CICO vs Low Carb?
leooftheyear
Posts: 429 Member
I am a strong believer in Calories In/Calories Out for weight loss, as i have had the most success with this; but today at the gym i overheard a conversation between two women (probably about mid 20's) and one of them saying how she does mostly low carb (keeping it around 40-50g) or something really tiny like that but she has one high carb day (aroundd 150g) and it went into how restrictive she was being with her diet...has anybody here had long term success with low carb or is it better to do CICO and keep your percentages around 40/30/30?
Edited for clarification:
By CICO, i meant as long as you're hiting your goals you're not resticting what you're eating (e.g. if you can fit in a big mac or macaroni and cheese you will have that for dinner)
Edited for clarification:
By CICO, i meant as long as you're hiting your goals you're not resticting what you're eating (e.g. if you can fit in a big mac or macaroni and cheese you will have that for dinner)
0
Replies
-
you do what works for you
some like low carb
some don't
if you can stick to it for life then go for it
Personally I'm happy with CICO and just watch that I get 100g protein minimum a day (or try to) - my carbs then fall where they will .. generally around 50-60% of my diet. Low Carb was a bandwagon I fell off, with a bang, twice so I know it's not something I can stick to. This I can stick to
They all boil down to eating fewer calories than you burn, it's just how you get to / count your calories
0 -
It's still CICO, whether it's low carb or not.0
-
CICO is not a diet plan - it is an equation that even Low carbers have to follow.
If going low carb is what gets you into a deficit it works.
There are numerous people on here who are LC dieters.
Many have had long term success.
0 -
^^^^^ This . Low carb is just another method of getting a calorie deficit. People fall off low carb normally because they can't sustain it (yes before the LC crowd leap in I know some people do). As you have as you say success with the way you do it why change what works for you.0
-
as others have said..CICO is simply calorie in calorie out. if your calorie in is greater than calorie out, you will gain no matter what you eat.
i follow a low carb high fat diet (keto) for medical reasons. it works for me because maintaining normal insulin and blood glucose levels is important to me. without it, i would produce too much insulin and have lows multiple times a day. it is very restrictive and i would not recommend it to anyone who would struggle with the restriction.
i still have to be in a calorie deficit in order to lose weight.0 -
I think you mean IIFYM vs Low carb? Both fall the laws of thermodynamics.
Personally, I can't do low carb. It severely hurts my exercise performance and makes me miserable. It's potential that is because I generally have low blood sugar but who knows. Either way, my goal is to his 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, .35 -.6g of fat and the remainder in carbs. I also shoot for 30-50g of fiber.0 -
I think you mean IIFYM vs Low carb? Both fall the laws of thermodynamics.
Personally, I can't do low carb. It severely hurts my exercise performance and makes me miserable. It's potential that is because I generally have low blood sugar but who knows. Either way, my goal is to his 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, .35 -.6g of fat and the remainder in carbs. I also shoot for 30-50g of fiber.
Low Carb folks still fall under the IIFYM category as well.
0 -
I try to stick to under 75 - 100 carbs a day, so not low, low, but more restricted. I find I need more when I work out, of course. As long as it's not too many sweets or refined grains, I tend to do okay and keep it under that. I'm one of those that is predisposed to metabolic syndrome, so if I eat too many carbs, my blood sugar pings and I'll gain. After many years of logging and charting both weight and food, I've proven this to myself many times over. Plus, I find that if I eat sugar too much, I tend to crave more sugar. I have friends that carbs don't affect them in the least and they are able to consume more and lose/maintain though, so their bodies are just different.
-0 -
You need CICO to lose weight. You do not need low carb to lose weight.
Low carb is simply one of many ways to achieve CICO. All of which require still being aware of your CI and your CO.
You can keep your percentages around anything. CICO does not require macro monitoring. I have protein at 125g and fat at 65g, regardless of my calorie intake, meaning 23% for protein and 27% for fat. So about 50% left over for carbs.. which usually only gets used up 40-45% because I go over on fat and protein.0 -
CICO is the equation by which weight is regulated. If you are consuming less calories than you burn, you're eating in a deficit and will lose weight. The varying macro (protein, carbs, fat) percentages of a person's diet are up to personal preference and make no difference to weight loss, barring certain medical conditions.0
-
As others have pointed out (and I will add to because I like to read myself type), the opposition you've proposed makes no sense. Lo-carb is a means to achieve CICO, as is every diet in existence, no matter what their marketing departments suggest.0
-
As everyone has said, the best way to achieve a caloric deficit is individual. E.g. There's some evidence that people susceptible to depression suffer from low serotonin worse in low carb diets. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/carbohydrate-intake-and-depression-qa.html/
Serotonin is tricky, though, as it correlates to depression symptoms at low and high levels. This is just an example of a situation where low carb wouldn't work well, but as another commented, low carb works great for people who have to manage insulin levels. Nothing can substitute for a little experimenting and 1st hand quantative observations on your own body.0 -
I meant CICO in terms of not restricting what you eat vs Low Carb and restricting your diet to such.0
-
leooftheyear wrote: »I meant CICO in terms of not restricting what you eat vs Low Carb and restricting your diet to such.
That's only for you to answer. I like low carb, others don't. You may or you may not. If you've already had success with the macros you are at, not sure what benefit you see to low carb.0 -
cico is an equation. everyone who is doing anything with weight and food is using cico..even those who do low carb...
if you are trying to lose weight you are restricting something..calories.0 -
leooftheyear wrote: »I meant CICO in terms of not restricting what you eat vs Low Carb and restricting your diet to such.
There's no benefit to low carbing if you don't think you could sustain it. There's a psychological benefit to seeing a good bit of water weight coming off. For some people who have issues with sugar cravings, a low carb approach is helpful.
For others who have medical conditions like PCOS and hypothyroidism, low or moderate carb is often a good approach to dealing with those.
In all those cases, calories and carbs would need to be counted.
0 -
leooftheyear wrote: »I meant CICO in terms of not restricting what you eat vs Low Carb and restricting your diet to such.
So IIFYM/flexible dieting.
Again, both are just means to an end to reach your CICO balance for your desired weight management goals. I do IIFYM, but I've done "clean eating" in the past (did not last, too restrictive for me).0 -
leooftheyear wrote: »I meant CICO in terms of not restricting what you eat vs Low Carb and restricting your diet to such.
So IIFYM/flexible dieting.
Again, both are just means to an end to reach your CICO balance for your desired weight management goals. I do IIFYM, but I've done "clean eating" in the past (did not last, too restrictive for me).
Pretty sure Low Carbers follow IIFYM.....
0 -
leooftheyear wrote: »has anybody here had long term success with low carb or is it better to do CICO and keep your percentages around 40/30/30?
There are people who have had success with low carb and of course lots who have had success with the MFP default or 40-30-30 or some other combination. Some people don't even watch their macros.
It's really personal preference.
I enjoy carbs and find that when I am active I tend to feel better eating about 40% or more carbs, so that's what I do. Some people find they are less hungry if they eat lower carb, but hunger hasn't really been my issue, so I don't worry about that. I think some stuff, like playing around with carb cycling, may have marginal value but is irrelevant for most people. However, it can be a way of making this fun/interesting, so have motivational effects. I try stuff with my diet because I find it kind of interesting, so I get that. But none of that is necessary to lose weight.
0 -
Not sure how that comparison works. Low Carb is a healthy eating strategy and CICO is an biological equation.
Do you mean 'for weight loss' Moderation vs Low Carb.
Simple answer - for me Low Carb.
For the rest of the population (that are losing weight) - it's probably a good mix.
It will only work if you find it sustainable.0 -
leooftheyear wrote: »I meant CICO in terms of not restricting what you eat vs Low Carb and restricting your diet to such.
So IIFYM/flexible dieting.
Again, both are just means to an end to reach your CICO balance for your desired weight management goals. I do IIFYM, but I've done "clean eating" in the past (did not last, too restrictive for me).
Pretty sure Low Carbers follow IIFYM.....
i would say so. My macros are set at 5% carb 20% protein 75% fat and i eat accordingly. if i exercise, the numbers i am able to eat of each increase.0 -
You're using the wrong terminology. Many people do low carb without calorie counting (which is I think what you meant to say instead of CICO). Many people who do low carb eat low carb, high fat, moderate (adequate) protein (aka, LCHF or keto). High fat is very satiating, so if you listen to your hunger signals it can be easy to lose weight without counting/tracking on low carb. I eat LCHF and looking back at my diary, I have lost at least 50-60 lbs. of the 95 I have lost so far without any tracking/counting whatsoever. But there is still a calorie deficit (CICO) necessary to lose. I have found that 1400 cal/day works for me for weight loss. I have eaten this way for 2.5 years and don't plan to stop.0
-
You need CICO to lose weight. You do not need low carb to lose weight.
