Calories in and Calories Out. Is it really that simple?
Options
Replies
-
But here's the true answer:
I walked more, I worked out a lot more, and I monitored how much I ate.
Am I supposed to say something that's not true, just because people would rather I say "I did South Beach" or "I gave up added sugar" (neither of which is true) or "I did a Whole 30 after which I had no desire to overeat ever again and could effortlessly lose weight without thinking about it (which is what many want to hear).
I can say (and do if someone asks more specific questions) that I had an issue with stress eating and worked on journaling and some other things to deal with it, but most people don't care about that and it's somewhat personal.
Saying "I don't eat between meals" is also accurate, but for many won't be helpful at all and it's no more necessary than I committed to doing a triathlon and decided to learn how to lift (also true).0 -
Head west for 1500 miles is not irrelevant. CICO is not irrelevant either. But if you told me to head west for 1500 miles I'd give you that blank stare. The same blank stare as people get when they hear the answer to the question how did you lose weight. I ate less, moved more.
But that's what I did, so I can't tell them I did anything else. I literally count my calories to eat at a deficit and use my treadmill every day.
That's it. I have nothing else special that I did. No low carbs, no high fat, heck, I didn't even focus on my macros at all to start. Calories only. For me, that very basic information was literally the only thing that finally worked. It's all the other stuff that makes it more confusing for me. I still don't pay too close attention to macros, other than to get enough protein, which I really only started doing in the past 2 months because of learning more. When I hit maintenance, I'll still focus on my calories, but I'll pay more attention to proteins and fats. Sometimes it's the simple phrase, eat less, move more, that can kick start someone's loss. They can start with it, learn they can be successful, and then take that information and add to it any way they like.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
No, the reason people look at each other funny is they think there HAS to be something more to it.lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
I'm not sure it's totally useless, but it is pretty limited. It's fairly Captain Obvious. Now, giving people examples of HOW you managed to eat less and HOW you managed move more, now that's useful, pragmatic advice and information and what I suspect people are actually looking for with such inquiries.
I think that's why people look at others funny when they said, "oh, I just ate less and moved more." Yeah, no sheet Sherlock...
I really don't know how to explain how I applied Eat Less, Move More to an individual because I didn't follow any magical program. I literally ate the same things I was already eating, in smaller portions and/or less often, and I moved more than I was before. Period. I didn't cut anything out, I didn't follow a certain way of eating, try a special diet, etc. I figured out my numbers, and I used those numbers to make the decisions on a daily basis of how to implement the concept of Eat Less, Move More.
You guys keep saying that is not helpful, but that is the point. ANYONE can do this. That is helpful, to know that anyone can do it, with no special programs to follow. Do it whatever way you want. You can do it with LCHF. You can do it with Paleo. You can be Vegetarian, Pescetarian, Flexitarian. You can eat "clean" or not. You can be a runner, a walker, a cyclist, a yogi, a heavy lifter. In my opinion, Eat Less, Move More is not only simple, it is helpful.
I think some of the confusion comes when someone asks something like "I want to cut carbs" and gets a response like "Not necessary - CICO," people think they are mutually exclusive concepts. I know I've seen you respond to a few posts lately where CICO is being viewed as a way of eating, not as a explanation of the energy balance, so that might be part of the problem right there.0 -
Now there it is. This is a diet and fitness forum. People know what they want. They just don't know how to get there. Maybe, for limited number, CICO is a new concept. But I highly doubt it. As Lindsey put it, they are asking how to do it.
^^and the very simple answer to this is eat less calories than you burn, and that doesn't necessarily mean you even have to move more.
Most weight loss plans/diets have a hook that some people need to motivate themselves, but underneath the hype, it is the same, eat less calories than you burn daily to lose weight.
It is better for most of us to be a "normal" weight. How we get to that point and keep our weight in a normal range is up to us as individuals.
In the long run, sustainability in keeping the weight off after achieving our goal is key to our long term success. The statistics show that over 80% of successful dieters fail at keeping the weight off. Staggering statistics, and none of us who lose weight ever plan, or even think, we will ever regain it. Clearly, the statistics say that a huge percentage of us do regain.
CICO.
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.
This thinking ignores the emotional/behavioral side of things that comes with the concept of "forever" for some people. It can be a VERY loaded thing that often leads to destructive behavior.
There was a study... I'm pressed for time right now, or I'd dig it up, on binging, and it found it rooted in a cyclical behavior trap of restriction and binging. The thinking that "I'm never going to eat this again, I caved so .... BINGE!!!!" is a studied phenomenon, and that's what those of us who sometimes argue for sustainability worry about when it comes to advising other dieters.
The idea of long-term planning has to be something every dieter thinks about. You might find the occasional person who's okay with the idea of not eating cookies or ice cream during the weight loss phase who does just fine adding them back in, in reasonable, measured portions, during maintenance -- or you might not. Were I such a dieter, I frankly couldn't see the point of denying myself such things if I could fit them in... unless I truly never planned to eat them again. However, were I such a dieter, having the knowledge of how to change horses midstream would be helpful and necessary.
When I low carbed, I low carbed for a very long time. About seven years, IIRC. The thing that did me in? Gluten free oatmeal coming on the market. I decided I just didn't want to live forever without having oatmeal. It was a good lesson for me about food. It wasn't enough, however, for me to know about sustaining energy balance. My low-carb education just stressed counting carbs.
0 -
YESITDOESWORK:
However........I'm sure it will be sub par just like the garbage advice you've been giving out in the weight gain section. You're out of your league kid.
Now for the important question, who's sock puppet are you?
Actually, YESITDOES,I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I have never been to the weight gain section. I suspect that section would do not help me lose weight.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
No, the reason people look at each other funny is they think there HAS to be something more to it.lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
I'm not sure it's totally useless, but it is pretty limited. It's fairly Captain Obvious. Now, giving people examples of HOW you managed to eat less and HOW you managed move more, now that's useful, pragmatic advice and information and what I suspect people are actually looking for with such inquiries.
I think that's why people look at others funny when they said, "oh, I just ate less and moved more." Yeah, no sheet Sherlock...
I really don't know how to explain how I applied Eat Less, Move More to an individual because I didn't follow any magical program. I literally ate the same things I was already eating, in smaller portions and/or less often, and I moved more than I was before. Period. I didn't cut anything out, I didn't follow a certain way of eating, try a special diet, etc. I figured out my numbers, and I used those numbers to make the decisions on a daily basis of how to implement the concept of Eat Less, Move More.
You guys keep saying that is not helpful, but that is the point. ANYONE can do this. That is helpful, to know that anyone can do it, with no special programs to follow. Do it whatever way you want. You can do it with LCHF. You can do it with Paleo. You can be Vegetarian, Pescetarian, Flexitarian. You can eat "clean" or not. You can be a runner, a walker, a cyclist, a yogi, a heavy lifter. In my opinion, Eat Less, Move More is not only simple, it is helpful.
I think some of the confusion comes when someone asks something like "I want to cut carbs" and gets a response like "Not necessary - CICO," people think they are mutually exclusive concepts. I know I've seen you respond to a few posts lately where CICO is being viewed as a way of eating, not as a explanation of the energy balance, so that might be part of the problem right there.
I'm not sure which threads, they all blur together... good lord this is the second thread today with almost the exact same title! I usually do try to explain to people that CICO is the fundamental principle behind the energy balance, and that how someone creates that calorie deficit is up to them, as long as they aren't saying that they can eat MORE than their maintenance BECAUSE they follow a certain program, then that's fine.
If that is being interepreted as me recommending CICO as a way of eating, well, I'm not sure, I'd have to see a specific quote to jog my addled memory.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
So they eliminate salt. Very few people have those medical conditions.
0 -
Maybe, for limited number, CICO is a new concept. But I highly doubt it. As Lindsey put it, they are asking how to do it.
I disagree. I have seen multiple threads every day for the year + I have been here where OP can't believe it doesn't matter what they eat. They have magazines, workout programs, supplement commercials, nutritionists, all telling them the 150 rules they need to follow. They post 5 paragraphs of all the hoops they are jumping through to no effect. And it turns out they aren't logging accurately and consistently, because they thought what they were or weren't eating was more important than counting calories.0 -
"Oh my." - George TakeiYesItDoesWork wrote: »Head west for 1500 miles is not irrelevant. CICO is not irrelevant either. But if you told me to head west for 1500 miles I'd give you that blank stare. The same blank stare as people get when they hear the answer to the question how did you lose weight. I ate less, moved more.
And if those people really want to learn or understand then they'll ask more questions. You expect a textbook length answer every time someone asks the questions? The argument could be made that it's probably going to result in information overload. There is also a search function on this site, people need to use it. How about you go give that detailed advise instead of harping so much on what is and what isn't irrelevant? However........I'm sure it will be sub par just like the garbage advice you've been giving out in the weight gain section. You're out of your league kid.
Now for the important question, who's sock puppet are you?0 -
When there is so much "7 foods to never eat", "8 foods you must eat", "Follow this 1 simple trick", hearing honestly what works is actually novel information even if we knew it on some level.Maybe, for limited number, CICO is a new concept. But I highly doubt it. As Lindsey put it, they are asking how to do it.
I disagree. I have seen multiple threads every day for the year + I have been here where OP can't believe it doesn't matter what they eat. They have magazines, workout programs, supplement commercials, nutritionists, all telling them the 150 rules they need to follow. They post 5 paragraphs of all the hoops they are jumping through to no effect. And it turns out they aren't logging accurately and consistently, because they thought what they were or weren't eating was more important than counting calories.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
This thinking ignores the emotional/behavioral side of things that comes with the concept of "forever" for some people. It can be a VERY loaded thing that often leads to destructive behavior.
There was a study... I'm pressed for time right now, or I'd dig it up, on binging, and it found it rooted in a cyclical behavior trap of restriction and binging. The thinking that "I'm never going to eat this again, I caved so .... BINGE!!!!" is a studied phenomenon, and that's what those of us who sometimes argue for sustainability worry about when it comes to advising other dieters.
The idea of long-term planning has to be something every dieter thinks about. You might find the occasional person who's okay with the idea of not eating cookies or ice cream during the weight loss phase who does just fine adding them back in, in reasonable, measured portions, during maintenance -- or you might not. Were I such a dieter, I frankly couldn't see the point of denying myself such things if I could fit them in... unless I truly never planned to eat them again.
When I low carbed, I low carbed for a very long time. About seven years, IIRC. The thing that did me in? Gluten free oatmeal coming on the market. I decided I just didn't want to live forever without having oatmeal. It was a good lesson for me about food.
I specifically said that some people have issues with the concept of "forever," not all people. For someone with binge/restrict issues, obviously a plan in which they eliminate something could be a problem. For others, proving that they can go for a certain period of time without cookies, or fast food, or whatever, is empowering to them, especially when it forces them out of their comfort zone. They stop with the thought process of "I can't imagine not having _____________" and get to "yeah, I could cut back or eliminate that from my diet and be fine with it." The skill they learn in the process is what's valuable, not the type of food.
If you don't want to do that type of challenge because you find it pointless, don't do it. Other people might enjoy them, and don't feel like just because they decide to do something right now means that they have to be doing the same thing in a year or two years or ten years. You also just proved my point about people being discouraged from doing things unless they plan on doing it forever by getting hung on specifics rather than the larger picture, so thank you for that.0 -
VykkDraygoVPR wrote: »
Correcting terminology and grammar is against forum rules. What's your point?
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
This thinking ignores the emotional/behavioral side of things that comes with the concept of "forever" for some people. It can be a VERY loaded thing that often leads to destructive behavior.
There was a study... I'm pressed for time right now, or I'd dig it up, on binging, and it found it rooted in a cyclical behavior trap of restriction and binging. The thinking that "I'm never going to eat this again, I caved so .... BINGE!!!!" is a studied phenomenon, and that's what those of us who sometimes argue for sustainability worry about when it comes to advising other dieters.
The idea of long-term planning has to be something every dieter thinks about. You might find the occasional person who's okay with the idea of not eating cookies or ice cream during the weight loss phase who does just fine adding them back in, in reasonable, measured portions, during maintenance -- or you might not. Were I such a dieter, I frankly couldn't see the point of denying myself such things if I could fit them in... unless I truly never planned to eat them again.
When I low carbed, I low carbed for a very long time. About seven years, IIRC. The thing that did me in? Gluten free oatmeal coming on the market. I decided I just didn't want to live forever without having oatmeal. It was a good lesson for me about food.
I specifically said that some people have issues with the concept of "forever," not all people. For someone with binge/restrict issues, obviously a plan in which they eliminate something could be a problem. For others, proving that they can go for a certain period of time without cookies, or fast food, or whatever, is empowering to them, especially when it forces them out of their comfort zone. They stop with the thought process of "I can't imagine not having _____________" and get to "yeah, I could cut back or eliminate that from my diet and be fine with it." The skill they learn in the process is what's valuable, not the type of food.
If you don't want to do that type of challenge because you find it pointless, don't do it. Other people might enjoy them, and don't feel like just because they decide to do something right now means that they have to be doing the same thing in a year or two years or ten years. You also just proved my point about people being discouraged from doing things unless they plan on doing it forever by getting hung on specifics rather than the larger picture, so thank you for that.
But Carol said "some people", just like you... right there in the first line you quoted.0 -
I've yet to have anyone ask me how I lost weight say anything remotely like "Oh, of course. I should have known" when I tell them I just made sure I ate fewer calories. Every last person was sure I'd cut out white foods, or couldn't have sweet things, or couldn't have a cocktail, or must be working out hours a day, or similar.
Keep in mind, I lost weight just through diet. Didn't start exercising until after I was at goal weight (low side of BMI).
Funny thing. Out of maybe ten or so people that asked and were answered, I had only one say, "Really?" and get super excited. She was delighted to hear that if she was careful she could fit in a bit of dessert and it wouldn't make her gain weight. She was the only one that told her friends they were wrong to tell her she had to cut out all sweets, that she'd take the experience of someone she'd seen lose the weight and keep it off over their magazine articles. I don't think it's a coincidence that she works in research and development.
None of the others thinks they can do the same. For some reason I'm a special snowflake in their eyes. Or maybe they think I'm lying, but I'd prefer to believe the former
0 -
VykkDraygoVPR wrote: »
Correcting terminology and grammar is against forum rules. What's your point?
Did you just call yourself out for breaking the rules by correcting someone? First time I've seen that before!0 -
Nope. He's deflecting from what I said. Common on these boards.blankiefinder wrote: »VykkDraygoVPR wrote: »
Correcting terminology and grammar is against forum rules. What's your point?
Did you just call yourself out for breaking the rules by correcting someone? First time I've seen that before!
0 -
YESITDOESWORK:
However........I'm sure it will be sub par just like the garbage advice you've been giving out in the weight gain section. You're out of your league kid.
Now for the important question, who's sock puppet are you?
Actually, YESITDOES,I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I have never been to the weight gain section. I suspect that section would do not help me lose weight.
It actually helps if you hit the "quote" button before you reply to a post, so people can see who the heck you're talking to. It is a handy feature that is extremely helpful in threads with a lot of replies.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions