Good vs bad CICO

13

Replies

  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    I want to believe Calorie in Calorie out is "how to lose weight" - but I have a hard time grasping that 200 calories of delicious donut is burned off as easily as 200 calories of chicken breast, or I don't know... watermelon etc.

    Did you know that you can buy chicken and watermelon with money you earned at work, but you can buy it just as easily with money you stole? For weight loss purposes, the source of the calories doesn't matter; for buying stuff purposes, the source of the money doesn't matter. For other purposes, these things are important.

    That's a great analogy. You can "afford" it, but is it the right choice for the person you are trying to become, whether morality wise (money) or fitness wise (nutrition).
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    esjones12 wrote: »
    Not all calories are created equal. Sorry. Your body uses chemistry to break down foods and it treats different nutrients differently. CICO is a great way to start losing weight. But listen to your body. When you eat junk calories then you feel like crap because your body is being deprived of nutrients. Will you lose some weight? If you keep with the CICO equation, sure thing. However, good luck maintaining that in the long run. Learning to eat good whole foods and nourish your body properly will give you the best results in the long run. You still need to pay attention to portion control, but it is much easier because eating nutrient dense foods fills you up much easier and doesn't leave you craving more. Listen to your body and enjoy the journey. Educate yourself and you will have success for years to come.

    I never understand how some associate CICO with lack of nutrition...

    Because CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count. A lot of people have simply ditched CICO, instead eating nutrient dense, whole foods (especially with low carbohydrate content) and have lost weight effortlessly without all the math and starvation involved.

    @jenniswylie If you're interested in learning more, check out www.dietdoctor.com They are ad free with no industry sponsors, superb evidence-based nutrition from a collaboration of many different doctors and clinicians who know what works based on both theory and personal practice.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    edited June 2016
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    esjones12 wrote: »
    Not all calories are created equal. Sorry. Your body uses chemistry to break down foods and it treats different nutrients differently. CICO is a great way to start losing weight. But listen to your body. When you eat junk calories then you feel like crap because your body is being deprived of nutrients. Will you lose some weight? If you keep with the CICO equation, sure thing. However, good luck maintaining that in the long run. Learning to eat good whole foods and nourish your body properly will give you the best results in the long run. You still need to pay attention to portion control, but it is much easier because eating nutrient dense foods fills you up much easier and doesn't leave you craving more. Listen to your body and enjoy the journey. Educate yourself and you will have success for years to come.

    I never understand how some associate CICO with lack of nutrition...

    I think some people believe that, if left to their own devices--in the absence of a rigid dietary plan--most people following CICO will behave like children and fill up on cookies and junk food as long as they stay within their calorie goals. That's why we always hear strawmen about Twinkies vs. broccoli or chicken breast.
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    edited June 2016
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.

    Once again, CICO =/= counting calories. Counting is just a tool. The ONLY time anyone loses weight is when CI<CO, no matter how that's achieved.

    And of course nutrition/hormonal effects of foods matter. No one says they don't, but you keep posting as if they do.
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    edited June 2016
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.


    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.

    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    CrabNebula wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    I'd like to know what a Boston cream doughnut with only 220 calories and 13 grams of sugar looks like.

    Sadness.

    Actually TH's Boston Cream and Canadian Maple are really good. Some of my favorite donuts. Top Pot and Frost are great local donut companies, but the calories in their donuts are literally triple and not out of this world so much better to justify those calories. I'd rather have a small good whole donut then have to cut a slightly better one into thirds and pretend I could be as satisfied with that as with a whole donut. It is psychology.

    A calorie is a calorie, but specific dynamic action is a thing too. It takes more energy for your body to process proteins as opposed to fats. You can lose up to 1 calorie in every gram of protein you eat just digesting it. So, in theory, you could eat 100g of protein and it would cost 100 cals to digest it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action

    It's true, Tim Horton's doughnuts, for what they are and the calories they have, are pretty good :) A little less fluffy and a little smaller than specialty doughnut shops, but it works for me! They're what I was raised on and I didn't have to cut them out haha.
  • Colt1835
    Colt1835 Posts: 447 Member
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.


    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.

    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.

    No it's you who has no clue.
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.


    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.

    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.

    None of do, so there!

    You've made up your mind. You have your paradigm. It's overly simplistic and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you constantly knock down people who say anything else. Share your simplistic advice and move on. It's same advice people hear everywhere, even from Coca Cola advertisements, no less. There's no depth to it. Why hate on people who share anything more detailed about nutrition?
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.


    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.

    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.

    None of do, so there!

    You've made up your mind. You have your paradigm. It's overly simplistic and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you constantly knock down people who say anything else. Share your simplistic advice and move on. It's same advice people hear everywhere, even from Coca Cola advertisements, no less. There's no depth to it. Why hate on people who share anything more detailed about nutrition?

    What are you talking about? Your posts are like a drumbeat, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again but it is still wrong. The only diet one needs to follow is the one that can adhere to for the rest of one's life. Macros are personal.

    Macros are personal. Interesting... you completely ignored what I actually said.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.


    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.

    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.

    None of do, so there!

    You've made up your mind. You have your paradigm. It's overly simplistic and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you constantly knock down people who say anything else. Share your simplistic advice and move on. It's same advice people hear everywhere, even from Coca Cola advertisements, no less. There's no depth to it. Why hate on people who share anything more detailed about nutrition?

    What are you talking about? Your posts are like a drumbeat, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again but it is still wrong. The only diet one needs to follow is the one that can adhere to for the rest of one's life. Macros are personal.

    Macros are personal. Interesting... you completely ignored what I actually said.

    Dumb it down for me then
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.

    CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.

    That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.


    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.

    As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.

    None of do, so there!

    You've made up your mind. You have your paradigm. It's overly simplistic and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you constantly knock down people who say anything else. Share your simplistic advice and move on. It's same advice people hear everywhere, even from Coca Cola advertisements, no less. There's no depth to it. Why hate on people who share anything more detailed about nutrition?

    Almost everyone here says - CICO for weight loss, but of course nutrition is important. Nobody says it doesn't matter what you eat for health or body comp.

    Regardless, I've read all the links and videos etc you've posted, and none of them convinced me I need to switch to LCHF in order to be healthy or "effortlessly" thin. In fact, I struggled on and off for 5 years trying to lose 20 lbs, until I came here and read all the posts about CICO. I pretty easily then lost the weight, and I was not hungry all the time. And I eat more whole food since I've been reading the posts by all the veteran posters you keep saying are overly simplistic and unhelpful.
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    @JaneSnowe

    I never said it was wrong, just incomplete and unhelpful.

    @NorthCascades

    Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.

    @queenliz99

    The hormonal effects of food matter more than their calorie count. The human body is not going to process 100 calories of donuts in the same way as 100 calories of sardines. I'm not sure why this is a confusing concept.
  • Colt1835
    Colt1835 Posts: 447 Member
    edited June 2016
    Crisseyda wrote: »
    @JaneSnowe

    I never said it was wrong, just incomplete and unhelpful.

    @NorthCascades

    Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.

    @queenliz99

    The hormonal effects of food matter more than their calorie count. The human body is not going to process 100 calories of donuts in the same way as 100 calories of sardines. I'm not sure why this is a confusing concept.

    CICO doesn't mean you have to count calories. It means the only why to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn and the only way to gain weight is to eat more calories than you burn. The method used to get there doesn't change that.

    Of course macros and micros matter for health. CICO doesn't doesn't get in the way of that.