Calories in and Calories Out. Is it really that simple?

flippy1234

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?

DemoraFairy

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.

DeguelloTex

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.

kristen6350

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.

lemurcat12

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.)

Jruzer

All the other crap is people trying to make money, some more honorably than others.

kimny72

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.

pondee629

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.

kgeyser

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?

PeachyCarol

kimny72 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?

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.

DeguelloTex

kgeyser wrote: »

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?

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.

PeachyCarol

DeguelloTex wrote: »

kgeyser wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

bwogilvie

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.

lemurcat12

kgeyser 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).

Need2Exerc1se

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.

senecarr

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 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.

flippy1234

Thanks all. All of your comments help and are very interesting.

kgeyser

lemurcat12 wrote: »

kgeyser 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

rollerjog

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 in

nvmomketo

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.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

It is absolutely that simple. Finding your will to implement CICO is what can be tricky.