit in candy and chips and such into a balanced diet also. (A balanced diet is more about what you do eat than what you do not.)

Categories