Calories in and Calories Out. Is it really that simple?
Replies
-
I don't get why that's not useful. It was incredibly useful to me to figure out how much I was eating and eat less.
Someone else telling me how to do that wouldn't have been helpful. What was helpful was me deciding to figure it out for myself.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 very simple, just not very easy!!0 -
Agree 1000% . Telling someone to "eat less, move more" is completely useless. I'm tired of that advice.0
-
0
-
Agree 1000% . Telling someone to "eat less, move more" is completely useless. I'm tired of that advice.
Yeah, easy to say, hard to do. Granted, everyone has to work out their own way of doing it, but getting advice on how others have accomplished it is what helped me work out what worked best for me.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 information
I think the reason why people simplify it so much is that there are so many different ways of losing weight and maintaining. And no one way will work for every person. Each person needs to find their own way, but when you boil down all the different successful methods, it is really ends up being CICO.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't get why that's not useful. It was incredibly useful to me to figure out how much I was eating and eat less.
Someone else telling me how to do that wouldn't have been helpful. What was helpful was me deciding to figure it out for myself.
This. See bolded.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
If you can use MFP, you can use trendweight or any of the other apps that do it.
And yes, it is noise, it can only be noise by virtue of being weight. Like if I read an oscilloscope voltage signal, all the jitter is volts - the scope isn't going to read volts and pressure or volts and temperature and combine them. If water wasn't weight, it wouldn't be a problem for determining weight of fat loss, which is the usual goal (signal) people want to measure.
And sure, enough water will make people bigger. Enough muscle will too. Besides bloating, people in physique competitions, or sport weigh-ins, I can't recall people looking to lose water.0 -
I'm not trying to be a pain, faurotann, but I'm not following. I guess I still like "eat less, move more" as the basic advice, with how we all achieve it up to us (personal responsibility).
Someone saying "you must cut carbs" or "don't eat after 6" or "eat 6 mini meals"--not helpful. (Not harmful either, I nod and smile, unless I feel like getting into it.) (On the other hand, someone saying "these are things that were helpful for me" to someone asking -- THAT'S potentially helpful and IMO generally interesting.)
So if someone asks me, I say (maybe): I ate less, and moved more. If they ask for specifics, I'd share, but I won't assume they want to do what I did, or that they should. How you do that will depend on you. I found it helpful to walk more and find exercise I enjoy, and to think over my diet and figure out where the excess calories were coming from. But telling someone else to cut out bread because that worked for me (for a while) or to drop added sugar for a few weeks or not to snack or to eat vegetables with all meals, because those things worked for me, would not be helpful, necessarily, to someone else (and similarly that eating dinner after 9 pm works for me doesn't mean I will tell anyone else that is important).
ALL that matters is a calorie deficit, and how you achieve it is personal.
When I started at MFP I was doing paleo (although I thought it was a stupid name), and I noticed lots of people didn't like paleo, but I didn't care--why should I? I had reasons of my own why I thought it would make sense for me. I eventually decided it didn't make sense for me, but that's because I figured out other things that worked.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 information
It is rather a cope out answer.
Q - I need advice and tips on how to eat less and move.
A - Just eat less and move more.
Yep great advice.
Kinda like.
Q - I need advice and tips on how to successfully run a sub 30min 5k.
A - just run at 6.32 miles an hour.
0 -
Actually, you are following. I bolded it. You said, "someone telling me how to do CICO wouldn't have been helpful". Just like you didn't care that "lots of people didn't like paleo, but I didn't care --why should I". You didn't care because, as you said, you had your own reasons.0
-
I do think telling people "CICO is what is important", and "eat less, move more" is simplistic, but still helpful. What is really necessary, is to understand what your individual energy balance is b/w CI vs CO (both at your current weight and activity level, and then as a result of weight loss, increased activity, etc to understand what that does to the balance).
If more people spent time trying to accurately understand their calorie level to maintain their current weight, then it would be simpler to 1) determine how many calories they need to either cut on the CI side, or 2) increase on the CO side in order to affect that energy balance and achieve the desired weight loss.
Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.0 -
Thank you, wino. That is very well put. There should be a "like" button on here. So I wouldn't have to waste this space.
Lemurcat, you edited your post. You changed "why should I, I had my own reasons". Again, you are making my point.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.
I think the only caveat here is that for SOME, choosing to cut out foods they love actually can be easier. Some really struggle with certain foods, so avoiding them altogether is much easier than eating just a little of them. Or they realize that they feel much better without those foods in their diet, so it's easier to cut them out for that reason (i.e. miss the taste but much prefer how they feel without them).
We all restrict in one way of another -- whether that's total number of calories, portion sizes, types of food, timing of meals, etc. It's all a restriction of some sort or another, and no one way is inherently better than another for everyone.
Figuring out what is the path of least resistance for any specific individual is key. That may be eating in moderation, that may be avoiding certain foods, that may be only eating at certain times of the day, etc. What is easiest for one may not be the easiest path for another.
0 -
Another good post. Thank you again Lindsey. This is why I tire of people saying, you can eat whatever you want. Just fit " blah blah blah" into your calories if you want to eat it.0
-
Another good post. Thank you again Lindsey. This is why I tire of people saying, you can eat whatever you want. I just fit " blah blah blah" into your calories.
But, many others really don't think they are able to lose or it's healthy to eat x. Maybe they would like to hear it. Everyone can read the advice, experience, and opinions of others and then determine how well that would work in their own lives. I never thought I'd be able to keep cookies or ice cream in my house. Now I do all the time. I like sharing my method of how I got to this point. Just because you don't like my advice doesn't mean that someone else won't.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I do think telling people "CICO is what is important", and "eat less, move more" is simplistic, but still helpful. What is really necessary, is to understand what your individual energy balance is b/w CI vs CO (both at your current weight and activity level, and then as a result of weight loss, increased activity, etc to understand what that does to the balance).
If more people spent time trying to accurately understand their calorie level to maintain their current weight, then it would be simpler to 1) determine how many calories they need to either cut on the CI side, or 2) increase on the CO side in order to affect that energy balance and achieve the desired weight loss.
Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.
I think the other part that people get hung up on is the sustainability portion though - when it comes down to it, what the person ultimately needs to be able to sustain is an appropriate calorie goal and activity level to stay in maintenance after reaching their goal.
But we often see people suggesting that someone not start down a certain path if they can't stick with it long term, particularly when it comes to an eating style. That's just not realistic for most people; our circumstances change over time, and we have to change to adapt to it. I think conversations often get bogged down with specifics and semantics, rather than the big picture, which is do you understand the basics and are you able to apply them when the variables change in a way that keeps you on track?
I think some people get overwhelmed at the idea of "forever," which is why these time-limited diet plans are popular. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to steer people away from them though, just because they aren't necessarily a sustainable plan. Often having the experience of doing something short term helps a person develop a skill that can help them in the long term in creating a plan that is sustainable for them. I don't know anyone on this site is doing the exact same thing now that they were when they started, but they've figured out what is necessary for them to be able to succeed.
The trick, of course, is helping to guide people to figure out what is necessary for them, which is where I feel that focusing simply on the CICO principal fails the user.0 -
Another good post. Thank you again Lindsey. This is why I tire of people saying, "you can eat whatever you want. I just fit " blah blah blah" into your calories.
Sometimes it's hard for people to see beyond their own perspective. Eating in moderation is easiest for some and not eating certain foods sounds painfully restrictive for them. For them, it wouldn't be as sustainable because they'd feel too deprived. Sometimes, such people, have a hard time understanding that people are different than them. That for others, the proposed path of moderation is much more difficult.
I personally can see it both ways. There are some things that I can eat in moderation rather easily, but there are others that are a great struggle for me. So I just tend to avoid them so I'm not tempted or don't have to fight the temptation. I'm a big fan of the sweet spot where you maximize results and minimize efforts -- understanding that differs for each person. And with so many wonderful, tasty things in this world, I don't do feel deprived at all in that respect.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
If you can use MFP, you can use trendweight or any of the other apps that do it.
And yes, it is noise, it can only be noise by virtue of being weight. Like if I read an oscilloscope voltage signal, all the jitter is volts - the scope isn't going to read volts and pressure or volts and temperature and combine them. If water wasn't weight, it wouldn't be a problem for determining weight of fat loss, which is the usual goal (signal) people want to measure.
And sure, enough water will make people bigger. Enough muscle will too. Besides bloating, people in physique competitions, or sport weigh-ins, I can't recall people looking to lose water.
Blah, blah, blah. Most people want to get smaller and look lean. Water can prevent that as much as fat can. Especially for some with certain medical conditions.0 -
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »
I think it's the HOW which is why it's limited.
Like the smoking example someone gave earlier. Telling someone to quit smoking is pretty simple, but figuring out HOW to accomplish that is the key. Same with the food issue -- most people get the general gist, but figuring out how to make that work for them and their lives can be the big challenge.
0 -
I'm glad you quoted my post, Ruthee. I said "telling someone to eat less, move more is completely useless. I'm tired of that advice. " Everyone here keeps saying you have to find your own way. That's why telling someone to "eat less, move more" is useless. It's not helpful. Read all the posts above. Don't make me quote them.0
-
That simple.0
-
Unfortunately people are still looking to believe the "nonsense". Ever had someone ask you how you lost the weight and you say something like " I just made sure that I took in less calories than I burned", then you get that look of disbelief. It's usually accompanied by how they are using or thinking of using, green tea, raspberry ketones etc etc blah blah blah. The diet industry loves the folks who don't believe they can lose weight and keep money in their wallets. The theory is simple. The practical? Not so easy.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?
0 -
Lifting, read Lindsey's post above mine. That's why it's not simple.0
-
That's why if they give you that look of disbelief, you tell them your real "secret" and make up something ridiculous like you eat a pine-cone everyday to see if they'll start doing that.debsdoingthis wrote: »
Unfortunately people are still looking to believe the "nonsense". Ever had someone ask you how you lost the weight and you say something like " I just made sure that I took in less calories than I burned", then you get that look of disbelief. It's usually accompanied by how they are using or thinking of using, green tea, raspberry ketones etc etc blah blah blah. The diet industry loves the folks who don't believe they can lose weight and keep money in their wallets. The theory is simple. The practical? Not so easy.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?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I do think telling people "CICO is what is important", and "eat less, move more" is simplistic, but still helpful. What is really necessary, is to understand what your individual energy balance is b/w CI vs CO (both at your current weight and activity level, and then as a result of weight loss, increased activity, etc to understand what that does to the balance).
If more people spent time trying to accurately understand their calorie level to maintain their current weight, then it would be simpler to 1) determine how many calories they need to either cut on the CI side, or 2) increase on the CO side in order to affect that energy balance and achieve the desired weight loss.
Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.
I think the other part that people get hung up on is the sustainability portion though - when it comes down to it, what the person ultimately needs to be able to sustain is an appropriate calorie goal and activity level to stay in maintenance after reaching their goal.
But we often see people suggesting that someone not start down a certain path if they can't stick with it long term, particularly when it comes to an eating style. That's just not realistic for most people; our circumstances change over time, and we have to change to adapt to it. I think conversations often get bogged down with specifics and semantics, rather than the big picture, which is do you understand the basics and are you able to apply them when the variables change in a way that keeps you on track?
I think some people get overwhelmed at the idea of "forever," which is why these time-limited diet plans are popular. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to steer people away from them though, just because they aren't necessarily a sustainable plan. Often having the experience of doing something short term helps a person develop a skill that can help them in the long term in creating a plan that is sustainable for them. I don't know anyone on this site is doing the exact same thing now that they were when they started, but they've figured out what is necessary for them to be able to succeed.
The trick, of course, is helping to guide people to figure out what is necessary for them, which is where I feel that focusing simply on the CICO principal fails the user.
I would agree with most of this. As part of this process, I think many of us make changes, use trial and error, and learn things about ourselves, and what satisfies us, what motivates us, etc - that lead to completely different habits than when we started. I know for me, I am FAR more active now, just with regards to daily movement, not even purposeful exercise than when I started. I also eat more protein now, more vegetables now, and I try to cook more from scratch. I still love eating in restaurants, but I tend to be choosier about which ones I go to and how often. When I started MFP, I had a goal weight in mind, but that is different than where I've ended up. My activity level is higher so my TDEE is higher (possibly even from where I started although I don't know that I ever calculated it at that point). So yeah, I agree, as part of this, our approach evolves and what I did in the first few months of MFP when I was first losing is very different than how I am currently maintaining. So to that end, I do think flexibility and adaptability is important in order to achieve long term success.
I also agree with the idea of setting small, manageable goals for oneself - and if one of those is to look at things in time limits (ie next year at this time I want to be 50 lbs lighter) without regard to whether the plan is a forever plan - I guess that's ok, as long as the tactics you are using are safe, reasonable, and not likely to lead to long term negative effects.
The only time I ever usually mention the whole idea of "are you going to cut XXX out forever" is when people really are being extreme. For example, I don't take issue with people that are trying a LC approach, as I know that there are many people who do find that to be a satisfying and sustainable approach for the long term. There's another thread going on right now though where the OP said she can't ever eat bread because it makes her fall off the wagon, and as such it is giving her anxiety about going out to dinner with her boyfriend. That is the kind of scenario where I would pull out the, "are you going to never eat bread for the rest of your life" comment, because it seems like it is negatively impacting other parts of her social life. I usually have the same reaction when people flip out about going out to a restaurant and "OMG what am I going to order" posts come up. I feel like life is all about adapting to your situation and if you can't figure out how to navigate a restaurant menu and not feel like you are undoing all your progress then I think you've been too restrictive and are likely setting yourself up for failure in the long run.
0 -
LOL, pine cones <snort> love that
That's why if they give you that look of disbelief, you tell them your real "secret" and make up something ridiculous like you eat a pine-cone everyday to see if they'll start doing that.debsdoingthis wrote: »
Unfortunately people are still looking to believe the "nonsense". Ever had someone ask you how you lost the weight and you say something like " I just made sure that I took in less calories than I burned", then you get that look of disbelief. It's usually accompanied by how they are using or thinking of using, green tea, raspberry ketones etc etc blah blah blah. The diet industry loves the folks who don't believe they can lose weight and keep money in their wallets. The theory is simple. The practical? Not so easy.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?
0 -
I'm glad you quoted my post. I said "telling someone to eat less, move more is completely useless. I'm tired of that advice. " Everyone here keeps saying you have to find your own way. That's why telling someone to "eat less, move more" is useless. It's not helpful. Read all the posts above. Don't make me quote them.
Eat less, move more is not useless. It is a high level summary on how to make CICO work more effectively to achieve the desired result. Eat less, move more should work for everyone.
What you choose to eat, and how you choose to exercise or be more active, is the specific way in which you implement the "eat less, move more" advice. As I said before, there are endless different combinations of what to eat and how to exercise - this is the piece that an individual has to decide for themselves. Moderation may work for one person. Elimination might work for someone else. Paleo, LCHF, Raw Vegan, etc, etc.
0 -
CICO is not a "high level" summary. It's a simple summary. See Lifting's quote above.0
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