Fun debate about CICO

VintageFeline

The perennial debate has come up with a friend today about the only thing mattering being CICO.

He argues food affects how many calories are stored as fat due hormone interruption. So what you eat matters. As someone who does the moderation thing I refute this.

I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.

Good sources and opinion to back me up or discredit me please!

sheldonklein

3500 is a rule of thumb, not a law of nature. http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml

BigGuy47

VintageFeline wrote: »

I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.

I strongly agree. I eliminated all health contains from my diet and I've never felt better.

jemhh

sheldonklein wrote: »

3500 is a rule of thumb, not a law of nature. http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml

To piggyback on this: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/3500-calorie-rule.html/

CICO rules the day in the end but I wouldn't build my argument on the 3500 calorie figure.

PeachyCarol

I argue that dietary compliance trumps everything when it comes to long term weight management.

I reject your parameters of debate and substitute my own!

jemhh

PeachyCarol wrote: »

I argue that dietary compliance trumps everything when it comes to long term weight management.

I reject your parameters of debate and substitute my own!

Another competitor throws her hat into the ring...

KittensMaster

Food is fuel

Certain fuels are better for certain for certain activities

I'm training for my first sprint triathlon.

So what I eat matters.... A lot.

If you are doing body recomposition what you eat matters.

If you are dieting only and don't eat enough protein you lose muscle and fat. Then it becomes a disaster.

CICO is such a dumbed down saying when tossed about it does the concept injustice.

Of course calories matter and what they are for matters as well.

But this is MFP so anything goes.

Good luck!

hamelle2

KittensMaster wrote: »

Food is fuel

Certain fuels are better for certain for certain activities

I'm training for my first sprint triathlon.

So what I eat matters.... A lot.

If you are doing body recomposition what you eat matters.

If you are dieting only and don't eat enough protein you lose muscle and fat. Then it becomes a disaster.

CICO is such a dumbed down saying when tossed about it does the concept injustice.

Of course calories matter and what they are for matters as well.

But this is MFP so anything goes.

Good luck!

Wow. Everyone needs to read this twice and then read it again! The CICO is true and must be followed for weight loss. I am learning there needs to be more then just my daily goal of CICO. Thank you.

cwolfman13

3500 calories is just a general guideline, it's not a hard and fast rule.

ultimately CICO is far and away the most important element of weight management, but that doesn't mean that what you eat doesn't matter. your friend is correct in that eating certain things can have an impact on hormones and that can certainly impact weight management and fat storage, but you also have to consider dosage here. eating sugary treats here and there in moderation is completely different than slamming multiple 40 ounce Big Gulps daily to wash down the pie and cookies you had for lunch.

certain foods are also going to have an impact on TEF, though getting all wrapped up in that is majoring in the minors.

Pawsforme

Except it may be 7,000 calories per pound instead of 3,500.

As a purely thermodynamic equation performed in a laboratory CICO works and always will. It's inarguable. But there's still much to be learned about how it actually relates to real humans. It's likely much more complicated in real life over months or years than it is in a controlled chemistry experiment done in a lab.

stevencloser

Pawsforme wrote: »

Except it may be 7,000 calories per pound instead of 3,500.

As a purely thermodynamic equation performed in a laboratory CICO works and always will. It's inarguable. But there's still much to be learned about how it actually relates to real humans. It's likely much more complicated in real life over months or years than it is in a controlled chemistry experiment done in a lab.

That article is twisting the things it's talking about. The people who made the weight loss planner did NOT say 3500 is not a pound or that it may be 7000 per pound.

They went (for whatever unfathomable reason) with the assumption you never adjust your calorie goals, so as you lose weight, your weight loss slows down as your maintenance calories drop. You don't change your calorie intake to accomodate for that -> you don't lose as fast as you thought you were and your 500 deficit turns to 400, 300, and lower the longer you lose weight.

lowriderjim

I agree with the OP. I have lost around 90 lbs eating less of most foods and counting calories. The food choices I make are if the calories in a certain food is worth the calories. I would also add that seniors can loose weight and although exercise is important to health, weight can still be lost. I have lost 50 lbs in the last five months am 68 years old and this amount of weight was lost with no exercise.

These are only facts that have worked for me. Do what works for you but as the OP says CICO still is the important point.

suziecue20

I had a look at the Trim Team website and they advocate cutting out certain foods and eating certain foods together because of the way hormone interruption affects fat storage. I couldn't say if this method leads to greater weight loss than CICO but it sure is much more complicated.

stevencloser

suziecue20 wrote: »

I had a look at the Trim Team website and they advocate cutting out certain foods and eating certain foods together because of the way hormone interruption affects fat storage. I couldn't say if this method leads to greater weight loss than CICO but it sure is much more complicated.

The only things that can affect your fat loss are things that may change your body's ability to absorb calories or your expenditure. Energy that isn't there can't be stored.

AspenDan

PeachyCarol wrote: »

I argue that dietary compliance trumps everything when it comes to long term weight management.

I reject your parameters of debate and substitute my own!

^^ most people who don't lose weight, don't diet well

ninerbuff

CICO is what matters for weight loss/gain/maintenance.

HOW someone prefers to make up those calories will depend on their own fitness/health goals. There really is no wrong way as long as they are meeting their essentials and being consistent with their own personal program.

I don't have any client adhere to any eating style. I let them figure it out for themselves.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

nvmomketo

My n=1 would show that one must eat CI<CO to lose weight, but that what I eat can affect the rate of loss. I don't know if it is a calorie for calorie difference between some foods or what, but when I eat in a way that is healthier for my body, I tend to lose more weight than expected. Maybe my body processes certain macros differently. Maybe because I feel so much better, I am moving more than I realize so my CO is increased without realizing it. I don't really know.

I do know that for weight loss for me, it isn't just CI<CO, although that is the major factor.

PeachyCarol

cwolfman13 wrote: »

3500 calories is just a general guideline, it's not a hard and fast rule.

ultimately CICO is far and away the most important element of weight management, but that doesn't mean that what you eat doesn't matter. your friend is correct in that eating certain things can have an impact on hormones and that can certainly impact weight management and fat storage, but you also have to consider dosage here. eating sugary treats here and there in moderation is completely different than slamming multiple 40 ounce Big Gulps daily to wash down the pie and cookies you had for lunch.

certain foods are also going to have an impact on TEF, though getting all wrapped up in that is majoring in the minors.

Which is why I argue that compliance matters most for long-term adherence and sustainability. Meh, so this or that macro balance or cooking method doesn't math out optimally for weight loss, but you're still losing and you enjoy what you're eating.

To me, that trumps all the nit-picking.

PeachyCarol

danieltsmoke wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

I argue that dietary compliance trumps everything when it comes to long term weight management.

I reject your parameters of debate and substitute my own!

^^ most people who don't lose weight, don't diet well

That's not what I meant. I meant eating in a way you enjoy. I really, really don't care if a certain macro balance will lead to accelerated loss if it's not a macro balance/cooking method that works with how I enjoy eating. This isn't a race to a finish line, my run time doesn't matter to me. I'm doing this for life. I really don't care if I'm only burning 2,700 calories and I could be burning 3,000 calories if I didn't eat a banana every night and had something different instead (or something like that).

I like bananas, so I'll keep eating in a way that is sustainable for me.

I've lost 60 pounds in 300 days of logging, I'm doing something right.

PeachyCarol

nvmomketo wrote: »

My n=1 would show that one must eat CI<CO to lose weight, but that what I eat can affect the rate of loss. I don't know if it is a calorie for calorie difference between some foods or what, but when I eat in a way that is healthier for my body, I tend to lose more weight than expected. Maybe my body processes certain macros differently. Maybe because I feel so much better, I am moving more than I realize so my CO is increased without realizing it. I don't really know.

I do know that for weight loss for me, it isn't just CI<CO, although that is the major factor.

You haven't been dieting that long. Most long term studies with people with larger amounts to lose show that rate of loss with different macro balances evens out over time.