Low carb is simply one of many ways to achieve CICO. All of which require still being aware of your CI and your CO.
You can keep your percentages around anything. CICO does not require macro monitoring. I have protein at 125g and fat at 65g, regardless of my calorie intake, meaning 23% for protein and 27% for fat. So about 50% left over for carbs.. which usually only gets used up 40-45% because I go over on fat and protein.
CICO is an equation - you do not 'need' it as such.
In fact you do not even need to know your calories in vs calories out to lose weight.
All you need to do is to fall the right side of the equation.
Truth is to lose weight you do not need to count calories, to eat low fat, low carb, to eat everything in moderation.
You just need to eat less or move more.
People have been doing it for billions of years.
The reason we now have all of these different eating strategies is that we have an abundance of food in most westernized countries and a lot of people don't have regulation switch with food and we all find different things easier and harder.
0 -
leooftheyear wrote: »I meant CICO in terms of not restricting what you eat vs Low Carb and restricting your diet to such.
So eating in a surplus?
0 -
I think you mean IIFYM vs Low carb? Both fall the laws of thermodynamics.
Personally, I can't do low carb. It severely hurts my exercise performance and makes me miserable. It's potential that is because I generally have low blood sugar but who knows. Either way, my goal is to his 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, .35 -.6g of fat and the remainder in carbs. I also shoot for 30-50g of fiber.
Low Carb folks still fall under the IIFYM category as well.
IIFYM folks still fall under the restricted diet category as well.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I think you mean IIFYM vs Low carb? Both fall the laws of thermodynamics.
Personally, I can't do low carb. It severely hurts my exercise performance and makes me miserable. It's potential that is because I generally have low blood sugar but who knows. Either way, my goal is to his 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, .35 -.6g of fat and the remainder in carbs. I also shoot for 30-50g of fiber.
Low Carb folks still fall under the IIFYM category as well.
IIFYM folks still fall under the restricted diet category as well.
Never said they didn't
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I think you mean IIFYM vs Low carb? Both fall the laws of thermodynamics.
Personally, I can't do low carb. It severely hurts my exercise performance and makes me miserable. It's potential that is because I generally have low blood sugar but who knows. Either way, my goal is to his 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, .35 -.6g of fat and the remainder in carbs. I also shoot for 30-50g of fiber.
Low Carb folks still fall under the IIFYM category as well.
IIFYM folks still fall under the restricted diet category as well.
Never said they didn't
Just as I'm sure the Low Carb folks don't say they do not fall into the IIFYM.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I think you mean IIFYM vs Low carb? Both fall the laws of thermodynamics.
Personally, I can't do low carb. It severely hurts my exercise performance and makes me miserable. It's potential that is because I generally have low blood sugar but who knows. Either way, my goal is to his 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, .35 -.6g of fat and the remainder in carbs. I also shoot for 30-50g of fiber.
Low Carb folks still fall under the IIFYM category as well.
IIFYM folks still fall under the restricted diet category as well.
Never said they didn't
Just as I'm sure the Low Carb folks don't say they do not fall into the IIFYM.
Never said that either - you looking for an argument again?0 -
I like low carb — I like to think of it as high protein — because (a) it helps me hit my protein goals for workout days and (b) I don't get hungry and I don't crave sugar. I also find myself eating more nutrient-dense foods and particularly non-starchy vegetables.0
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I think you mean IIFYM vs Low carb? Both fall the laws of thermodynamics.
Personally, I can't do low carb. It severely hurts my exercise performance and makes me miserable. It's potential that is because I generally have low blood sugar but who knows. Either way, my goal is to his 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, .35 -.6g of fat and the remainder in carbs. I also shoot for 30-50g of fiber.
Low Carb folks still fall under the IIFYM category as well.
IIFYM folks still fall under the restricted diet category as well.
Never said they didn't
Just as I'm sure the Low Carb folks don't say they do not fall into the IIFYM.
Never said that either - you looking for an argument again?
Sorry, my fault I thought there was a point to your statement!
'Low Carb folks still fall under the IIFYM category as well'
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions