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
Options
Replies
-
Well if water weight and fluctuation is significant weight to someone's success or failure in weight loss, then they're doing it wrong. We go through this daily on the forums.
Not if the sodium intake was consistent though. I've had quite a few clients who are/were Asian and soy sauce is very common in just about every dish. I tell them only to reduce it if they have high blood pressure issue/hypertension issues. But if they don't, then I tell them it's fine. Weight loss still happens if they're in deficit.
Agreed, but if someone gains 4lbs in day after a high sodium meal the day before even though they ate within calorie restrictions, it's pretty obvious that it's water weight gain and shouldn't be construed as being a CICO issue. That's the point I'm making here.
Lol, okay so you weigh yourself before you pee, then after you pee. You really consider that "weight loss"? It might make one feel better, but the reality is that it had no impact on actual loss of fat.
Water weight isn't fat weight. Since there is no calories in water, it shouldn't be counted as an energy source.Amy_QueenInTraining wrote: »*following. (And my two cents: You are right, it is not the whole equation. Personally, sodium consumption, time of day I eat, and how I exercise all contribute to my weight)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Kilograms made up of water still count as weight regardless of being devoid of energy.
You don't weigh just your fat when you step on the scales.
It's the same as gaining weight from drinking 8oz of water and weighing 8oz more after. Is someone really going to attribute that to gaining weight?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A full bladder is hardly the same as water retained in cells due to osmotic pressures.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
True but for person with a diet chronically high in sodium causing greater retention of water then it would certainly be a factor impacting their weight. It's not a CICO issue but it IS a contributing factor to weight loss/gain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course. But that water is still part of their body. Part of what they weigh. A factor to their weight. It still gets measured.
......
Also, even if a person is normotensive they still should be eating below the recommend maximum dietary intake. Those recommendations are for the standard person, not one already diagnosed with hypertension.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 6 -
Urgh. This old chestnut again. Tiresome. I'm going to get a big mac too.
Just wondering though, if people don't support the factual science of CI/CO why are they posting? Primarily this is what mfp is about and what the majority is here to do.0 -
Clothing... Part of the CICO equation or no?10
-
Again, if you actually read the preceding posts you would see the progression of that conversation.
Or you could just read my posts in isolation. Even if you actually took note of what I wrote you would understand the point I'm making unless it is your own comprehension skills that are lacking.
My point is that things other than CI:CO as a direct ratio DO have bearing to what a person weighs (as in numbers on a scale) including the factors that influence their what their CI or CO sits at and other factors such water retention etc etc. I'm not disputing that to reduce body weight there must be a deficit in energy balance.
I'm just saying other things matter too.
I have read every single post on here. Thinking I haven't, is ignorance on your part. So please do not make assumptions.
CICO is energy balance. It's the computation of net fat loss/gain over time. Not water weight.
Yet somehow you still have missed my point.
Perhaps I'm a terrible communicator. Let's run with that, hey? I'm off to bed. Night.
That is probably what I would suggest.
And water weight really only matters to a subset of people, especially those who are new or don't understand what they really want. People really want fat loss because over time it drives a leaner body. They care about water weight for basic motivation in the beginning (or if they have an event) but outside of that, it's a non issue. I have never cared about the daily fluctuations or a specific number. I have only cared about what I look like. But I also dont' have any crap going on in my head, lol
As someone who is neither new (I first used mfp in 2012 under a different account), or overweight, or concerned with water fluctuations my opinions are certainly not driven by that kind of perspective.
My discussion posts (particularly about sodium and water retention) have been in response to other users as part of a reasonable conversation, and I'm some cases commenting on statements made by others that are not entirely true or exploring the contributing factors and the impact this has on what a person weighs.
I'm not sure why you take such offence at that.
..........
Any way aren't moderators meant to moderate discussion boards rather than latch on to sub sections of conversation and insult other community members?
Agreeing with your statement is insulting you? "Let's run with, hey?" was not actually an invitation to run with anything then? Are you kidding me right now? Make a derogatory statement about yourself in a false attempt to appear equanimous, ask people to agree with it and then claim to be victimized when they do. Super classy.
12 -
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.4
-
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.4 -
Had a Grand Mac the other day. That's a big sandwich to eat.Urgh. This old chestnut again. Tiresome. I'm going to get a big mac too.
Just wondering though, if people don't support the factual science of CI/CO why are they posting? Primarily this is what mfp is about and what the majority is here to do.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.
I said it's also not... tried to get around that heresay lol I no we need veggies and macros ect. I'd just prefer to elimainate my own health issues by losing weight in a sustainable way and having a better relationship with food in the initial stages. I binged on junk, ate so much at times, felt horribly guilty, depressed with what and how much I was eating, ate because I was depressed ect. Mpf is working for me.
I hope everyone finds something that works for them too2 -
My favorite writer, Shirley Jackson, died young after struggling with her weight her whole life. Towards the end, she wrote more on calorie logs pasted to the walls of her kitchen than behind the typewriter. Of course, she drank, smoked, and took the diet pills that were common in the day in addition to being overweight and stressed out. But her obsession with her weight and her tunnel-vision on CICO killed her quicker than if she's taken a more gradual and wholistic approach. She never did finish that last book.
I try to remember that when I get anxious about calorie intake. Goals are good, realistic goals are better, and leaving behind something more than a list of the food I eat is best.
Also, I recommend her biography, "A Rather Haunted Life".
1 -
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.
I said it's also not... tried to get around that heresay lol I no we need veggies and macros ect. I'd just prefer to elimainate my own health issues by losing weight in a sustainable way and having a better relationship with food in the initial stages. I binged on junk, ate so much at times, felt horribly guilty, depressed with what and how much I was eating, ate because I was depressed ect. Mpf is working for me.
I hope everyone finds something that works for them too
Sounds very sensible. Good luck.
I still reckon you may be subject to the Wellness Inquisition so if anyone invites you to sit on a cucking stool I would advise you to run. The other way. As fast as you can. Which will make you even fitter.5 -
Had a Grand Mac the other day. That's a big sandwich to eat.Urgh. This old chestnut again. Tiresome. I'm going to get a big mac too.
Just wondering though, if people don't support the factual science of CI/CO why are they posting? Primarily this is what mfp is about and what the majority is here to do.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I found it disappointing. More mess than what it was worth.0 -
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.
I said it's also not... tried to get around that heresay lol I no we need veggies and macros ect. I'd just prefer to elimainate my own health issues by losing weight in a sustainable way and having a better relationship with food in the initial stages. I binged on junk, ate so much at times, felt horribly guilty, depressed with what and how much I was eating, ate because I was depressed ect. Mpf is working for me.
I hope everyone finds something that works for them too
People tend to forget that just by losing weight your health markers improve. Too often the health improvements ate attributed to the diet...8 -
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.
I said it's also not... tried to get around that heresay lol I no we need veggies and macros ect. I'd just prefer to elimainate my own health issues by losing weight in a sustainable way and having a better relationship with food in the initial stages. I binged on junk, ate so much at times, felt horribly guilty, depressed with what and how much I was eating, ate because I was depressed ect. Mpf is working for me.
I hope everyone finds something that works for them too
People tend to forget that just by losing weight your health markers improve...
It helps. Substantially5 -
Debating this topic and finding a medium is like trying to find a one ended stick. I shall say no more but good luck to EVERYONE in their weight lose/health improvement journeys
0 -
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »No. What I am saying is that...
CICO is how you control your weight.
If there is something preventing you from doing so... Be it eating disorder. Emotional eating. Trigger foods. Etc. Then that issue needs to be addressed.
Once the issue is addressed then it's simply CICO.
If it wasn't then I'd still be struggling with my weight despite medication and therapy.
So I guess you could consider all those other impacting things to be part of the weight loss - not just energy balance - equation.
It's fair to say the ratio of CICO is greatly affected by emotional, psychological, socioeconomic ect etc factors. Hence, all kinds of things 'matter to weight loss'.
Why is this so hard?
CICO is the energy balance.
Psychological factors aren't energy balance. They are separate issues, just like nutrition is a separate issue.
Why are they being conflated?
Again, I will reiterate what I said pages and pages ago: CICO isn't the only weight loss equation we sometimes need to focus on, but just because it's not the only one doesn't mean it's not valid by itself. It's still the main driver of fat loss.
I'd like to know what's so hard here too, cause it seems to me you are acknowledging the same factors as I have, but in a far more aggressive and condescending way while seeming unable to either recognise or acknowledge (could be either) that they ALL have some bearing on weight loss.
I see weight loss like a puzzle with a lot of pieces. Each piece is distinct from each other and doesn't detract from the other's importance.
This is why I said, and will keep repeating, "CICO isn't the only equation."
The problem where I think communication is breaking down, is your posts are coming across as having other factors detracting from CICO. They are distinct from CICO.
CICO's just one piece of the weight loss puzzle.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »No. What I am saying is that...
CICO is how you control your weight.
If there is something preventing you from doing so... Be it eating disorder. Emotional eating. Trigger foods. Etc. Then that issue needs to be addressed.
Once the issue is addressed then it's simply CICO.
If it wasn't then I'd still be struggling with my weight despite medication and therapy.
So I guess you could consider all those other impacting things to be part of the weight loss - not just energy balance - equation.
It's fair to say the ratio of CICO is greatly affected by emotional, psychological, socioeconomic ect etc factors. Hence, all kinds of things 'matter to weight loss'.
Why is this so hard?
CICO is the energy balance.
Psychological factors aren't energy balance. They are separate issues, just like nutrition is a separate issue.
Why are they being conflated?
Again, I will reiterate what I said pages and pages ago: CICO isn't the only weight loss equation we sometimes need to focus on, but just because it's not the only one doesn't mean it's not valid by itself. It's still the main driver of fat loss.
I'd like to know what's so hard here too, cause it seems to me you are acknowledging the same factors as I have, but in a far more aggressive and condescending way while seeming unable to either recognise or acknowledge (could be either) that they ALL have some bearing on weight loss.
I see weight loss like a puzzle with a lot of pieces. Each piece is distinct from each other and doesn't detract from the other's importance.
This is why I said, and will keep repeating, "CICO isn't the only equation."
The problem where I think communication is breaking down, is your posts are coming across as having other factors detracting from CICO. They are distinct from CICO.
CICO's just one piece of the weight loss puzzle.
Might be less confusing if we said fat loss...5 -
Again, if you actually read the preceding posts you would see the progression of that conversation.
Or you could just read my posts in isolation. Even if you actually took note of what I wrote you would understand the point I'm making unless it is your own comprehension skills that are lacking.
My point is that things other than CI:CO as a direct ratio DO have bearing to what a person weighs (as in numbers on a scale) including the factors that influence their what their CI or CO sits at and other factors such water retention etc etc. I'm not disputing that to reduce body weight there must be a deficit in energy balance.
I'm just saying other things matter too.
I have read every single post on here. Thinking I haven't, is ignorance on your part. So please do not make assumptions.
CICO is energy balance. It's the computation of net fat loss/gain over time. Not water weight.
Yet somehow you still have missed my point.
Perhaps I'm a terrible communicator. Let's run with that, hey? I'm off to bed. Night.
That is probably what I would suggest.
And water weight really only matters to a subset of people, especially those who are new or don't understand what they really want. People really want fat loss because over time it drives a leaner body. They care about water weight for basic motivation in the beginning (or if they have an event) but outside of that, it's a non issue. I have never cared about the daily fluctuations or a specific number. I have only cared about what I look like. But I also dont' have any crap going on in my head, lol
As someone who is neither new (I first used mfp in 2012 under a different account), or overweight, or concerned with water fluctuations my opinions are certainly not driven by that kind of perspective.
My discussion posts (particularly about sodium and water retention) have been in response to other users as part of a reasonable conversation, and I'm some cases commenting on statements made by others that are not entirely true or exploring the contributing factors and the impact this has on what a person weighs.
I'm not sure why you take such offence at that.
..........
Any way aren't moderators meant to moderate discussion boards rather than latch on to sub sections of conversation and insult other community members?
I don't take offense.. It's the internet and I don't take it serious. And just because I am a moderator, am I not allowed to engage in conversation? Am I not allowed to engage in debate? Am I not allowed to point out fallacies or inaccuracies in data or debate? If you would really like to know what I am required to do as a moderator, please feel free to pm me. I always have an open door and will gladly communicate my roles and responsibilities. I am not sure how I insulted you, because it certainly wasn't meant that way. You made an assumption about me, I responded, which drove your response. I agreed with your own personal assessment. If you find that insulting, I do apologize.
Water weight fluctuations do not have an impact on energy balance. If people want to worry about water weight fluctuations, that is fine, but it isn't a part of CICO. CICO is an oversimplication of energy balance.10 -
Way behind in this thread, but going back to yesterday:Russellb97 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
^^^ This
I'm baffled by how hard this is for people to understand.
Yes! CICO is the basic black and white answer, of course, it is! I completely agree that ultimately losing weight comes done to the CICO formula. Yet if it was truly that simple, why are getting bigger and bigger? Why do 95% of us who lose weight gain it all back?
Sometimes you have to be able to think a bit deeper than what's on the surface. If you only go as far as CICO, you'll fail to comprehend the complexity of why losing weight is so difficult.
I think you are misreading the posters here, as no one is saying that CICO is the only thing that an individual dieter needs to worry about and that achieving and maintaining the right CICO balance is easy always. The argument is with those claiming that CICO is not how it works -- that if you eat the right foods CICO doesn't matter. Of course that's ridiculous and so why bother rebutting it? Well, because it's surprising how many on MFP seem to assume otherwise at the beginning or disagree.
As for your second point, why do people keep getting fatter? Most people don't really monitor CICO or do so in ways that are way off -- people assume they are more active and eat less (in terms of calories, certainly) than they do in many cases. I'm pretty familiar with calories and can estimate pretty well, and yet I can turn off that part of my brain really easily and eat mindlessly, and if I do let myself eat mindlessly I can eat a lot without feeling like I did.
Beyond that, of course you need behavioral changes and methods to keep CICO where it should be in a society that makes obesity really easy (meaning we have no need to move much and can easily consume as many calories as we like in many cases, without many cultural restrictions on doing so, like regular meal times and customs beyond those that encourage more eating).
No one is saying otherwise, or saying that weight control is easy (simple, yeah, but easy maybe not).
I do think that what works for weight control in this environment is going to vary by person, although there are probably some things that are generally helpful on average.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions