Is it really as simple as CICO?
Replies
-
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Is it really as simple as CICO?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, no.
Macronutrients matter. Fat, protein, carbohydrates, fiber, etc.
Micronutrients matter. Vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, probiotics, etc.
I think we all know this, but for some strange reason this often becomes an issue of contention. Short, easy answers are just that: short and easy. If you want to stick with simple, stick with CICO. If you want to go a little deeper and start learning about how food interacts with and nourishes your body, it's a long journey but a worthy one to begin, in my opinion.
Long answer is still yes since no nutrient breakdown of your diet is going to cancel out CICO. Nutrients are important additionally to CICO, but CICO is what powers any and all weightloss.
Steven, I have to disagree with the bolded. When we are talking weight loss, we are also talking sustainability. Weight loss is worthless if you can't keep it off.
Long-term health and sustainability is where macro- and micronutrients would come into serious play.
But that doesn't cancel out CICO...the equation is still applicable....
It's not that people don't think nutrients are important...it's that they have little to do with the equation itself other than some efficiencies in CO related to TEF for certain foods...but these are nominal to the overall equation itself.0 -
I'm feeling overwhelmed with all the information out there on the best way to lose weight and I just need to get it nailed.
My trouble with calories is I just don't know how many to eat , below is me in summary any tips greatly received
Female
5ft
175lbs
Work out 5 to 6 times a week mixture of British military fitness and running up to 10k
I love working out and I know I'm at my fittest I've ever been so far but feel like I'm trapped in a fat suit!
CICO is just an equation and is applicable to any diet ever...it is applicable when losing weight, maintaining weight, and gaining weight...it is simply a formula.
Understand first what a calorie is...it is a unit of energy. Our body's are these really awesome and complicated machines and just like any machine, we require energy (calories) to function. Generally speaking, our greatest energy requirement stems from the power button being on...i.e. you're alive...these are your basal calorie requirements or your BMR...the energy you use simply being powered on. After that, you have energy requirements to perform your day to day type of stuff...and then, finally you have energy expenditure from exercise which in most cases is going to be nominal relative to everything else.
When you consume a balance of energy...i.e. what your body requires to maintain the status quot and perform all of the above functions optimally, you maintain weight...energy is in balance...CI=CO. Keep in mind, these aren't exact numbers...your maintenance calories are really a range of calorie intake...the human body is strives for homeostasis and is very adept at altering process to account for a little more or a little less energy on a day to day basis...this is why losing weight or gaining weight really require you to either under-feed or over-feed consistently over time to override your body's ability to maintain.
When you consume energy in excess of what you need to perform all functions optimally and you do so on a consistent basis, that energy ends up getting stored for later use...your fat stores are essentially your backup generator. When you consume less energy than you require to perform all functions optimally, your backup generator kicks on and you burn stored fat as energy to compensate for the deficiency.
So yes...weight management is as simple as CICO.
0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Is it really as simple as CICO?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, no.
Macronutrients matter. Fat, protein, carbohydrates, fiber, etc.
Micronutrients matter. Vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, probiotics, etc.
I think we all know this, but for some strange reason this often becomes an issue of contention. Short, easy answers are just that: short and easy. If you want to stick with simple, stick with CICO. If you want to go a little deeper and start learning about how food interacts with and nourishes your body, it's a long journey but a worthy one to begin, in my opinion.
Long answer is still yes since no nutrient breakdown of your diet is going to cancel out CICO. Nutrients are important additionally to CICO, but CICO is what powers any and all weightloss.
Steven, I have to disagree with the bolded. When we are talking weight loss, we are also talking sustainability. Weight loss is worthless if you can't keep it off.
Long-term health and sustainability is where macro- and micronutrients would come into serious play.
The fact stays, you can have the healthiest, most sustainable diet you can think of. If it has too many calories you're not going to move a single pound. CICO.0 -
What do you mean by flat calories eating 1600 everyday ? Thdnkd
MFP method is to have a calorie goal based on what you'd need to lose if not exercising and then to log exercise and eat additional calories when you do. That's why so many people get 1200 when they ask MFP for a goal--it's really 1200+exercise calories. (Also might be because of too aggressive a weekly goal, of course.)
An alternative way of doing it is the TDEE method or what I called flat calories. If you have a pretty consistent weekly exercise schedule, just average that into your calories and eat based on your needs WITH the exercise. That's what I did, and ate 1600 every day, including off days and my hardest long run days.
I'm doing the same now (after doing maintenance for a while), but decided to go to 1800, which would be a slower rate of loss, since I'm close to goal and having trouble caring about losing more.0 -
YES - it's really as easy as CICO.
0 -
OP have you spent any time reading the "Most Helpful Posts" at the top of each forum section? There is a lot of good info in there about how to use this site, how to set appropriate goals, food and nutrition FAQs, fitness, etc.
In particular I would start with this one:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p10 -
I eat bread daily, potatoes several times a week (and to point out, they have of the highest satiety ratings and are nutrient dense)
I'm curious where you get those satiety ratings, do you have a link?
Personally I find lean proteins and fibrous vegetables the only things that have really high general satiety per calorie, for me. Bread and potatoes can be satisfying, especially after exercise or if I haven't eaten carbs recently, but if I'm not specifically craving carbs, I don't find bread, potatoes or white rice very filling at all, per calorie.
I've seen other people say they find fatty foods filling... I don't know where this comes from, I can eat 1000 calories worth of nuts, almost accidentally.
I did a little Googling and the pic below (from nutritiondata.com) seems to agree with my personal experience. By the way, just about any green vegetable rates between 4.4 and 5 on this scale. Broccoli, asparagus, and so on. Much higher than potatoes and bread. I try to eat mostly lean protein, veggies, and fruit, and that's been working very well for me so far. I do eat rice, potatoes and bread, but it usually amounts to 25% of my carbs or less.
0 -
CICO works in a closed loop system very well. it just a guessimation in humans that have a self adjusting burn rate meaning true CO is not knowable. If using CICO math and CI is less than CO but no weigh loss then one needs to dig deeper.
For those who like the science behind weight gain/loss here is an article that might serve as a starting point for your own research and reading of research.
scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/0 -
I eat bread daily, potatoes several times a week (and to point out, they have of the highest satiety ratings and are nutrient dense)
I'm curious where you get those satiety ratings, do you have a link?
Personally I find lean proteins and fibrous vegetables the only things that have really high general satiety per calorie, for me. Bread and potatoes can be satisfying, especially after exercise or if I haven't eaten carbs recently, but if I'm not specifically craving carbs, I don't find bread, potatoes or white rice very filling at all, per calorie.
I've seen other people say they find fatty foods filling... I don't know where this comes from, I can eat 1000 calories worth of nuts, almost accidentally.
I did a little Googling and the pic below (from nutritiondata.com) seems to agree with my personal experience. By the way, just about any green vegetable rates between 4.4 and 5 on this scale. Broccoli, asparagus, and so on. Much higher than potatoes and bread. I try to eat mostly lean protein, veggies, and fruit, and that's been working very well for me so far. I do eat rice, potatoes and bread, but it usually amounts to 25% of my carbs or less.
There is where I got some of my information from. Older study. I do believe that satiety doesn't always apply similarly across all people. Many find fat very satiety, but I am not one of those. I would personally see greater satiety from a 300 calories potato vs 300 calories of watermelon or most other fruits.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104/
https://www.ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf0 -
-
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Is it really as simple as CICO?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, no.
Macronutrients matter. Fat, protein, carbohydrates, fiber, etc.
Micronutrients matter. Vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, probiotics, etc.
I think we all know this, but for some strange reason this often becomes an issue of contention. Short, easy answers are just that: short and easy. If you want to stick with simple, stick with CICO. If you want to go a little deeper and start learning about how food interacts with and nourishes your body, it's a long journey but a worthy one to begin, in my opinion.
Long answer is still yes since no nutrient breakdown of your diet is going to cancel out CICO. Nutrients are important additionally to CICO, but CICO is what powers any and all weightloss.
Steven, I have to disagree with the bolded. When we are talking weight loss, we are also talking sustainability. Weight loss is worthless if you can't keep it off.
Long-term health and sustainability is where macro- and micronutrients would come into serious play.
I've been maintaining for around 3 years now, never counted/tracked macros/micros. I'm in excellent health with very good blood panels (get them done twice a year). I'm also no longer flirting with diabetes (glucose numbers have settled into the 80s, down from pushing close to 120).
I eat all the foods I enjoy which includes things like fast food, chips etc. It also includes things like veggies and whole grains etc. My own experience has shown me that making big changes to my diet, in terms of what foods I eat, is the unsustainable thing. I've got 3 years of maintenance under my belt and probably 40+ ahead of me. Eating a diet that includes all sorts of foods in moderation is what's doable for me, for the long term. My good health seems to back this up as well.0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Is it really as simple as CICO?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, no.
Macronutrients matter. Fat, protein, carbohydrates, fiber, etc.
Micronutrients matter. Vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, probiotics, etc.
I think we all know this, but for some strange reason this often becomes an issue of contention. Short, easy answers are just that: short and easy. If you want to stick with simple, stick with CICO. If you want to go a little deeper and start learning about how food interacts with and nourishes your body, it's a long journey but a worthy one to begin, in my opinion.
Long answer is still yes since no nutrient breakdown of your diet is going to cancel out CICO. Nutrients are important additionally to CICO, but CICO is what powers any and all weightloss.
Steven, I have to disagree with the bolded. When we are talking weight loss, we are also talking sustainability. Weight loss is worthless if you can't keep it off.
Long-term health and sustainability is where macro- and micronutrients would come into serious play.
I've been maintaining for around 3 years now, never counted/tracked macros/micros. I'm in excellent health with very good blood panels (get them done twice a year). I'm also no longer flirting with diabetes (glucose numbers have settled into the 80s, down from pushing close to 120).
I eat all the foods I enjoy which includes things like fast food, chips etc. It also includes things like veggies and whole grains etc. My own experience has shown me that making big changes to my diet, in terms of what foods I eat, is the unsustainable thing. I've got 3 years of maintenance under my belt and probably 40+ ahead of me. Eating a diet that includes all sorts of foods in moderation is what's doable for me, for the long term. My good health seems to back this up as well.
That's great for you, but for a person like the OP who is stuck, she might have to dig a little deeper to find a solution.
I know I did, and I'll never regret it.
OP, please don't be discouraged if simply counting calories is not enough for you to successfully lose weight. You are not alone.
There is so much to be said... but some basic ideas would be... Looking at macronutrients, a greater focus on fat, protein, and fiber will promote satiety. Looking at micronutrients, choose foods that really rich in them, again to promote satiety.
Like people said, if you're calories in are more than your calories out... your weight loss stalls, right? So, you're probably overeating without realizing it because you're hungry. So, how can you eat less without suffering so much hunger? Dig a little deeper, and pick the foods that help you accomplish that goal!0 -
Did OP say she was stuck? I understood her to be feeling overwhelmed about how to get started and all the conflicting advice, which is why people have been saying to simplify and worry about troubleshooting if it's necessary later (no reason to assume it will be, or that her diet is a problem).0
-
There is where I got some of my information from. Older study.
Kind of weird they didn't include any green vegetables in that study.I do believe that satiety doesn't always apply similarly across all people.
I agree, but there are going to be some things that are universal -- lean proteins and fiber are filling for physical reasons -- protein stimulates hormonal release that reduces appetite and slows movement through the small intestine. Fiber is bulky and slows carb absorbtion, providing a slower and longer lasting flow of energy.Many find fat very satiety, but I am not one of those.
Me either. I wonder to what extent the people who say they find fat filling are eating it with protein and just assuming it's the fat that's filling, or if maybe they just don't realize how many calories they're eating for the amount of hunger relief they're getting.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »CICO works in a closed loop system very well. it just a guessimation in humans that have a self adjusting burn rate meaning true CO is not knowable. If using CICO math and CI is less than CO but no weigh loss then one needs to dig deeper.
For those who like the science behind weight gain/loss here is an article that might serve as a starting point for your own research and reading of research.
scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/
I wonder at which point they point out that a 100% accurate to the single Joule calorie count for CI and CO is not necessary in the slightest for our purpose. My guess is not one word of that is said in the article and instead it will read like an apologetic "see? It's not your fault, it's not accurate, you can't possibly know your calories."
Let's see if I'm correct.0 -
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
I was going to ask the same thing.
When I first came here I got the same number of calories to eat and I always ate back all my exercise calories and as long as I was logging accurately using a food scale my gross intake was typically 1600-1700 and I lost 1lb a week consistently for months....
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Why wouldn't she eat back exercise cals if she is following MFP method?
simplicity. The call in the OP was from someone overwhelmed with information.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions