Calories in and Calories Out. Is it really that simple?
flippy1234
Posts: 686 Member
I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
0
Replies
-
Odd, I haven't seen this question asked before, now there are two in one day.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10254777/if-its-really-all-about-cico-then/p1
Yes it is that simple, all the other nonsense is from ignorance or about getting money, as there's little money to be earned in CICO.0 -
It is that simple.
The other nonsense is largely because many people aren't willing to take the steps necessary to get their CO higher than their CI and are hoping for magic.0 -
Yep, it's really that simple.
I came out to my car Wednesday morning to a solicitation that said "Learn about the 7 Hormones that are making you fat" and I grabbed it, screamed and ripped it into confetti. I hate that people even come up with that crap. It almost gives people excuses. Drives me insane.0 -
flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
Yes, it's that simple. (Which doesn't mean it's always easy.)
The other nonsense breaks down into two main groups, I think.
(1) Ways to help people reduce calories or increase activity in ways that won't feel burdensome to them. (This includes tricks like not snacking or eating 5-6 mini meals or not eating after some time or not eating certain foods or IF or low carbing, etc. Also lots of fad diets that simply lower calories even though they pretend some magic of food combinations or claptrap like that.) If these are marketed honestly as what they are, I have no issue with them. If someone claims it magically means calories don't matter, then beware.
(2) Purely false stuff that preys on people's impatience or desperation (like "cleanses" or various over the counter pills or herbs or most anything that costs money). (Of course, the average cleanse also is simply a VLCD, so fits into category (1) also.)0 -
All the other crap is people trying to make money, some more honorably than others.0
-
flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
It's simple, but it isn't easy. Most people want either a magic pill, or an excuse.0 -
It is surprising that although everyone wants to know how to lose weight, very few actually believe the way to do so. CI<CO. Eat less, exercise more. (Exercisie meaning, just move). I find just logging CI makes me aware of what I'm doing and helps me eat less. Kinda like the golfer calling a penalty on hem(her)self.0
-
The concept that a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight is that simple. You have to burn more calories (CO) than you ingest (CI).
Different things like activity level, medical conditions, etc, can impact the CO portion, which is why many people do not believe that it is that simple. They look at a their diary, see that they are eating a certain amount which should theoretically put them in a deficit, but they are not losing, so they say it doesn't work. They don't realize that it's something on the CO side that is throwing the equation out of whack.
The CICO equation aside, there are also plenty of other variables that can impact an individual's ability to lose weight. Food availability, finances, support resources, access to medical care; those are just a few of the life factors that can makes losing weight difficult.
So while the theory is simple, putting the theory into practice is much more difficult for people. I think a lot of practices that people use to help get themselves into a deficit are not given a fair shake around here because some people deem them unnecessary. There are a lot of things in this world that aren't necessary, but if it helps you get where you want to be and you don't find it cumbersome, who cares if someone else doesn't like it?0 -
flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
It's simple, but it isn't easy. Most people want either a magic pill, or an excuse.
^This.
It really is that simple. Everyone, even the people on here who claim otherwise, loses weight by eating less calories than their body burns.
Everything else is just noise and nonsense.
0 -
I think it's rare that the practices themselves aren't given a fair shake. Overwhelming, it's pointed out that such practices are personal preference, not requirements. Overwhelmingly, it's pointed out that different ways of eating can be effective for different people in getting CI less than CO. Overwhelmingly, it's the people putting forward particular ways of eating who make the claim that their way is the right way. Overwhelmingly, those who say that, in the end, it's all CICO are painted as the intolerant meanies.So while the theory is simple, putting the theory into practice is much more difficult for people. I think a lot of practices that people use to help get themselves into a deficit are not given a fair shake around here because some people deem them unnecessary. There are a lot of things in this world that aren't necessary, but if it helps you get where you want to be and you don't find it cumbersome, who cares if someone else doesn't like it?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think it's rare that the practices themselves aren't given a fair shake. Overwhelming, it's pointed out that such practices are personal preference, not requirements. Overwhelmingly, it's pointed out that different ways of eating can be effective for different people in getting CI less than CO. Overwhelmingly, it's the people putting forward particular ways of eating who make the claim that their way is the right way. Overwhelmingly, those who say that, in the end, it's all CICO are painted as the intolerant meanies.So while the theory is simple, putting the theory into practice is much more difficult for people. I think a lot of practices that people use to help get themselves into a deficit are not given a fair shake around here because some people deem them unnecessary. There are a lot of things in this world that aren't necessary, but if it helps you get where you want to be and you don't find it cumbersome, who cares if someone else doesn't like it?
Insert Morgan Freeman He's Right You Know .gif
Editing to add that many people who feel themselves to be outliers are in fact just in denial and aren't tracking food or exercise accurately. Most medical conditions aren't dire enough to wipe out a pound a week deficit fully. Make one lose more slowly than expected? Yup.
0 -
Yes, it is that simple, as everyone else has said. Doesn't mean it's easy. I lost 65 pounds in two years without changing my diet in any substantial way, just eating less of everything.0
-
I think a lot of practices that people use to help get themselves into a deficit are not given a fair shake around here because some people deem them unnecessary. There are a lot of things in this world that aren't necessary, but if it helps you get where you want to be and you don't find it cumbersome, who cares if someone else doesn't like it?
My impression is that people are quite open to these things when it's acknowledged that they are strategies for creating a calorie deficit. Many low carbers say that (like shell explains, among others), and most will agree it can be a great strategy for those people. Similarly, IF seems pretty popular, and I haven't noticed too much disapproval of it (except for a few who seem not to understand what it is), and that's largely because most will agree that it's a way of lowering overall calories (and if there is a benefit to the fasting bit that's minor and not the main reason it works). When people explain they have trigger foods or don't eat after 8 because it helps them not overeat, people get it. They just object when others say "no one should eat bananas!" or "stop eating after 7!" I personally have said repeatedly that I try not to snack but only to eat planned meals, because I overeat when I snack and that was the easiest way for me to stop it. No one has ever given me a hard time or said "that's not necessary" because I make it perfectly clear I don't think it is -- I merely think it's helpful for me.
People do have a harder time with things that are both a strategy for eating less and seem on their face unhealthy, though, like a juice fast or cleanse or many very low calorie or unbalanced fad diets, and this is especially true if the thing is a scam that costs money (or Beach Body specifically).0 -
flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
Yes and no. FAT loss is really all about calories. But it's not always simple. The two biggest variables I can think of that make it seem like it’s about more than calories are:
1. Weight loss and fat loss may not be comparable. Water weight can be a big factor in weight loss.
2. There are many medical conditions that can throw a person outside the average categories making all these online calculators incorrect for them.
All of the other nonsense is mostly about money, but also about tyring to make it easier.0 -
Water weight is noise, fat loss is signal. It is fairly easy to fix the problem by looking at daily weight as a rolling average and track the trend with something like trendweigh.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
Yes and no. FAT loss is really all about calories. But it's not always simple. The two biggest variables I can think of that make it seem like it’s about more than calories are:
1. Weight loss and fat loss may not be comparable. Water weight can be a big factor in weight loss.
2. There are many medical conditions that can throw a person outside the average categories making all these online calculators incorrect for them.
All of the other nonsense is mostly about money, but also about tyring to make it easier.
0 -
Thanks all. All of your comments help and are very interesting.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think a lot of practices that people use to help get themselves into a deficit are not given a fair shake around here because some people deem them unnecessary. There are a lot of things in this world that aren't necessary, but if it helps you get where you want to be and you don't find it cumbersome, who cares if someone else doesn't like it?
My impression is that people are quite open to these things when it's acknowledged that they are strategies for creating a calorie deficit. Many low carbers say that (like shell explains, among others), and most will agree it can be a great strategy for those people. Similarly, IF seems pretty popular, and I haven't noticed too much disapproval of it (except for a few who seem not to understand what it is), and that's largely because most will agree that it's a way of lowering overall calories (and if there is a benefit to the fasting bit that's minor and not the main reason it works). When people explain they have trigger foods or don't eat after 8 because it helps them not overeat, people get it. They just object when others say "no one should eat bananas!" or "stop eating after 7!" I personally have said repeatedly that I try not to snack but only to eat planned meals, because I overeat when I snack and that was the easiest way for me to stop it. No one has ever given me a hard time or said "that's not necessary" because I make it perfectly clear I don't think it is -- I merely think it's helpful for me.
People do have a harder time with things that are both a strategy for eating less and seem on their face unhealthy, though, like a juice fast or cleanse or many very low calorie or unbalanced fad diets, and this is especially true if the thing is a scam that costs money (or Beach Body specifically).
You and I have chatted enough by now that you know that we're pretty much on the same page as far as our approach to weight loss and our viewpoints about different weight loss/management strategies. I don't disagree that when the information is presented as you said, that it is often well-received. However, most new users to be forums do not present their viewpoint that way, and are also not necessarily asking their questions from a scientific standpoint, but a behavioral one. The conversation misses often the forest for the trees.
I feel like Sidesteel says it better than I do: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/SideSteel/view/the-coaching-experience-forum-generalizations-7509620 -
yes I think its that simple, as long as your in a calorie def, and take in the calories you need per day, for me ive lost 31 pounds in 5 months with no exercise, I just been weighing my food out and getting my calories in0
-
I think for weight loss, it basically comes down to one needing CI<CO. That being said, I think some diets make it easier to eat less, or help the body to increase CO so weight loss is easier.
There is always long term health to consider too. Some diets will promote long term health and others won't.0 -
It is absolutely that simple. Finding your will to implement CICO is what can be tricky.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think a lot of practices that people use to help get themselves into a deficit are not given a fair shake around here because some people deem them unnecessary. There are a lot of things in this world that aren't necessary, but if it helps you get where you want to be and you don't find it cumbersome, who cares if someone else doesn't like it?
My impression is that people are quite open to these things when it's acknowledged that they are strategies for creating a calorie deficit. Many low carbers say that (like shell explains, among others), and most will agree it can be a great strategy for those people. Similarly, IF seems pretty popular, and I haven't noticed too much disapproval of it (except for a few who seem not to understand what it is), and that's largely because most will agree that it's a way of lowering overall calories (and if there is a benefit to the fasting bit that's minor and not the main reason it works). When people explain they have trigger foods or don't eat after 8 because it helps them not overeat, people get it. They just object when others say "no one should eat bananas!" or "stop eating after 7!" I personally have said repeatedly that I try not to snack but only to eat planned meals, because I overeat when I snack and that was the easiest way for me to stop it. No one has ever given me a hard time or said "that's not necessary" because I make it perfectly clear I don't think it is -- I merely think it's helpful for me.
People do have a harder time with things that are both a strategy for eating less and seem on their face unhealthy, though, like a juice fast or cleanse or many very low calorie or unbalanced fad diets, and this is especially true if the thing is a scam that costs money (or Beach Body specifically).
You and I have chatted enough by now that you know that we're pretty much on the same page as far as our approach to weight loss and our viewpoints about different weight loss/management strategies. I don't disagree that when the information is presented as you said, that it is often well-received. However, most new users to be forums do not present their viewpoint that way, and are also not necessarily asking their questions from a scientific standpoint, but a behavioral one. The conversation misses often the forest for the trees.
I feel like Sidesteel says it better than I do: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/SideSteel/view/the-coaching-experience-forum-generalizations-750962
Oh, I think we are mostly disagreeing just as to what the normal forum response is and perhaps what leads to the occasional unpleasantness. I know I try to be generally understanding to a newbie asking questions inartfully and will try and address the behavioral stuff, because I do think it's important.
What frustrates me is that what helps from a behavioral standpoint differs from person to person and often requires more information -- WHEN do you overeat, what are you finding difficult about reducing sweets, etc.? And yet you get people (NOT the OP, someone else acting as an expert) jumping in with general proclamations "eat NO sugar" or "carbs are bad" or "don't eat after 6" or "don't eat bananas, they are like cupcakes!" and accusing the rest of us of not caring about nutrition because we try to say all or nothing isn't necessary although there are things that might help from a behavioral POV.
But I suppose it's kind of pointless to discuss this in a vacuum -- I just get tired of the "MFP forum responses" being caricatured as unhelpful and ignoring behavioral stuff, since I try hard not to do that and I am often one of the people responding. (Same with the repeated claims that MFP posters don't care about nutrition, as one will find in the "clean eating" forum, which I checked out after being invited to during a discussion a while back. That I don't use the term "clean eating" doesn't mean I don't care about nutrition. I just don't think nutrition=a particular stance on processed food.)
Okay, sorry about that digression! ;-)0 -
flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
Yes yes yes and im amazed how some people can even cite it without understanding it.0 -
There is always long term health to consider too. Some diets will promote long term health and others won't.
And apparently there are some disagreements about what diets do what, which is one reason I try to say "food choice matters for health and nutrition" and maybe give my ideas or some links but not insist that eating the way I do is the only way to show that one cares about health/nutrition.0 -
So far, so good. No special diets, no pills, no shakes (ok, maybe some protein shakes), no weight watchers or nutrisystem. I eat the same foods that got me fat and I walk for exercise.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But I suppose it's kind of pointless to discuss this in a vacuum -- I just get tired of the "MFP forum responses" being caricatured as unhelpful and ignoring behavioral stuff, since I try hard not to do that and I am often one of the people responding. (Same with the repeated claims that MFP posters don't care about nutrition, as one will find in the "clean eating" forum, which I checked out after being invited to during a discussion a while back. That I don't use the term "clean eating" doesn't mean I don't care about nutrition. I just don't think nutrition=a particular stance on processed food.)
Completely agree (bolding added by me)So while the theory is simple, putting the theory into practice is much more difficult for people. I think a lot of practices that people use to help get themselves into a deficit are not given a fair shake around here because some people deem them unnecessary. There are a lot of things in this world that aren't necessary, but if it helps you get where you want to be and you don't find it cumbersome, who cares if someone else doesn't like it?
The simpler people keep things, the more likely they are to succeed. I have taught my kids that rule since they were very small. KISS. "Keep it simple, stupid." Great family saying, right? That's okay, you should hear our family motto
0 -
I'm in the yes and no camp. Yes, for most people it is really that simple from a baseline calculation perspective. But HOW they choose to create that deficit can vary greatly based on (1) their individual behavioral issues (what causes or contributes to the overeating in the first place) as well as (2) their individual body chemistry.
For (1), different ways of eating are more or less effective for different people. Some do great by just counting calories and reducing their portion sizes -- like IIFYM folks. Others, find this more difficult and they opt for other strategies -- such changing what they eat (like the "clean" eaters or keto folks) or how often (like those that prefer an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2). They're all legitimate ways to accomplish the same goal, but the preference and success of each strategy varies considerably based on the individual. Sometimes people get into fights about these things, that one is better or worse than the other -- but they're all legitimate, it's only better or worse for any specific person.
For (2), there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results. If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
And, then there are the unfortunate cases where the standard CICO calculations aren't working for people. They likely have something else going on -- like a medical issue -- that is skewing things. Why/how this happens isn't clearly understood but there certainly are individuals who are eating at an amount that SHOULD be creating a significant deficit and yet they aren't seeing the results. People often get into fights about CICO here, citing the law of thermodynamics and what not, but the issue is really about the APPLICATION of the standard/expected CICO calculations (and how those can be manipulated for weight loss) rather than the validity of CICO itself. Many don't understand the difference between this and that misunderstanding fuels a LOT of fights and ugliness here on MFP.
So, a good rule of thumb in my opinion, is to make sure you're really accurate on the calories you're eating (this seems to be the most common mistake) and if you're sure of that and still not seeing reasonably expected results, that's the time to start inquiring about other factors -- like common medical conditions that have been seen to impact this.0 -
Yes. Any diet plan, when you boil it down to it's very basic, is based on the principle of burning more calories than you consume. Everything else is just methods of doing so. Some (most fad diets) are not sustainable, some can even be dangerous *coughdetoxingcough*. But at the heart of EVERY diet plan of any kind is that if you follow it, you will end up burning more calories than you consume.
How you do this is up to you. Not every method will work for everyone. Find a method that works for you and that you would be comfortable with doing for the rest of your life if you want to lose weight and keep it off.0 -
Water weight is noise, fat loss is signal. It is fairly easy to fix the problem by looking at daily weight as a rolling average and track the trend with something like trendweigh.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
Yes and no. FAT loss is really all about calories. But it's not always simple. The two biggest variables I can think of that make it seem like it’s about more than calories are:
1. Weight loss and fat loss may not be comparable. Water weight can be a big factor in weight loss.
2. There are many medical conditions that can throw a person outside the average categories making all these online calculators incorrect for them.
All of the other nonsense is mostly about money, but also about tyring to make it easier.
Water weight is not noise, it's weight. It makes you big just like fat does. And "easy" is opinion.0 -
+ 10,000 Well put.0
-
In theory its simple, in practice it's not..similar to telling a smoker to "just stop smoking"..."Just CICO" or "Eat less, move more" is completely useless in terms of helpful information0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions