Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Since OP decided to misrepresent what others have been saying in order to argue against a strawman and then disappear, it's hard to say for sure, but it sure didn't seem to me that she was claiming that calories weren't what mattered for weight loss. So, no, I don't think she was arguing that you can gain weight in a deficit if you eat too many carbs (oh, eating plants, so awful). I think she was saying that if you eat an unhealthy diet you may suffer bad health, which will interfere with the ability to be active as well as causing other problems physically (like, well, bad health). In a limited sense that is right (although I think claiming it causes auto immune diseases and all that is wrong), but it is fundamentally wrong in that no one ever said that nutrition doesn't matter and trying to say it matters for weight loss is convoluted and wrong: if you are in bad health and feel horrible and don't move, the lack of movement hurts weight loss; if you are hungry and eat too much, the extra calories hurt weight loss -- both of those are still part of CICO, not an argument against it).
Eating carbs is not the same thing as eating an unhealthy diet, so not sure how you are trying to peg "loaded with carbs" (what carbs? carbs are pretty distinct and most so called junk food has lots of fat, like the Big Mac we have been discussing, which also has protein, of course) to "one should care about nutrition."
That aside, I am not aware of any mechanism where one would be eating less than one is actually expending (and not just think, wrongly, that this is true) and still put on fat. How can your body do this and still fuel it's activity? Where does the energy come from to fuel the deficit? If you are saying your body goes straight to cannibalizing muscle and only muscle, what supposedly causes this and how does it work?13 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
You cannot have net fat gain if your calorie consumption is lower than EE. What occurs though with some medical conditions is reductions in EE based on certain factors. So calorie for calories, your results would be different. It's not because carbs make you gain, but excessive carbs and your condition can lower EE. CICO is still applying. If you look at PCOS/IR, studies have shown when doing isocaloric comparisons.17 -
I have not seen anyone state CICO for optimal health. That said, in regards to weight loss, it all comes down to CICO...RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss. Healthy bodies function better, burn calories better, build lean muscle mass better.
Again, I have not seen anyone state CICO for optimal health.RobynTheresa wrote: »Those who maintain it is a calorie deficit only that matters and eating Big Macs and Coke will suffice are overlooking the micronutrient balances required for optimal health. Magnesium, potassium, calcium, zinc, the vitamins. While young people may cope without the appropriate nutritional balance, they may pay for those deficits later in life.
This is a reward/punishment approach to diet and I personally I do not like this approach but to each his or her own...RobynTheresa wrote: »This is NOT to say one cannot and should not have treats. I certainly do. I have some Lindt dark chocolate in the fridge, a bottle of Black Bacardi lying around and some 140 ml Mars ice-creams in the freezer (131 calories they are). But I have to earn them.
Ok. Probably water...RobynTheresa wrote: »If you are on a 1,200 calorie goal you do need to eat back your exercise calories. Yesterday I did 1.5 hours at the gym including 45 minutes of strength training which Garmin Connect kindly told me was worth 307 calories. I can't fuel that on 1,200 calories. Overall my food intake yesterday was 1,536 calories, but my net was 1,052 (my total active calories was 484). And yes I lost weight on the scales this morning.
Ok...RobynTheresa wrote: »I have auto-immune conditions, so am on a raft of medications. For months I was physically incapable of doing much due to these conditions. So healthy eating (with treats) has become my mantra. None of us know what our bodies may do in the future, or what is already lurking, waiting to strike. Take care of your bodies.
Ok...RobynTheresa wrote: »Oh, and drink more water. Most people aren't drinking nearly enough. The ones who are: terrific!!5 -
Hi, Fairly new here. I had run across this little write up about a week ago which, in my opinion, is a pretty good, basic explanation of calories, nutrients and thermic effect of different foods and the caloric effect. It's actually what made me sign up here at MFP and start tracking macro and micro nutrients. It's rather interesting and informative and written for the average person to understand. comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/0
-
Nutrition quality gets sacrificed on the altar of arithmetic.1
-
nameknotavailable wrote: »Hi, Fairly new here. I had run across this little write up about a week ago which, in my opinion, is a pretty good, basic explanation of calories, nutrients and thermic effect of different foods and the caloric effect. It's actually what made me sign up here at MFP and start tracking macro and micro nutrients. It's rather interesting and informative and written for the average person to understand. comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
From my skimming of it (I did not finish it yet, I will), it looks pretty good and I can definitely see why it would be helpful and inspiring. Just one nit so fat that bothered me enough to comment."4. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF)
Ah, now this is the one most people don’t understand. Remember our question about whether you’d gain the same amount of weight if you ate 1000 calories of ice-cream versus 1000 calories of tuna?
Well, I have to concede to the carbs-are-the-devil people here. Because you would indeed gain more weight if you ate the ice cream than if you ate the tuna, even though they contain the same amount of calories. But don’t rule out calories yet. They still count. Here’s how:
Food is made up of calories, but calories are made up of something themselves: macronutrients such as carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (we’ll get into more depth in a moment).
Different macronutrients are processed and utilized differently by the body and require different amounts of energy (calories) to do so. This process is called the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF).
Protein, for instance, has a TEF of about 20-30%. This means that 20-30% of the calories you consume from protein get used up just in the digestion process.
So out of 1000 calories of tuna, 200-300 calories would be burnt just by the mere processing of it. 1000 calories of tuna, when all is said and done is actually closer to 700 calories of tuna.
Carbohydrates, on the other hand, have a low TEF of 6%. So of course tuna, when you subtract its thermic effect is not going to make you as fat as ice-cream! Calories in, calories out. There’s no way around it."
Problem with this is that the TEF may mean that you are really eating less than you think IF your diet is skewed heavily to protein (rarely the problem, and not really important, as you should always adjust based on results). More significantly, there are more important things to take into account when choosing how much protein to eat (I'm a fan of getting around .8 g/lb of goal weight, not a fan of super high protein diets, at least not unless you have some specific good reason for it, and TEF is not that).
Bigger issue is the focus on protein vs. carbs, carb being "the devil" (yeah, I know it's tongue in cheek) or, more specifically, super low TEF, ice cream being "a carb," and ignoring fat entirely. When someone thinks about how much carb to include in the diet, the tradeoff normally isn't protein (that is more constant), but fat. Carbs vary in TEF (can be much higher than 6%, although lower than protein, of course), although the main carb in the ice cream (sugar) generally has a low TEF. Other carbs (especially with fiber) are higher, though. The macro with the lowest overall TEF is the one ignored, fat, and oh, by the way, there's lots of fat in ice cream, so why is it being used as an example of a "carb" rather than a carrot?
Sorry, pet peeve. Welcome to the forum and don't take this rant as directed at you!7 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.5 -
Whitezombiegirl wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »You are confusing health with weight loss. Can you lose weight eating as much sugar and refined flour as you want as long you are in a deficit? Absolutely, the scientific laws of the universe demand it. Is it necessarily the healthiest option? No one is claiming it to be. Two. Separate. Issues.
Only two seperate issues if one doesn't care about their health. If they do, then those issues go hand in hand, why does anyone try to lose weight? For their HEALTH! If they are doing it to get on the cover of Vogue, bad reason.
Id have to disagee here. I have always been at a healthy weight and reasonably healthy. The only reason i wanted to lose weight was vanity - not ashamed to admit it and its not a bad reason. Im entitled to look however i want and be whatever size i want. Im sure im not alone.
Definitely not alone. My whole reason for losing weight was because I didn't want to buy another pair of jeans because I grew out of the ones I owned (they were expensive, damn it). And I have never been overweight.
Vanity kept me losing more than just enough for the jeans to fit nicely. I ended up dropping about 25 lbs and a couple of sizes and buying new jeans anyway. Somehow I didn't mind so much when it was because I was smaller rather than bigger
7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »nameknotavailable wrote: »Hi, Fairly new here. I had run across this little write up about a week ago which, in my opinion, is a pretty good, basic explanation of calories, nutrients and thermic effect of different foods and the caloric effect. It's actually what made me sign up here at MFP and start tracking macro and micro nutrients. It's rather interesting and informative and written for the average person to understand. comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
From my skimming of it (I did not finish it yet, I will), it looks pretty good and I can definitely see why it would be helpful and inspiring. Just one nit so fat that bothered me enough to comment."4. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF)
Ah, now this is the one most people don’t understand. Remember our question about whether you’d gain the same amount of weight if you ate 1000 calories of ice-cream versus 1000 calories of tuna?
Well, I have to concede to the carbs-are-the-devil people here. Because you would indeed gain more weight if you ate the ice cream than if you ate the tuna, even though they contain the same amount of calories. But don’t rule out calories yet. They still count. Here’s how:
Food is made up of calories, but calories are made up of something themselves: macronutrients such as carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (we’ll get into more depth in a moment).
Different macronutrients are processed and utilized differently by the body and require different amounts of energy (calories) to do so. This process is called the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF).
Protein, for instance, has a TEF of about 20-30%. This means that 20-30% of the calories you consume from protein get used up just in the digestion process.
So out of 1000 calories of tuna, 200-300 calories would be burnt just by the mere processing of it. 1000 calories of tuna, when all is said and done is actually closer to 700 calories of tuna.
Carbohydrates, on the other hand, have a low TEF of 6%. So of course tuna, when you subtract its thermic effect is not going to make you as fat as ice-cream! Calories in, calories out. There’s no way around it."
Problem with this is that the TEF may mean that you are really eating less than you think IF your diet is skewed heavily to protein (rarely the problem, and not really important, as you should always adjust based on results). More significantly, there are more important things to take into account when choosing how much protein to eat (I'm a fan of getting around .8 g/lb of goal weight, not a fan of super high protein diets, at least not unless you have some specific good reason for it, and TEF is not that).
Bigger issue is the focus on protein vs. carbs, carb being "the devil" (yeah, I know it's tongue in cheek) or, more specifically, super low TEF, ice cream being "a carb," and ignoring fat entirely. When someone thinks about how much carb to include in the diet, the tradeoff normally isn't protein (that is more constant), but fat. Carbs vary in TEF (can be much higher than 6%, although lower than protein, of course), although the main carb in the ice cream (sugar) generally has a low TEF. Other carbs (especially with fiber) are higher, though. The macro with the lowest overall TEF is the one ignored, fat, and oh, by the way, there's lots of fat in ice cream, so why is it being used as an example of a "carb" rather than a carrot?
Sorry, pet peeve. Welcome to the forum and don't take this rant as directed at you!
Agreed about using ice cream as a carb example - but it's a typical shot at demonizing something that some consider "bad" or "junk" food.
That aside, it's still amazing that people propose such ridiculous extremes to make a point. A diet composed entirely of either tuna or ice cream is a stupid idea and while it (theoretically) demonstrates the difference in TEF, it's a moot point because most people (excluding those with some bizarre ED, I guess) eat meals which are composed of mixed macronutrients.
I suppose if you're OCD enough, you could calculate out what percentage of each meal was fats, carbs and protein, then work out the calorie differential due to TEF for each of them....but it would certainly be majoring in the minors and the difference would fall into the "noise" category of CICO calculations. Not to mention the fact that it would only be significant if you were eating each meal on a completely empty stomach, with no macronutrients from previous meals still in the process of being digested/metabolized. It's my understanding that the generally accepted figure for TEF for meals of mixed macronutrients lies somewhere around 10%.3 -
Whitezombiegirl wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »You are confusing health with weight loss. Can you lose weight eating as much sugar and refined flour as you want as long you are in a deficit? Absolutely, the scientific laws of the universe demand it. Is it necessarily the healthiest option? No one is claiming it to be. Two. Separate. Issues.
Only two seperate issues if one doesn't care about their health. If they do, then those issues go hand in hand, why does anyone try to lose weight? For their HEALTH! If they are doing it to get on the cover of Vogue, bad reason.
Id have to disagee here. I have always been at a healthy weight and reasonably healthy. The only reason i wanted to lose weight was vanity - not ashamed to admit it and its not a bad reason. Im entitled to look however i want and be whatever size i want. Im sure im not alone.
Definitely not alone. My whole reason for losing weight was because I didn't want to buy another pair of jeans because I grew out of the ones I owned (they were expensive, damn it). And I have never been overweight.
Vanity kept me losing more than just enough for the jeans to fit nicely. I ended up dropping about 25 lbs and a couple of sizes and buying new jeans anyway. Somehow I didn't mind so much when it was because I was smaller rather than bigger
Quoting yours because you are the last one to mention this about vanity - but as discussed not alone..
I think the key point to make here, which is what refutes the OP's hypothesis - is that people can have different motivations for losing weight, one of which may be vanity driven, but that doesn't negate your motivation toward being healthy as well. Looking Good At A Healthy Weight and Focusing On Eating Healthfully are not mutually exclusive... which I think is a subset of the strawman argument that OP was proposing.
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »nameknotavailable wrote: »Hi, Fairly new here. I had run across this little write up about a week ago which, in my opinion, is a pretty good, basic explanation of calories, nutrients and thermic effect of different foods and the caloric effect. It's actually what made me sign up here at MFP and start tracking macro and micro nutrients. It's rather interesting and informative and written for the average person to understand. comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
From my skimming of it (I did not finish it yet, I will), it looks pretty good and I can definitely see why it would be helpful and inspiring. Just one nit so fat that bothered me enough to comment."4. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF)
Ah, now this is the one most people don’t understand. Remember our question about whether you’d gain the same amount of weight if you ate 1000 calories of ice-cream versus 1000 calories of tuna?
Well, I have to concede to the carbs-are-the-devil people here. Because you would indeed gain more weight if you ate the ice cream than if you ate the tuna, even though they contain the same amount of calories. But don’t rule out calories yet. They still count. Here’s how:
Food is made up of calories, but calories are made up of something themselves: macronutrients such as carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (we’ll get into more depth in a moment).
Different macronutrients are processed and utilized differently by the body and require different amounts of energy (calories) to do so. This process is called the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF).
Protein, for instance, has a TEF of about 20-30%. This means that 20-30% of the calories you consume from protein get used up just in the digestion process.
So out of 1000 calories of tuna, 200-300 calories would be burnt just by the mere processing of it. 1000 calories of tuna, when all is said and done is actually closer to 700 calories of tuna.
Carbohydrates, on the other hand, have a low TEF of 6%. So of course tuna, when you subtract its thermic effect is not going to make you as fat as ice-cream! Calories in, calories out. There’s no way around it."
Problem with this is that the TEF may mean that you are really eating less than you think IF your diet is skewed heavily to protein (rarely the problem, and not really important, as you should always adjust based on results). More significantly, there are more important things to take into account when choosing how much protein to eat (I'm a fan of getting around .8 g/lb of goal weight, not a fan of super high protein diets, at least not unless you have some specific good reason for it, and TEF is not that).
Bigger issue is the focus on protein vs. carbs, carb being "the devil" (yeah, I know it's tongue in cheek) or, more specifically, super low TEF, ice cream being "a carb," and ignoring fat entirely. When someone thinks about how much carb to include in the diet, the tradeoff normally isn't protein (that is more constant), but fat. Carbs vary in TEF (can be much higher than 6%, although lower than protein, of course), although the main carb in the ice cream (sugar) generally has a low TEF. Other carbs (especially with fiber) are higher, though. The macro with the lowest overall TEF is the one ignored, fat, and oh, by the way, there's lots of fat in ice cream, so why is it being used as an example of a "carb" rather than a carrot?
Sorry, pet peeve. Welcome to the forum and don't take this rant as directed at you!
Agreed about using ice cream as a carb example - but it's a typical shot at demonizing something that some consider "bad" or "junk" food.
That aside, it's still amazing that people propose such ridiculous extremes to make a point. A diet composed entirely of either tuna or ice cream is a stupid idea and while it (theoretically) demonstrates the difference in TEF, it's a moot point because most people (excluding those with some bizarre ED, I guess) eat meals which are composed of mixed macronutrients.
I suppose if you're OCD enough, you could calculate out what percentage of each meal was fats, carbs and protein, then work out the calorie differential due to TEF for each of them....but it would certainly be majoring in the minors and the difference would fall into the "noise" category of CICO calculations. Not to mention the fact that it would only be significant if you were eating each meal on a completely empty stomach, with no macronutrients from previous meals still in the process of being digested/metabolized. It's my understanding that the generally accepted figure for TEF for meals of mixed macronutrients lies somewhere around 10%.
Since 1000 calories of tuna is almost 250 grams of protein which by itself is already an amount that even most bodybuilders would think is overkill, and you'd have to eat that on top of whatever protein you'd eat anyway on a normal day to make the argument of it burning more calories compared to carbs and fat, yeah those types of arguments are a tiny bit silly.2 -
RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss. Healthy bodies function better, burn calories better, build lean muscle mass better.
Those who maintain it is a calorie deficit only that matters and eating Big Macs and Coke will suffice are overlooking the micronutrient balances required for optimal health. Magnesium, potassium, calcium, zinc, the vitamins. While young people may cope without the appropriate nutritional balance, they may pay for those deficits later in life.
This is NOT to say one cannot and should not have treats. I certainly do. I have some Lindt dark chocolate in the fridge, a bottle of Black Bacardi lying around and some 140 ml Mars ice-creams in the freezer (131 calories they are). But I have to earn them.
If you are on a 1,200 calorie goal you do need to eat back your exercise calories. Yesterday I did 1.5 hours at the gym including 45 minutes of strength training which Garmin Connect kindly told me was worth 307 calories. I can't fuel that on 1,200 calories. Overall my food intake yesterday was 1,536 calories, but my net was 1,052 (my total active calories was 484). And yes I lost weight on the scales this morning.
I have auto-immune conditions, so am on a raft of medications. For months I was physically incapable of doing much due to these conditions. So healthy eating (with treats) has become my mantra. None of us know what our bodies may do in the future, or what is already lurking, waiting to strike. Take care of your bodies.
Oh, and drink more water. Most people aren't drinking nearly enough. The ones who are: terrific!!
So you wrote this big long post to tell people you don't understand what CICO is? That's all I get from this, because it is actually the only consideration for actual weight loss. Your diet is what can help you become healthy, the CICO part just helps you lose the weight, and is going to be present in any diet you choose. You want to eat fresh fruit, vegetables, lean protien, and whole grains you are still going to have to eat less than you burn to lose weight, if you want to eat your all Big Mac and Diet Coke diet you are will still lose weight if you eat less than you burn. You can track all of the Macros and Micros you want, you wont lose the weight without CICO.
12 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.
Cushing's Syndrome. I had it after extensive steroid treatment and it was hell. When the buffalo hump was noticed that's when it actually finally was diagnosed. Losing weight was impossible at the time. However, it's really not very common, but that's the one I know about personally. For 3 weeks I had 1 can of soup a day and lost 0. I was definitely in a calorie deficit. Stopping all steroids (the devil!) and going to clean eating finally broke thru.2 -
nameknotavailable wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.
Cushing's Syndrome. I had it after extensive steroid treatment and it was hell. When the buffalo hump was noticed that's when it actually finally was diagnosed. Losing weight was impossible at the time. However, it's really not very common, but that's the one I know about personally. For 3 weeks I had 1 can of soup a day and lost 0. I was definitely in a calorie deficit. Stopping all steroids (the devil!) and going to clean eating finally broke thru.
Steroids are the devil's tic tacs3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »nameknotavailable wrote: »Hi, Fairly new here. I had run across this little write up about a week ago which, in my opinion, is a pretty good, basic explanation of calories, nutrients and thermic effect of different foods and the caloric effect. It's actually what made me sign up here at MFP and start tracking macro and micro nutrients. It's rather interesting and informative and written for the average person to understand. comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
Sorry, pet peeve. Welcome to the forum and don't take this rant as directed at you!
Thanks
and I don't. I think he was simply trying to explain in general terms for the great unwashed that TEF is a thing and this is how it works.
I don't think he's a proponent of very low carb either but, I haven't read much of his stuff so I'm only going by 1 or 2 things he said.
2 -
I was going to comment on CICO being a physics thing.. but you were clear in your post that you're talking about whole health, not just weight loss. I think a lot of people are interpreting your post as meaning CICO isn't the whole equation for the weight loss component only.1
-
Whitezombiegirl wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »You are confusing health with weight loss. Can you lose weight eating as much sugar and refined flour as you want as long you are in a deficit? Absolutely, the scientific laws of the universe demand it. Is it necessarily the healthiest option? No one is claiming it to be. Two. Separate. Issues.
Only two seperate issues if one doesn't care about their health. If they do, then those issues go hand in hand, why does anyone try to lose weight? For their HEALTH! If they are doing it to get on the cover of Vogue, bad reason.
Id have to disagee here. I have always been at a healthy weight and reasonably healthy. The only reason i wanted to lose weight was vanity - not ashamed to admit it and its not a bad reason. Im entitled to look however i want and be whatever size i want. Im sure im not alone.
Definitely not alone. My whole reason for losing weight was because I didn't want to buy another pair of jeans because I grew out of the ones I owned (they were expensive, damn it). And I have never been overweight.
Vanity kept me losing more than just enough for the jeans to fit nicely. I ended up dropping about 25 lbs and a couple of sizes and buying new jeans anyway. Somehow I didn't mind so much when it was because I was smaller rather than bigger
That is pretty much what happened to me. I went up a size and was determined not to have to buy a new wardrobe. I was able to lose enough to squeeze back into it, but I want them to be looser and more comfy.0 -
I'm saying that there is another factor or variable ex. (A)(X-Y)=?stevencloser wrote: »It's not the whole equation. It is not simple addition and subtraction. There are other variables that influence the calculations. Change the variables and change the formula.
A subtraction does not become something else by changing the variables. X - Y = Z regardless what X and Y are.
But this is still CICO. True, several factors can affect the CO portion. But... it is still CICO.5 -
extra_medium wrote: »
I'm saying that there is another factor or variable ex. (A)(X-Y)=?stevencloser wrote: »It's not the whole equation. It is not simple addition and subtraction. There are other variables that influence the calculations. Change the variables and change the formula.
A subtraction does not become something else by changing the variables. X - Y = Z regardless what X and Y are.
But this is still CICO. True, several factors can affect the CO portion. But... it is still CICO.
I never ever said it was not. I totally agree.0 -
nameknotavailable wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.
Cushing's Syndrome. I had it after extensive steroid treatment and it was hell. When the buffalo hump was noticed that's when it actually finally was diagnosed. Losing weight was impossible at the time. However, it's really not very common, but that's the one I know about personally. For 3 weeks I had 1 can of soup a day and lost 0. I was definitely in a calorie deficit. Stopping all steroids (the devil!) and going to clean eating finally broke thru.
So the secret to managing Cushing's and weight is careful, aggressive blood glucose control and high protein. How do I know? Because my mom has had endogenous Cushing's most of my life. And it's been a struggle... and anything but simple. Her weight was bad, but manageable in that she could walk and care for herself and do stuff. She went from 225 (5'11") to 350 in about six months when the condition developed. Once she quit smoking all bets were off. Without the nicotine appetite suppressant, her weight soared. The unremitting hunger coupled with high stress levels did her in. Then she had a stroke.
At her highest, she hit 525 lbs. It was terrible. My dad and I were bringing her food at that point because she's lost all ability to move around somewhere in the two years after her stroke. I was already working on losing weight myself and seeing her eat whole jars of Nutella and bags of potato chips that my dad brought her was driving me nuts. I said "enough is enough, I'm done helping her eat herself to the grave" . Adult caregiving dynamics can be challenging, but I became the mean withholder, talking away food my dad brought her.
It took 100 lbs down to get my dad on board. I had to fight both my mom and dad every single day. Now they're both on board, and my mom is down to 360 lbs. We're aiming for 200. I believe we can do it. Her doctors are amazed, having given up on any chance of weight control.
I have her on 2000 calories a day. Some days is still very hard, hunger is her constant enemy, but she's losing at the predicted 2 lbs per week. I don't know if she'd have succeeded if she wasn't immobilized and entirely incapable of getting extra food on her own. I still have to vigilantly monitor her hiding places because my dad thinks he can bring her a box of candy (one piece is only 10 calories... never mind that the box is 500).
I read a lot of biochemistry peer reviewed articles on the mechanism of cortisol interference with metabolism . Keeping protein up is key as under high cortisol your body will preferentially scavenge muscle. And keeping blood glucose low similarly short circuits the insulin feedback loop.34 -
I do believe stress is a factor in CICO2
-
nameknotavailable wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.
Cushing's Syndrome. I had it after extensive steroid treatment and it was hell. When the buffalo hump was noticed that's when it actually finally was diagnosed. Losing weight was impossible at the time. However, it's really not very common, but that's the one I know about personally. For 3 weeks I had 1 can of soup a day and lost 0. I was definitely in a calorie deficit. Stopping all steroids (the devil!) and going to clean eating finally broke thru.
So the secret to managing Cushing's and weight is careful, aggressive blood glucose control and high protein. How do I know? Because my mom has had endogenous Cushing's most of my life. And it's been a struggle... and anything but simple. Her weight was bad, but manageable in that she could walk and care for herself and do stuff. She went from 225 (5'11") to 350 in about six months when the condition developed. Once she quit smoking all bets were off. Without the nicotine appetite suppressant, her weight soared. The unremitting hunger coupled with high stress levels did her in. Then she had a stroke.
At her highest, she hit 525 lbs. It was terrible. My dad and I were bringing her food at that point because she's lost all ability to move around somewhere in the two years after her stroke. I was already working on losing weight myself and seeing her eat whole jars of Nutella and bags of potato chips that my dad brought her was driving me nuts. I said "enough is enough, I'm done helping her eat herself to the grave" . Adult caregiving dynamics can be challenging, but I became the mean withholder, talking away food my dad brought her.
It took 100 lbs down to get my dad on board. I had to fight both my mom and dad every single day. Now they're both on board, and my mom is down to 360 lbs. We're aiming for 200. I believe we can do it. Her doctors are amazed, having given up on any chance of weight control.
I have her on 2000 calories a day. Some days is still very hard, hunger is her constant enemy, but she's losing at the predicted 2 lbs per week. I don't know if she'd have succeeded if she wasn't immobilized and entirely incapable of getting extra food on her own. I still have to vigilantly monitor her hiding places because my dad thinks he can bring her a box of candy (one piece is only 10 calories... never mind that the box is 500).
I read a lot of biochemistry peer reviewed articles on the mechanism of cortisol interference with metabolism . Keeping protein up is key as under high cortisol your body will preferentially scavenge muscle. And keeping blood glucose low similarly short circuits the insulin feedback loop.
Thank you for sharing this.3 -
nameknotavailable wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.
Cushing's Syndrome. I had it after extensive steroid treatment and it was hell. When the buffalo hump was noticed that's when it actually finally was diagnosed. Losing weight was impossible at the time. However, it's really not very common, but that's the one I know about personally. For 3 weeks I had 1 can of soup a day and lost 0. I was definitely in a calorie deficit. Stopping all steroids (the devil!) and going to clean eating finally broke thru.
So the secret to managing Cushing's and weight is careful, aggressive blood glucose control and high protein. How do I know? Because my mom has had endogenous Cushing's most of my life. And it's been a struggle... and anything but simple. Her weight was bad, but manageable in that she could walk and care for herself and do stuff. She went from 225 (5'11") to 350 in about six months when the condition developed. Once she quit smoking all bets were off. Without the nicotine appetite suppressant, her weight soared. The unremitting hunger coupled with high stress levels did her in. Then she had a stroke.
At her highest, she hit 525 lbs. It was terrible. My dad and I were bringing her food at that point because she's lost all ability to move around somewhere in the two years after her stroke. I was already working on losing weight myself and seeing her eat whole jars of Nutella and bags of potato chips that my dad brought her was driving me nuts. I said "enough is enough, I'm done helping her eat herself to the grave" . Adult caregiving dynamics can be challenging, but I became the mean withholder, talking away food my dad brought her.
It took 100 lbs down to get my dad on board. I had to fight both my mom and dad every single day. Now they're both on board, and my mom is down to 360 lbs. We're aiming for 200. I believe we can do it. Her doctors are amazed, having given up on any chance of weight control.
I have her on 2000 calories a day. Some days is still very hard, hunger is her constant enemy, but she's losing at the predicted 2 lbs per week. I don't know if she'd have succeeded if she wasn't immobilized and entirely incapable of getting extra food on her own. I still have to vigilantly monitor her hiding places because my dad thinks he can bring her a box of candy (one piece is only 10 calories... never mind that the box is 500).
I read a lot of biochemistry peer reviewed articles on the mechanism of cortisol interference with metabolism . Keeping protein up is key as under high cortisol your body will preferentially scavenge muscle. And keeping blood glucose low similarly short circuits the insulin feedback loop.
Great work with your parents! I experienced a similar effect to this, but by no means as dramatic. After a total thyroidectomy I was tired and hungry all the time. Couple this with discharging from the military and a high demanding physical job to a cushy civilian life I put on weight fast, but it isn't weight just magically appearing - it is still caloric intake exceeding my output.
I did the same a originally intended on focusing on endocrinology, but the allure of prokaryotic metabolics was too great.0 -
0
-
-
There is no doubt in my mind that CICO is the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to losing weight.
The issue with CICO and the reason why I personally used to struggle with my weight is I focused on calories in and exercise and ignored the most important part of the CO side of the equation, basal metabolic rate. BMR is about 70% of the calories-out side. This is HUGE!
To better grasp the enormous effect this has on weight loss. Pretend for a moment CO is now CI and BMR represents one meal, and exercise, TEF and NEAT combine for the other two meals. If your daily calorie goal was 2500 calories, your 2 "other" meals would be 375 calories each and your one "BMR meal" would be 1,750 calories. BMR is pretty damn important right?
Yet, typcial weight-loss activities; calorie restriction and cardio exercise will have a negative impact on BMR which is one of the reasons CICO doesn't always produce results in many of us. CICO is just another "Paper Champion"2 -
BMR is the big deal! It really is. RMR matters also. It all matters in the CICO equation.Russellb97 wrote: »There is no doubt in my mind that CICO is the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to losing weight.
The issue with CICO and the reason why I personally used to struggle with my weight is I focused on calories in and exercise and ignored the most important part of the CO side of the equation, basal metabolic rate. BMR is about 70% of the calories-out side. This is HUGE!
To better grasp the enormous effect this has on weight loss. Pretend for a moment CO is now CI and BMR represents one meal, and exercise, TEF and NEAT combine for the other two meals. If your daily calorie goal was 2500 calories, your 2 "other" meals would be 375 calories each and your one "BMR meal" would be 1,750 calories. BMR is pretty damn important right?
Yet, typcial weight-loss activities; calorie restriction and cardio exercise will have a negative impact on BMR which is one of the reasons CICO doesn't always produce results in many of us. CICO is just another "Paper Champion"
A lot of people have better burn rates than I do. I have to work with the engine that I've got and put the best quality fuel in there. I don't have a big enough calorie deficit to play around with and need to eat healthy and sensibly every meal.
4 -
BMR is the big deal! It really is. RMR matters also. It all matters in the CICO equation.Russellb97 wrote: »There is no doubt in my mind that CICO is the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to losing weight.
The issue with CICO and the reason why I personally used to struggle with my weight is I focused on calories in and exercise and ignored the most important part of the CO side of the equation, basal metabolic rate. BMR is about 70% of the calories-out side. This is HUGE!
To better grasp the enormous effect this has on weight loss. Pretend for a moment CO is now CI and BMR represents one meal, and exercise, TEF and NEAT combine for the other two meals. If your daily calorie goal was 2500 calories, your 2 "other" meals would be 375 calories each and your one "BMR meal" would be 1,750 calories. BMR is pretty damn important right?
Yet, typcial weight-loss activities; calorie restriction and cardio exercise will have a negative impact on BMR which is one of the reasons CICO doesn't always produce results in many of us. CICO is just another "Paper Champion"
A lot of people have better burn rates than I do. I have to work with the engine that I've got and put the best quality fuel in there. I don't have a big enough calorie deficit to play around with and need to eat healthy and sensibly every meal.
There are tricks to that though if you REALLY want something that's just out of your calorie reach. I have a lower BMR due to various hormonal issues and it's pretty much workable if you know how to work it. Maintenance, or slightly over maintenance, days are not that scary. My TDEE is consistently 180-200 calories under what calculators predict and the difference is creeping up. I sometimes feel robbed that I'm probably going to have a sedentary maintenance of about 1400 calories, but I do the "woe is me" thing for a few seconds and move on, realizing I can still work with that the way I work with a similar budget now. Sulking won't make it any easier for me. I'd just have to take fast days more often than I would have if my BMR was closer to average, I would have to plan certain meals very carefully, and I may need to be as active as I can manage. No big deal. I will still be able to eat all the things I like, enjoy my social gatherings and do/eat all the things I like to do/eat. We just tend to psych ourselves out and make things harder on ourselves than they really are. It is what it is, so might as well enjoy the good moments and foods when the opportunity presents itself and worry about feeling sorry for myself later.4 -
I do believe stress is a factor in CICO
I posted some of my current situation in another thread that brought up stress and weight, but I'm currently in the middle of probably the most stressful time of my life. We very unexpectedly put in an offer on a house, then needed to scramble to get our house ready to list (husband had to take time off of work, which caused friction with his boss, we've wiped out our savings account on necessary things like carpet etc), then we were lied to by the realtors involved, and in a nutshell we were led on and then our offer, which they assured us was being accepted, was not-they used it as a bargaining tool with another buyer to get their offer up. So now we're scrambling to find something else, to get our house on the market next week, I have three kids who do a public school program at home and now they're all behind and their teacher is getting after me, most of us are sleeping on the floor due to rooms being torn apart as we get ready for carpet/staging etc etc etc.
I am stressed out
I am also dropping weight.
I'm not tracking my calorie intake at all right now and we're pretty much living off of fast food for 1-3 meals a day.
Down about 5lbs since this whole ordeal started. So for me-stress is actually causing weight loss. Which would be nice, if I wasn't already several years into maintenance
5 -
Russellb97 wrote: »There is no doubt in my mind that CICO is the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to losing weight.
The issue with CICO and the reason why I personally used to struggle with my weight is I focused on calories in and exercise and ignored the most important part of the CO side of the equation, basal metabolic rate. BMR is about 70% of the calories-out side. This is HUGE!
To better grasp the enormous effect this has on weight loss. Pretend for a moment CO is now CI and BMR represents one meal, and exercise, TEF and NEAT combine for the other two meals. If your daily calorie goal was 2500 calories, your 2 "other" meals would be 375 calories each and your one "BMR meal" would be 1,750 calories. BMR is pretty damn important right?
Yet, typcial weight-loss activities; calorie restriction and cardio exercise will have a negative impact on BMR which is one of the reasons CICO doesn't always produce results in many of us. CICO is just another "Paper Champion"
Did you get metabolic testing?1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions