Good vs bad CICO
Replies
-
@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.
Ok, I'm one of those people then. I haven't bothered to input anything I eat for months and I've continued to lose weight until recently. (I deliberately started eating more when I began lifting weights.)
I'll let you in on a secret. I continued to lose weight because I ate fewer calories than I burned.
Let's try another analogy. We know that nothing in the universe can move faster than the speed of light. Maybe some people drive around in their cars, watching the speedometer, trying not to offend poor Einstein. Other people don't pay any attention at all, but they're still not going faster than light. Those people who are going slower, naturally, without measuring, are still obeying the law. The fact that it doesn't take them more effort to obey the law doesn't mean the law is wrong.6 -
I disagree that it's unhelpful.
As for being incomplete, I agree that there is a serious lack of nutrition education in many countries, but CICO can be a good--not necessarily the only--starting point for people who want to learn. But yes, it shouldn't be the only component of said education. Many people here take pains to give a rounded yet easy to understand explanation of weight loss and nutrition.
0 -
queenliz99 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.
Donuts = happiness = serotonin
Sardines = ick = sadness --> donuts = happiness etc.
QED2 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
so according to your position, I can eat less calories than I burn and because of hormones, I will gain weight? I did not know that hormones trumped physics and math ...
I use CICO and I don't suffer from starving, and the math part of it is pretty basic...7 -
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.
thank you for clarifying that you are clueless about CICO and basic nutritional science.7 -
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.
My 125 lb weight loss by counting calories proves you wrong.
Oh, and while people say CICO doesn't mean a lack of nutrition, I also lost that 125 lbs by eating a lot of "crap" foods.
Also, all fats/carbs/protein *are* created equal when it comes to calories. 9 calories/gm for fats, and 4 calories/gm for carbs and protein.1 -
For weight loss or gain CICO matters but personally I don't want to look skinny Fat so I pay close attention to my Macros, know what it takes to maintain muscle calorie wise and lift like a beast..3
-
so according to your position, I can eat less calories than I burn and because of hormones, I will gain weight? I did not know that hormones trumped physics and math ...
I use CICO and I don't suffer from starving, and the math part of it is pretty basic...
I don't think that's what the poster meant.
I think what people mean by saying hormones matter is that hormones are technically capable of grinding your metabolism to that much of a halt that it would be next to impossible for a person to create a deficit under these conditions.
I posted about this on the debate board but no one responded, but I've always been curious about that. If you look at diseases like Cushing's, or pitutiary tumors, or people who take steroids, you'll see a massive, drastic, very rapid weight gain, with fat deposits in specific places, that seems to defy thermodynamics because the person will not be eating anywhere near that many excess calories. Often people will starve themselves to try and not gain but they still do. It's mystifying as to how it happens, but the only answer is hormones. Or in a less drastic scenario, in pregnancy a woman will begin gaining weight and fat even if her diet stays exactly the same as before baby, in spite of higher caloric needs. If you look at literature, they document that the metabolism slows way down and packs away fat in certain places to ensure nutrition for the fetus.
yes, it's still CICO in a way, and if you literally starve yourself you won't gain under either of these conditions. But it's entirely possible that, say, someone on steroids will die of malnutrition before they lose the fat gained due to treatment. Hormones are powerful.0 -
nettiklive wrote: »so according to your position, I can eat less calories than I burn and because of hormones, I will gain weight? I did not know that hormones trumped physics and math ...
I use CICO and I don't suffer from starving, and the math part of it is pretty basic...
I don't think that's what the poster meant.
I think what people mean by saying hormones matter is that hormones are technically capable of grinding your metabolism to that much of a halt that it would be next to impossible for a person to create a deficit under these conditions.
I posted about this on the debate board but no one responded, but I've always been curious about that. If you look at diseases like Cushing's, or pitutiary tumors, or people who take steroids, you'll see a massive, drastic, very rapid weight gain, with fat deposits in specific places, that seems to defy thermodynamics because the person will not be eating anywhere near that many excess calories. Often people will starve themselves to try and not gain but they still do. It's mystifying as to how it happens, but the only answer is hormones. Or in a less drastic scenario, in pregnancy a woman will begin gaining weight and fat even if her diet stays exactly the same as before baby, in spite of higher caloric needs. If you look at literature, they document that the metabolism slows way down and packs away fat in certain places to ensure nutrition for the fetus.
yes, it's still CICO in a way, and if you literally starve yourself you won't gain under either of these conditions. But it's entirely possible that, say, someone on steroids will die of malnutrition before they lose the fat gained due to treatment. Hormones are powerful.
Hormones aren't able to do that though. Because physics. All work performed needs energy. That includes your brain function (that's already a good 20% of your total calories!), all other organs and then every single movement you do. If your body does work equalling X calories, it will have to use X calories, no way around that. Your body can downregulate internal functions to some extent, but it can not ever lower it so much that you can't lose weight.
If your body could burn less just like that, why doesn't it do that all the time? Why are there people starving who are just skin and bones, why aren't those people's hormones making them need next to nothing to survive the times of low food? Have you ever seen someone who starved to death who was fat?4 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Hormones aren't able to do that though. Because physics. All work performed needs energy. That includes your brain function (that's already a good 20% of your total calories!), all other organs and then every single movement you do. If your body does work equalling X calories, it will have to use X calories, no way around that. Your body can downregulate internal functions to some extent, but it can not ever lower it so much that you can't lose weight.
If your body could burn less just like that, why doesn't it do that all the time? Why are there people starving who are just skin and bones, why aren't those people's hormones making them need next to nothing to survive the times of low food? Have you ever seen someone who starved to death who was fat?
Okay, so if you take an obese person and literally make them starve, denying ALL food except water, do you think they would keep losing weight, using the burned fat to power bodily processes, until they got to a dangerously skeletal size and only then die of starvation?
No. They would likely die long before, due to electrolyte imbalances, organ shutdown etc.
This is an extreme example of course, but it shows there are other processes in place.
If you look at documentaries showing older men and women in places with extreme food scarcity, like in African tribes, you'll see that they're not all skeletal, considering how little they eat and the physical labor they do. Kids are, but as a rule, older women will have a bit of fat deposit on their stomachs, hips etc. No, they're not obese, but I also really doubt that they ever actually overeat by the 3,500 calories required to gain one pound.
The body of someone who is starving will not be performing the usual processes the same way as a normal person's. Everything will start shutting down - the person will be extremely weak and unable to do physical movement, have mental fog and trouble concentrating, maybe even hallucinations at some point. Reproductive system will shut down, as will many others. Eventually the vital organs start shutting down and the person dies.
When you take steroids, it's been documented over and over again that even if you eat less than you did previously, the vast majority of people will get characteristic fatty deposits in the face, neck, and torso. Or think even about anabolic steroids - people will bulk up with lean muscle mass at a rate they could never have achieved with regular lifestyle. How does that happen?0 -
nettiklive wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Hormones aren't able to do that though. Because physics. All work performed needs energy. That includes your brain function (that's already a good 20% of your total calories!), all other organs and then every single movement you do. If your body does work equalling X calories, it will have to use X calories, no way around that. Your body can downregulate internal functions to some extent, but it can not ever lower it so much that you can't lose weight.
If your body could burn less just like that, why doesn't it do that all the time? Why are there people starving who are just skin and bones, why aren't those people's hormones making them need next to nothing to survive the times of low food? Have you ever seen someone who starved to death who was fat?
Okay, so if you take an obese person and literally make them starve, denying ALL food except water, do you think they would keep losing weight, using the burned fat to power bodily processes, until they got to a dangerously skeletal size and only then die of starvation?
No. They would likely die long before, due to electrolyte imbalances, organ shutdown etc.
This is an extreme example of course, but it shows there are other processes in place.
If you look at documentaries showing older men and women in places with extreme food scarcity, like in African tribes, you'll see that they're not all skeletal, considering how little they eat and the physical labor they do. Kids are, but as a rule, older women will have a bit of fat deposit on their stomachs, hips etc. No, they're not obese, but I also really doubt that they ever actually overeat by the 3,500 calories required to gain one pound.
The body of someone who is starving will not be performing the usual processes the same way as a normal person's. Everything will start shutting down - the person will be extremely weak and unable to do physical movement, have mental fog and trouble concentrating, maybe even hallucinations at some point. Reproductive system will shut down, as will many others. Eventually the vital organs start shutting down and the person dies.
When you take steroids, it's been documented over and over again that even if you eat less than you did previously, the vast majority of people will get characteristic fatty deposits in the face, neck, and torso. Or think even about anabolic steroids - people will bulk up with lean muscle mass at a rate they could never have achieved with regular lifestyle. How does that happen?- Electrolytes aren't hormones; and you didn't answer the question: If you're body could burn less just like that, why doesn't it do that all the time?
- Certain medical conditions can affect CO. Taking steroids for medical reasons would also affect your CO (and how your body stores fat) but not negate it entirely.
- Are you trying to tell us that body builders who take steroids don't need to increase their CI in order to fuel their accelerated muscle growth?
5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions