Trust in CICO
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »
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.
Sound great. But which one? The one I had six months ago or the one now? Or one somewhere in between? What about the one six months in the future after I've lost weight? Or the one after I've started trying to repair my metabolism after years of dieting? Then there's the one for summer when I might ride my bike in addition to lifting so my TDEE is a little more. Find all of those? Even the ones for every year I age? But this is supposed to be simple. Wait, lemme guess. Track it on a spreadsheet for 19 weeks while weighing my food down to the gram with strict 100% adherence. Because that's the definition of simple. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it won't work and it's not a goal to shoot for but to say it's simple is just drinking the Kool Aid a bit.
And you "might" be over thinking it.0 -
CICO is the bottom line of weight loss, every special fad diet with a brand name that produces any results is all as a result of CICO. The problem is too many people think weight loss has to be consistent and don't realise you should average out your results over a period of time longer than a week.0
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »
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.
Sound great. But which one? The one I had six months ago or the one now? Or one somewhere in between? What about the one six months in the future after I've lost weight? Or the one after I've started trying to repair my metabolism after years of dieting? Then there's the one for summer when I might ride my bike in addition to lifting so my TDEE is a little more. Find all of those? Even the ones for every year I age? But this is supposed to be simple. Wait, lemme guess. Track it on a spreadsheet for 19 weeks while weighing my food down to the gram with strict 100% adherence. Because that's the definition of simple. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it won't work and it's not a goal to shoot for but to say it's simple is just drinking the Kool Aid a bit.
Dude, you are over-complicating this, per your usual.
Pick a calorie goal that you think will give you X deficit. Eat at that goal for a month and calculate your average rate of loss. If you're losing too fast, raise the goal by the appropriate number of calories. If you're losing too slow, lower the goal by the appropriate calories. Rinse and repeat every month.
If you're purposefully adding in extra exercise, then account for it. But it's really not that hard.0 -
lydiakitten wrote: »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?"
I disagree with the bolded part totally. That is the easy part. Food scale, USDA website...done.
And not all TDEE Calculations come from websites...mine came from others with a lot of knowledge and has yet to fail me. It uses my accurate logging using a food scale+weight lost divided by the number of days.
I know my TDEE is 2k in the winter and about 2400 in the non winter depending on my cardio activity. I expect it will go up this summer with the addition of running to my walking/cycling/biking and heavy weight lifting...but that's why the above calculation is great...I can adjust as necessary based on my own data without knowing exact calorie burns.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »
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.
Sound great. But which one? The one I had six months ago or the one now? Or one somewhere in between? What about the one six months in the future after I've lost weight? Or the one after I've started trying to repair my metabolism after years of dieting? Then there's the one for summer when I might ride my bike in addition to lifting so my TDEE is a little more. Find all of those? Even the ones for every year I age? But this is supposed to be simple. Wait, lemme guess. Track it on a spreadsheet for 19 weeks while weighing my food down to the gram with strict 100% adherence. Because that's the definition of simple. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it won't work and it's not a goal to shoot for but to say it's simple is just drinking the Kool Aid a bit.
I used to be anti count calories. Not anymore and it is very simple to count calories (CI). Do we not prepare for other things in life to make they easier? Prelogging and prepping meals would make counting calories even easier than weigh everything right before you eat it.
Also those beginning questions. I know you are a joker on here but I hope those were sarcastic questions.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
But it is a math equation, with ONE variable that changes person to person.
Person's maintenance - 500 calories a day = 1 lb lost a week
The only variable is that person's maintenance, which is NOT that hard to figure out.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
But it is a math equation, with ONE variable that changes person to person.
Person's maintenance - 500 calories a day = 1 lb lost a week
The only variable is that person's maintenance, which is NOT that hard to figure out.
Agreed. It might take time for some people (for the reasons I mentioned upthread) but it is easy. Start with the population averages (aka online calculators). If you lose more, your CO is higher than average. If you lose less, your CO is lower than average. Adjust accordingly.
If you are seeing changes in your loss rate (not accounted for by a temporary situation like excess sodium, etc), re-adjust as needed.
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?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.
I just read the article. I couldn't finish it. It looked like it was heading towards blaming sugar and blaming everything on hormones triggered by the foods you eat.
Here's the thing for all the people who buy into the whole "sugar made me overeat because hormones" nonsense. If you're an emotional overeater? The whole theory that protein and fat will be so sating and you'll know when to stop is just crap.
I got quite fat stuffing my face with eggs and cheese and almond butter and avocados. I had no full signal. I had absolutely no sugar in my diet at the time.
There are many reasons people overeat. I'm tired of seeing a lack of self control with certain foods being blamed on hormonal responses your body has when eating them. There are deeper reasons we eat past our hunger signals usually. THOSE need to be dealt with.
0 -
I disagree with the bolded part totally. That is the easy part. Food scale, USDA website...done.
USDA. Right. You do realize we don't all live in the US? The US is what, 4.48% of the world's population? It's nigh impossible to find nutritional data for most generic/cheap Greek or Turkish food brands; trust me on this, I've been trying hard.
But that is evidently not an issue with CICO itself, which as I clearly said, is the cold hard truth. One just has to approximate in some cases, and hope that rounding up here and down there will yield a rather steadily accurate long-term calculation.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
There are many reasons people overeat. I'm tired of seeing a lack of self control with certain foods being blamed on hormonal responses your body has when eating them. There are deeper reasons we eat past our hunger signals usually. THOSE need to be dealt with.
TRUTH!
Are your cravings really something your body wants or is it just poor impulse control? Most of mine are poor impulse control which is why I don't have certain foods in the house.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lydiakitten wrote: »
I disagree with the bolded part totally. That is the easy part. Food scale, USDA website...done.
USDA. Right. You do realize we don't all live in the US? The US is what, 4.48% of the world's population? It's nigh impossible to find nutritional data for most generic/cheap Greek or Turkish food brands; trust me on this, I've been trying hard.
The USDA database is very good for fresh food, no matter where you are from. 200 g of banana is going to be similar no matter where you live. Yes, manufactured foods will vary and if you live in a country that doesn't require nutrition labeling I can see where you would have an issue.
0 -
Sometimes the CICO equation is pretty complex. That's why it doesn't work for some people in the black and white sense.
+ 1
If all the blood work stars are nicely lined up.
Then it is simple math and simple math is black and white.
Else it's a complex linear function such as f(CI) = f(CO) (+-) X0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
There are many reasons people overeat. I'm tired of seeing a lack of self control with certain foods being blamed on hormonal responses your body has when eating them. There are deeper reasons we eat past our hunger signals usually. THOSE need to be dealt with.
TRUTH!
Are your cravings really something your body wants or is it just poor impulse control? Most of mine are poor impulse control which is why I don't have certain foods in the house.
I won't pretend that this is necessarily true for all the people who low carb. Not at all. For some people it's a great fit that lines up nicely with their food preferences and needs. But... for a lot of the zealots, particularly those who are so vehemently anti-sugar and the like?
They are hiding from the truth. They are seeking answers to a problem. The problem of their weight. It couldn't possibly be them, right?
It's a shame, too. Because they're not learning anything about themselves and their reasons for overeating. They're patching a gaping wound with a bandaid.
0 -
lydiakitten wrote: »
I disagree with the bolded part totally. That is the easy part. Food scale, USDA website...done.
USDA. Right. You do realize we don't all live in the US? The US is what, 4.48% of the world's population? It's nigh impossible to find nutritional data for most generic/cheap Greek or Turkish food brands; trust me on this, I've been trying hard.
But that is evidently not an issue with CICO itself, which as I clearly said, is the cold hard truth. One just has to approximate in some cases, and hope that rounding up here and down there will yield a rather steadily accurate long-term calculation.
Calm down. She doesn't live in the US either. It's just a good website for nutrition data.
0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
But it is simple. Each individual just has to be aware of their results and adjust accordingly . . . and also adjust for the variables that they control like how much exercise they do (which is the whole purpose of NEAT)
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
But it is a math equation, with ONE variable that changes person to person.
Person's maintenance - 500 calories a day = 1 lb lost a week
The only variable is that person's maintenance, which is NOT that hard to figure out.
One variable?
Not really. Again, the prinicpals are easy but the details and adherence for the individual not so much.
All these equations are estimators. They are not cold hard facts. The amount of calories in a pound of fat? We guess is to be around 3500 based on an article published in the 1930's which we know to be fairly inaccurate and open to a large variety. It works ok, but it isn't exact.
People can lose weight by doing short term carbohydrates restrictions and PSLC diets.
Someone losing and gaining weight will have a hysteresis effect - the history of weight loss does affect your TDEE.
Stress and sleep affect hormones and weight loss. Exercise and resulting inflammatory response. Depression. Etc...
The principles of weight loss are relatively easy, the details aren't as black and white as people keep on selling. The current accepted detailed model of metabolism is actually quite complex.
0 -
Sometimes the CICO equation is pretty complex. That's why it doesn't work for some people in the black and white sense.
I think I know what you mean, except I'd say the equation does always work in the black and white sense. It's in the fuzzy world of real life that it sometimes appears not to work. When you fall outside the norm. When your in and/or out is not average and online programs and calculators don't give information that is correct for you. When you have some type of condition that makes weight about more than just fat and muscle mass.
Yes, it always works. But it's not always simple.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Really? So you are saying that these people do not adhere to the calories in smaller than calories out = weight loss over time?
I did not mention rate of loss I just stated that if you eat less than you burn over time you will lose weight .. and yes I know for some it is harder than others due to medical conditions but surely the maths holds0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
So because your body doesn't adhere to an artificial 7day week you are upset? Seriously?
I'm not upset. I just think it's silly to say it's a simple equation when it's not. Over simplifying the process for the purposes of being smug is as bad as overcomplicating it.
The fault is our inability to properly calculate. It's not the maths fault!
I don't expect everyone to get it perfect but if one day 2+2= 5 it might be water bloating, or it might be that what you really are was 2.4+2.4=4.8. The next day might be 2+2=3 or 1.5+1.5=3. Just because we rounded doesn't make the math wrong or the concept less simple, it makes us imperfect calculators. Biology tends not to obey perfect numbers.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
Wait, but it's just a math equation though. Math equations aren't right sometimes. They're right all of the time. 2+2=4 not 2+2=3 today, but maybe tomorrow when we do the math it'll be 2+2=5 so we'll just take the average. That's the issue I have with it. It's not just an equation.
But it is a math equation, with ONE variable that changes person to person.
Person's maintenance - 500 calories a day = 1 lb lost a week
The only variable is that person's maintenance, which is NOT that hard to figure out.
One variable?
Not really. Again, the prinicpals are easy but the details and adherence for the individual not so much.
All these equations are estimators. They are not cold hard facts. The amount of calories in a pound of fat? We guess is to be around 3500 based on an article published in the 1930's which we know to be fairly inaccurate and open to a large variety. It works ok, but it isn't exact.
People can lose weight by doing short term carbohydrates restrictions and PSLC diets.
Someone losing and gaining weight will have a hysteresis effect - the history of weight loss does affect your TDEE.
Stress and sleep affect hormones and weight loss. Exercise and resulting inflammatory response. Depression. Etc...
The principles of weight loss are relatively easy, the details aren't as black and white as people keep on selling. The current accepted detailed model of metabolism is actually quite complex.
Which is exactly what most of us are saying: calculating the CO part of the equation may need time and patience but it does not affect the equation itself. Each individual needs to start at the averages and then adjust up or down as needed to find their sweet spot. Everyone has that sweet spot where they use more energy than they eat and, thus, lose weight.
0 -
The USDA database is very good for fresh food, no matter where you are from. 200 g of banana is going to be similar no matter where you live. Yes, manufactured foods will vary and if you live in a country that doesn't require nutrition labeling I can see where you would have an issue.
Similar, perhaps yes. Still, though, since in places like Anatolia the varieties cultivated differ wildly from what is cultivated in the US, and in arid areas a lot of fresh produce has a lot less water content and is thus a lot more calorie-dense (per weight), etc, it is not as easy as one might think to keep track one's intake in "developing countries". You'd be surprised how much the data for something as simple as corn fluctuate depending on location, variety, manner of cultivation, and more, and how small differences can pile up to serious miscalculations. Not to (re-)mention the lack of labeling in manufactured products in some countries. I say this as someone who has lived in four different places, and there is no comparison to how much of a hard time I am having now compared to when I was living in the UK.
Anyway, this is a small side issue and it's not the place to discuss it.
All I was trying to say is that people for whom CICO is not "working" are simply either miscalculating their CI, or their CO, or both, for a variety of reasons. (Usually denial.)
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
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.
Sound great. But which one? The one I had six months ago or the one now?
The one now. Which, if you've been keeping track, is likely not that different than your average as of the prior week.What about the one six months in the future after I've lost weight?
Not relevant to CICO now (except a good reason to not assume lower is always better for CI).But this is supposed to be simple.
It is simple--you are mixing it up with irrelevant things.Track it on a spreadsheet for 19 weeks while weighing my food down to the gram with strict 100% adherence.
That works.
Or log your food in MFP with the accuracy you are willing to devote (more accurate is better) and then calculate it. Your underestimates will give you a wrong number (or overestimates, less commonly), but assuming you err in a consistent way it would still be good enough. As a result many people may think they have a TDEE of 2000 when it's really 2200, but cutting below their assumed TDEE based on results (vs. a calculator that may not apply well to them) still should work, unless their activity or accuracy changes.
This all seems pretty simple to me.
The more complicated things are if you can't comply with your calorie goal and if not, figuring out how to fix that.0 -
For pure weight loss, CICO will result in a lower number on the scale, over time.
But most people on here will also say that you must pay attention to Macros, for healthy weight loss of fat, not just muscle. And exercise is also important.
Losing muscle weight will lower your CO number. For some who are insulin resistant, eating high carbs will lower your CO number, as their body doesn't process carbs/sugar the same as others without that issue.
You can eat nothing but lettuce and donuts every day and as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight over time. However, losing the weight will lower your metabolism, as will losing the lean muscle mass. This results in continuing to have to lower your calorie intake to continue losing weight.
If six months go by and someone has not lost any weight, then the bottom line is that they are not in a calorie deficit. Creating that deficit can be a bit tricky for some people, but is always possible.
So CICO is a TOOL, to be used with OTHER TOOLS, to reach your weight goals in a healthy and sustainable way.0 -
lydiakitten wrote: »
The USDA database is very good for fresh food, no matter where you are from. 200 g of banana is going to be similar no matter where you live. Yes, manufactured foods will vary and if you live in a country that doesn't require nutrition labeling I can see where you would have an issue.
Similar, perhaps yes. Still, though, since in places like Anatolia the varieties cultivated differ wildly from what is cultivated in the US, and in arid areas a lot of fresh produce has a lot less water content and is thus a lot more calorie-dense (per weight), etc, it is not as easy as one might think to keep track one's intake in "developing countries". You'd be surprised how much the data for something as simple as corn fluctuate depending on location, variety, manner of cultivation, and more. Not to (re-)mention the lack of labeling in manufactured products in some countries. I say this as someone who has lived in four different places, and there is no comparison to how much of a hard time I am having now compared to when I was living in the UK.
Anyway, this is a small side issue and it's not the place to discuss it.
All I was trying to say is that people for whom CICO is not "working" are simply either miscalculating their CI, or their CO, or both, for a variety of reasons. (Usually denial.)
Point taken, but isn't it the only comprehensive database of its kind in the world? It may be fallible, but it is better than nothing (especially in this global economy with fresh food being shipped all over the world).
Agree 100% with the bolded.
0 -
I think the real problem with a lot of the arguments here are that they are assuming that you have to have such a precise deficit to lose weight! Sure as you lose more and get closer to goal weight you have to be a little closer because the deficit range is smaller, but overall, it's not that big of a deal to hit EXACTLY a -500 or -1000 deficit. BECAUSE we are not robots and we will burn more calories on some days and less on others and we will eat more and eat less, the deficit is a suggested goal. If you calculate a deficit of -400 calories on day, that doesn't mean you won't lose you pound for the week, because you might have burned 100 extra calories just by twitching you leg all week and you didn't take any of that into account!!0
-
hsmith0930 wrote: »I think the real problem with a lot of the arguments here are that they are assuming that you have to have such a precise deficit to lose weight! Sure as you lose more and get closer to goal weight you have to be a little closer because the deficit range is smaller, but overall, it's not that big of a deal to hit EXACTLY a -500 or -1000 deficit. BECAUSE we are not robots and we will burn more calories on some days and less on others and we will eat more and eat less, the deficit is a suggested goal. If you calculate a deficit of -400 calories on day, that doesn't mean you won't lose you pound for the week, because you might have burned 100 extra calories just by twitching you leg all week and you didn't take any of that into account!!
also we're not looking at a week's weight loss but weight loss over time.. 2 months upwards .. because weight loss is simply not linear0
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