Trust in CICO
kindrabbit
Posts: 837 Member
I thought I'd start a post for all the people who are posting saying MFP and CICO isn't working for them.
I had a little wobble in my faith this morning but I had a word with myself and I'm back to trusting in the programme. Whenever it feels like it's not 'working' I remind myself that if it isn't going the way I want it is because of something I have done and that it is within my control to make it work.
I have posted before about my lack of control on a Friday night after I have had my traditional Friday night drink. I didnt have a drink on a Friday night for 2 weeks and over those 2 weeks I lost consistently. The little devil on my shoulder convinced me I deserved a 'treat' so had a drink this Friday. Well, on Saturday morning I had gained 4lbs! Its taken me a week to get back to where I was last week. I've wasted another week of potential weight loss. This is the pattern I am trying to break.
The point of this thread is to say I totally believe that CICO works. The reason it's so slow is because I binged on chocolate and alcohol last Friday and my body is holding onto fluid, not because there is something wrong with the way CICO works. I have also been training hard which is another reason I am holding onto water weight. The fault is mine and mine alone. I totally trust that in a few days the scale will drop and I'll be off and running again.
I had a little wobble in my faith this morning but I had a word with myself and I'm back to trusting in the programme. Whenever it feels like it's not 'working' I remind myself that if it isn't going the way I want it is because of something I have done and that it is within my control to make it work.
I have posted before about my lack of control on a Friday night after I have had my traditional Friday night drink. I didnt have a drink on a Friday night for 2 weeks and over those 2 weeks I lost consistently. The little devil on my shoulder convinced me I deserved a 'treat' so had a drink this Friday. Well, on Saturday morning I had gained 4lbs! Its taken me a week to get back to where I was last week. I've wasted another week of potential weight loss. This is the pattern I am trying to break.
The point of this thread is to say I totally believe that CICO works. The reason it's so slow is because I binged on chocolate and alcohol last Friday and my body is holding onto fluid, not because there is something wrong with the way CICO works. I have also been training hard which is another reason I am holding onto water weight. The fault is mine and mine alone. I totally trust that in a few days the scale will drop and I'll be off and running again.
0
Replies
-
Sometimes the CICO equation is pretty complex. That's why it doesn't work for some people in the black and white sense.0
-
-
CICO works, when it doesn't, we've just eaten too much or over estimated our calorie burns.0
-
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »CICO works, when it doesn't, we've just eaten too much or over estimated our calorie burns.
YEP!
Course, remember, there are a lot of people who like to think they're special snowflakes
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The article that stated "Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving."
Yeah that sounds like a good article. :noway:
Your lack of understanding doesn't make it false.
0 -
OP, I think you are being too hard on yourself and maybe shouldn't think in terms of fault but just try to make it about finding a strategy that works better (not saying it's not working, but if you are frustrated about things like Friday night--and of course we all struggle with resolve at times). It's great that you are aware of the water weight aspects, but worries me a bit that you are seeing working out as a reason why it's your "fault" it's not working--new workouts or harder workouts can mask losses, but that's not a bad thing--it's fat you want to lose, who cares about the water fluctuations once you know they aren't fat.
I'd say the same thing about the Friday night issue, but there if you feel like it's impeding your actual progress (calorie deficit), maybe adjust strategies by building in some extra calories through the week?
Anyway, I agree with your basic point, but just wanted to say that!0 -
I hear you OP, I am going through a bit of a flat phase myself right now but also with the warmer weather I am walking a bit more and I have changed my strength training routine. In the Dark Ages (before MFP brought the light of CICO into my life) when I would flatline I would assume that I had lost all I could lose and go back to "eating normally". Now I know that weight loss isn't linear but can occasionally stall. I continue to weigh log everything and I know that I will eventually reach my ultimate goal.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Maybe that is because, when in deficit, your body will pull from either fat or muscle, making weight loss look different. Add in the fluctuations on water retention, sodium, muscle building and you can see that there are a ton of variables!
Math is never simple in vivo. Biology surprises us all the time! When in comes to weight loss though , it's all in the calories.0 -
Belief/trust are hugely important to changing habits.
If you can't believe that what you are doing will result in changes then you won't stick to it.
It's more important to believe that you can control your habits than the tools.
CICO is an excellent screwdriver, which you must couple to the other tool set of proper nutrition (macro/micro) to make it work. But it's one tool. Body recomp is another.
It's an imperfect estimator in many ways but like any good tool it gets the job done.
Habits drive success. One drink didn't give you 4lbs. Address the habit of self sabotage linked to thinking that. If you undermine your trust system it isn't going to work.0 -
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The article that stated "Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving."
Yeah that sounds like a good article. :noway:
Your lack of understanding doesn't make it false.
So it's not ridiculous at all? Because yes, the entrance hall is going to be crowded if more people keep going in than going out, it's bound to happen and if either more people leave or less go in it's not going to be crowded. What was that guy's argument there?0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Maybe that is because, when in deficit, your body will pull from either fat or muscle, making weight loss look different. Add in the fluctuations on water retention, sodium, muscle building and you can see that there are a ton of variables!
Math is never simple in vivo. Biology surprises us all the time! When in comes to weight loss though , it's all in the calories.
When in a deficit you don't build muscle unless you are obese and lifting heavy or new to lifting and lifting heavy which really has very little to do with CICO.
When in a deficit if you don't starve, get in enough protein and do some sort of resistance training it will pull the majority from fat...
Water retention and sodium is not real weight tho...it looks like it on the scale but in reality if you are drinking enough fluid ie water these aren't factors.
CICO is simple math.
Calories in<Calories out=weight loss and it works for all except a those few with metabolic disorders...
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
I assume what is meant is that you subtract 500 calories, but don't lose in a particular week because it's that time of the month or you ate extra sodium or some such (we often don't know the reason). Or you think you subtracted 500 calories from maintenance but reduced daily activity some so did not. Or you logged wrong. Or--a really common misunderstanding--you figured out everything using the calculations and then don't seem to be able to lose on, say, 1800 when your maintenance is totally supposed to be 2300 based on activity and size.
People confuse these things with CICO not really working all the time.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Belief/trust are hugely important to changing habits.
If you can't believe that what you are doing will result in changes then you won't stick to it.
It's more important to believe that you can control your habits than the tools.
CICO is an excellent screwdriver, which you must couple to the other tool set of proper nutrition (macro/micro) to make it work. But it's one tool. Body recomp is another.
It's an imperfect estimator in many ways but like any good tool it gets the job done.
Habits drive success. One drink didn't give you 4lbs. Address the habit of self sabotage linked to thinking that. If you undermine your trust system it isn't going to work.
I disagree with one very minor point.
Don't just "believe" that something will work. That belief means nothing. I believed in low carb, vegetarian, vegan, low sugar etc. my belief did not make them work
CICO has science behind it. It's biologically how the vast majority of us work. It's simple to understand. I *trust* the science because science tends to work.
Sorry, minor rant there. Comes with the job description I guess!crazyjerseygirl wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Maybe that is because, when in deficit, your body will pull from either fat or muscle, making weight loss look different. Add in the fluctuations on water retention, sodium, muscle building and you can see that there are a ton of variables!
Math is never simple in vivo. Biology surprises us all the time! When in comes to weight loss though , it's all in the calories.
When in a deficit you don't build muscle unless you are obese and lifting heavy or new to lifting and lifting heavy which really has very little to do with CICO.
When in a deficit if you don't starve, get in enough protein and do some sort of resistance training it will pull the majority from fat...
Water retention and sodium is not real weight tho...it looks like it on the scale but in reality if you are drinking enough fluid ie water these aren't factors.
CICO is simple math.
Calories in<Calories out=weight loss and it works for all except a those few with metabolic disorders...
I understand math. I was trying to explain to those who don't why the equation might seem off.
Don't worry dude, I'm on the side of the science.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Belief/trust are hugely important to changing habits.
If you can't believe that what you are doing will result in changes then you won't stick to it.
It's more important to believe that you can control your habits than the tools.
CICO is an excellent screwdriver, which you must couple to the other tool set of proper nutrition (macro/micro) to make it work. But it's one tool. Body recomp is another.
It's an imperfect estimator in many ways but like any good tool it gets the job done.
Habits drive success. One drink didn't give you 4lbs. Address the habit of self sabotage linked to thinking that. If you undermine your trust system it isn't going to work.
I went through a stall during the month of February. The scale bobbed around the same weight.
BUT
I knew I had established good habits. I exercised when my health allowed. For me, meticulous logging clicks and is a fantastic tool. I genuinely like calorie counting. I continued everything I had been doing during the stall.
I didn't really panic over the scale not moving and wasn't worried that I was doing anything wrong.
It was a really great feeling, and I learned a lot. I didn't feel powerless in the face of a lack of results. I didn't NEED the immediate gratification of the scale moving to know I was doing the right thing. That was... there are no words for how huge not having a motivator but calmly continuing was for me.
After three weeks, the stall broke and the scale started moving again.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The article that stated "Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving."
Yeah that sounds like a good article. :noway:
Your lack of understanding doesn't make it false.
So it's not ridiculous at all? Because yes, the entrance hall is going to be crowded if more people keep going in than going out, it's bound to happen and if either more people leave or less go in it's not going to be crowded. What was that guy's argument there?
The article was all about how it's not CICO - yet with comments like that in the article you can see why I'm not linking to it.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Yes, yes it is basic maths
CI<CO (TDEE) = weight loss
for a person with say a thyroid condition
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for medications) = weight loss
for a person who is say an amputee
CI<CO(TDEE adjusted for loss of limb) = weight loss
I could go on - but it's pretty basic maths
Is it?
Could you put the effects of steroids, caffeine and diabetes, pre-diabetes (affects over a quarter of the population) in there? Water weight short term loss?
Carbohydrate needs for a runner losing weight vs a weightlifter losing weight?
Chrysalis is right in saying it is a simplification, she's wrong in stating it doesn't work.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Just because some people who don't know Pi or don't have a Pi button on their calculator are using 3.14 instead of Pi in the equation to get the volume for a sphere doesn't make the equation less basic.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The article that stated "Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving."
Yeah that sounds like a good article. :noway:
Your lack of understanding doesn't make it false.
So it's not ridiculous at all? Because yes, the entrance hall is going to be crowded if more people keep going in than going out, it's bound to happen and if either more people leave or less go in it's not going to be crowded. What was that guy's argument there?
Well what KIND of people are coming in? If its all white people, yeah its going to get crowded. If its mostly brown people, they tend to que up better, so it won't be as bad. If you squeeze lemon juice and paprika on some naked people running in screaming, the whole place is going to detox pretty fast.
For all you people that will call racism. Yes, the Japanese are a LOT better about getting people on public transportation that 'Murica.
-1 -
Sometimes the CICO equation is pretty complex. That's why it doesn't work for some people in the black and white sense.janejellyroll wrote: »
I might be putting words into the poster's mouth but to me it means that the human body is a complex organism and there are a number of situations that make the CO part of the equation difficult to calculate for some people, most have to do with medical issues or the side effects of medication, as well as things like the actual amount of lean body mass you have. Then there are temporary situations that affect the actual weight loss (but not the fat loss) like eating higher sodium, drinking more alcohol, or eating more carbs than your body is used to, which makes it retain water (like the OP's situation).
In the end, it may be harder to calculate your CO and you may have to be patient and figure it out with trial and error, but ultimately it does work. The numbers are there and the math is correct.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
you mean the one that was closed due to it being full of well...non-sense.
and it is basic math.
If your maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 1800 you will lose 1/2lb a week.
the variances comes from crappy logging/counting in other words inaccuracies...0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The article that stated "Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving."
Yeah that sounds like a good article. :noway:
Your lack of understanding doesn't make it false.
So it's not ridiculous at all? Because yes, the entrance hall is going to be crowded if more people keep going in than going out, it's bound to happen and if either more people leave or less go in it's not going to be crowded. What was that guy's argument there?
The article was all about how it's not CICO - yet with comments like that in the article you can see why I'm not linking to it.
It is of almost certainty that when you hear "a calorie is not a calorie" or "calories don't matter" it is coming from a low-carb zealot/guru0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
The issue isn't the fundamental principle that if you eat less than you burn you'll lose weight (that will always hold true) it's the fact that (and people have repeated this to me numerous times) we're not robots. So what we burn is dependant on a bunch of factors. At some point, or so knowledgable people have said to me, hormones and other factors come in to play. In other words CICO always applies but it might not be so easy for some to hit that moving line the divides losing weight from gaining weight, especially while trying to hit a narrow deficit because you've had it drilled into your head you're muscles are going to shrivel up if you eat even one calorie too low.
Well that is what everyone needs to find about themselves. The maintenance line.
0 -
The only "issue" with CICO is that it's sometimes very hard to calculate our CI and our CO, especially since tools like TDEE calculators are only approximations and don't always give a very accurate result, and since most people tend to strongly miscalculate how much they burn and how much they eat. Not to mention our CO changes a lot and sometimes rapidly through time, as our activity level, body fat percentage, etc, change.
Other than that, CICO is indeed the cold hard truth. The body can't store excess energy in the form of fat unless it has excess energy available. People who feel like they are just gaining fat out of thin air need to try and be more objective about their habits, and less in denial. Your body can't make fat/store excess energy out of nothing; the law of conservation of energy is a universal constant that does not change because "maybe it's my body being in starvation mode?"0 -
Yes, CICO works.
You may have to adjust your CI vs CO from what a calculator spits out at you because the calculator uses population averages. Once you find what maintenance is for YOU, then eating less than that will make you lose (or the other way around, you find a calorie level that makes you consistently lose, you can back calculate your maintenance). No one says that a magic online calculator will predict the right calorie level for every single person. That's where people get into trouble.
I've consistently lost 1lb a week for the past 11 months. That does not mean that every single week was a 1 lb loss. It ebbs and flows. Some weeks I stall and I have to remind myself to trust the process and it will come off. Some weeks I drop extra weight (usually the week after a stall, imagine that!). But if you average it out, it works out to 1 lb a week.0
This discussion has been closed.
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