Is CICO the real deal?
Options
Replies
-
You don't have to count calories to gain weight. It doesn't matter that people didn't know what calories were 50 years ago, it doesn't change the fact they are a thing, and just a mathematic equation to help you lose weight gain or maintain weight. Same as balancing a check book, you take out more than you put in you are going to be poor IE you eat more calories than you burn you are going to gain weight. You don't have to believe CICO to be the real deal, but whether people are actually counting calories or not it's the simplified equation behind the scenes that is used that tells you why you have gained or lost weight.0
-
Yes it's real
Good luck0 -
Don't know about the rest of you, but I remember a "normal" meal being those frikken TV dinners. I hated when the gravy got in the dessert.7
-
The "skinny people who can eat all they want" comments always give me a chuckle because I used to get those all of the time in college...my roommates always gave me grief because I ate a lot (genuinely ate a lot) and drank a lot of beer and never "worked out" but I remained lean while they were hitting the gym and running or whatever and having weight difficulties...
Apparently they were completely oblivious to the fact that I didn't own a car so I walked and biked everywhere...I had a 3/4 time retail job at a package liquor store during the school year where I was on my feet for six hours per day and moving around cases of booze, beer, and wine all day long, and I did full time landscape construction in the summer. On top of that, I enjoyed hiking and backpack camping and recreation often was playing Frisbee golf or Ultimate Frisbee in the park...though I also did my fair share of gaming.
Guess what happened when I graduated, bought a car, and started working in a professional office setting?7 -
ShammersPink wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »I keep hearing about this magical generation that wasn't overweight, but in my family we have overweight/obese people going way back-my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc, When we do our big family reunion (oldest person there is in their late 80s), I stick out like a sore thumb
Whatever your family history, there is no doubt at all that the current prevalence of obesity is unprecedented. Look at the graph on the right. The thinnest state today is way fatter than the fattest state of 25 years ago:
http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
Love this link! I wonder how New York, Montana, Ohio and Minnesota did it. From the link:U.S. adult obesity rates decreased in four states (Minnesota, Montana, New York and Ohio), increased in two (Kansas and Kentucky) and remained stable in the rest, between 2014 and 2015. This marks the first time in the past decade that any states have experienced decreases — aside from a decline in Washington, D.C. in 2010.
I can't speak for the other 3 states, but Montana has recently had a huge influx of people young and old alike that have moved here for all the recreational opportunities that the state offers so it may be skewing the numbers a bit. That said, we also have the highest suicide rate in the nation....no correlation, but I expect as time goes on those numbers should improve as well.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Don't know about the rest of you, but I remember a "normal" meal being those frikken TV dinners. I hated when the gravy got in the dessert.
LOL!! Or when a couple of the green beans got baked into the brownie. Blargh.
You had to peel back the foil on various parts and they took like 45 minutes in the oven.
I LOVED the frozen pot pies, though.
1 -
ShammersPink wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »I keep hearing about this magical generation that wasn't overweight, but in my family we have overweight/obese people going way back-my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc, When we do our big family reunion (oldest person there is in their late 80s), I stick out like a sore thumb
Whatever your family history, there is no doubt at all that the current prevalence of obesity is unprecedented. Look at the graph on the right. The thinnest state today is way fatter than the fattest state of 25 years ago:
http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
Love this link! I wonder how New York, Montana, Ohio and Minnesota did it. From the link:U.S. adult obesity rates decreased in four states (Minnesota, Montana, New York and Ohio), increased in two (Kansas and Kentucky) and remained stable in the rest, between 2014 and 2015. This marks the first time in the past decade that any states have experienced decreases — aside from a decline in Washington, D.C. in 2010.
I can't speak for the other 3 states, but Montana has recently had a huge influx of people young and old alike that have moved here for all the recreational opportunities that the state offers so it may be skewing the numbers a bit. That said, we also have the highest suicide rate in the nation....no correlation, but I expect as time goes on those numbers should improve as well.
So you snagged the thin people from other states, making those states even fatter as a result
. Recreational opportunities, eh? Montana, who knew?
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Don't know about the rest of you, but I remember a "normal" meal being those frikken TV dinners. I hated when the gravy got in the dessert.
When I was very young, my parents were pretty poor as my dad was a college student and my mom only worked part time...I think I would have loved a frozen t.v. dinner...I recall many nights of ground beef, cabbage, and onions...and I always knew we were nearing pay day and almost out of money as the pork and beans and wonder bread would make it's way to the dinner table.2 -
Yeah, weirdly, for us, TV dinners were a "special treat." For that reason we looooooooooooooooved them! 99% of the time, however, it was something with these three elements: a meat/poultry/fish piece, a veggie, and "a starch" (potatoes or rice or whatever). Voila. Dinner? It's done.
Lunch was a sandwich pretty much all the time. Except for when I bought school lunches (at various times), it was a sandwich. And a piece of fruit. We didn't have chips or anything with those...I guess we were filled up on just that? My parents would do the same thing. My father would bring sandwiches to work.
I do remember pork and beans. That fatty piece was just blarghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Woe to the child who accidentally got that fatty piece in her forkful. Seriously...that made me gag. We usually only had those for barbecues or something, though.
We weren't poor but we weren't rich either.cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Don't know about the rest of you, but I remember a "normal" meal being those frikken TV dinners. I hated when the gravy got in the dessert.
When I was very young, my parents were pretty poor as my dad was a college student and my mom only worked part time...I think I would have loved a frozen t.v. dinner...I recall many nights of ground beef, cabbage, and onions...and I always knew we were nearing pay day and almost out of money as the pork and beans and wonder bread would make it's way to the dinner table.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Don't know about the rest of you, but I remember a "normal" meal being those frikken TV dinners. I hated when the gravy got in the dessert.
We ate a lot of those. And then when my parents were more well-off they evolved to dinners at Sonic, DQ, or calling in an order from the kitchen at the local bowling alley. Chili frito pie was a pretty common dinner for me as a teen. So good but my body hated me after!0 -
Holy cow, we got fast food (of any description) like once every three months if that.
Families with more money didn't eat more fast food...generally they ate the "expensive" meats and so on, and went to sit-down restaurants more often but again, still not very often. This could be the exact time frame and/or regional?
I've heard of those chili Frito pies. LOL. I think I grew up in the wrong place.diannethegeek wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Don't know about the rest of you, but I remember a "normal" meal being those frikken TV dinners. I hated when the gravy got in the dessert.
We ate a lot of those. And then when my parents were more well-off they evolved to dinners at Sonic, DQ, or calling in an order from the kitchen at the local bowling alley. Chili frito pie was a pretty common dinner for me as a teen. So good but my body hated me after!
1 -
Look at old cookbooks . Notice the serving sizes.
Look at old plates. Notice the size.
Look at old wine glasses and juice glasses. Notice how much you can put in them.
Look at the calories in a "serving" soda, wine, beer.
Now pour a "serving" of one of those into your own glasses and measure it. How many "servings" is it really?
Now go find the stats on how much they all cost as a percentage of our grandparent's pay. Look for stats on how often people purchased them and what a "serving" was.
(Hint: Even *I* remember when sodapop came in quart glass bottles).
(My uncles remember splitting a glass bottle of Coke as a treat.)
Look at how much food cost as a percentage of income until very recently.
Look at how much *restaurant* food cost. Find the data (its out there!) on how often people ate out.
Ask your parents and grandparents what they ordered at McDonalds in the 1970s. Ask them about what a "large" drink at Burger King was in the early 1980s. Ask them when they first remember such a thing as a "free refill."
Look at stats on how often kids had gym class until the 1990s.
Ask someone what they used to do in gym glass in the 1970s.
(Hint: We got so sweaty that we actually had to take real showers).
Look at how many children walked to school. How many people walked to work. How many people worked physical jobs.
Before you can say that "CI<CO doesn't work" or that "Our grandparents ate everything and didn't get fat!" you need a way better understanding of how CI worked until recently and how CO has changed in the last few decades.
(In addition, I'd point out that all my great-grandmas got pretty stout in their old age)6 -
Also wanted to say that though I'm not sure this is relevant for this particular conversation, there is a sense in which calories are an invention and once upon a time did not exist (just as inches or metres are an invention), but the energy which calories measure has always existed. We could theoretically measure energy intake and output in units other than calories but it's six of one, half dozen of the other.
Yes exactly.
Metric kilojoules for example.
We could call equation KJIKJO.
But it is same equation, regardless of the unit of measure and it works regardless of whether you measure it or not.
Just like a man is same height whether you measure him as 6 ft tall or 182 cm tall.
and he is taller than me whether you actually measure him or not.
2 -
ShammersPink wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »I keep hearing about this magical generation that wasn't overweight, but in my family we have overweight/obese people going way back-my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc, When we do our big family reunion (oldest person there is in their late 80s), I stick out like a sore thumb
Whatever your family history, there is no doubt at all that the current prevalence of obesity is unprecedented. Look at the graph on the right. The thinnest state today is way fatter than the fattest state of 25 years ago:
http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
Love this link! I wonder how New York, Montana, Ohio and Minnesota did it. From the link:U.S. adult obesity rates decreased in four states (Minnesota, Montana, New York and Ohio), increased in two (Kansas and Kentucky) and remained stable in the rest, between 2014 and 2015. This marks the first time in the past decade that any states have experienced decreases — aside from a decline in Washington, D.C. in 2010.
I can't speak for the other 3 states, but Montana has recently had a huge influx of people young and old alike that have moved here for all the recreational opportunities that the state offers so it may be skewing the numbers a bit. That said, we also have the highest suicide rate in the nation....no correlation, but I expect as time goes on those numbers should improve as well.
So you snagged the thin people from other states, making those states even fatter as a result. Recreational opportunities, eh? Montana, who knew?
Shhhh...don't tell anyone. The town I live in, known for it's rock & ice climbing, hiking, biking, backpacking, skiing, fly fishing, proximity to Yellowstone Park and on and on is the fastest growing community in the nation right now. It's created a nightmare for locals as the cost of living has sky rocketed, comparable to larger cities (my daughter's rent for a one bedrooom apartment is $1400/month), the schools are over packed with little rugrats, the traffic designed for much less traffic is horrid. We have a university rated by "Outside Magazine" as the best in the nation for said recreational activities. So yes, we are stealing all those skinny people and even people like me are getting skinny just so we don't stand out and feel self-conscious! It's supposed to be -25F tonight with wind chills down to -50 so maybe some folks will leave.
3 -
- People ate less once upon a time. There were no super sized fries at fast food restaurants, no Super Big Gulps at the 7-11, no free refills at the soda fountain. Coke came in 6 oz glass deposit bottles. Restaurant portions were smaller.
- People ate better once upon a time. Home cooking was the norm; pre-prepared foods less common; eating out a rare treat. You generally knew what was in your food, which didn't have so much sugar added where you don't expect it.
- People were more active once upon a time. More of the work to be done was in manufacturing or agriculture or other physical occupations, there weren't as many power tools for as many jobs, and there were fewer desk jobs. Kids would go play outside, not plop themselves down in front of a game console all afternoon. And if they wanted to -- you could get a game console as early as 1972 -- they certainly weren't encouraged in that by their parents, who weren't so fearful for their kids that they couldn't let them out of their sight.
0 -
So I'm not really convinced that CICO is the formula for weight loss/gain. I'm not questioning the ability to lose weight counting calories and eating healthy (I lost 18 kg counting calories over 15 years ago); I just don't believe excess calories are the thing that makes us fat. My parents' generation for example never knew what calories even were and they used to eat normally and still were slim. And we all have friends who eat like crazy and never workout, but are TOO thin, or at least normal weight. It's just too overwhelming counting every single thing you eat and monitoring your CICO every single day.
So what's the real deal?
Update: I know that counting calories is how you monitor your CICO (and CICO is not equal to counting calories) and I know it works, but I also lost a hell lot of weight with a nutritionist who would let me eat unlimited quantities of food, and even have vanilla ice-cream for dinner if I wanted to! So my point is there must be something else.
I wanted to address the following (bolded/italicized above).
I wonder how your parents did eat at that time? You say "normally." Do you have some sort of quantification for that? It could be interesting and revealing for you to investigate it further. I say that because I was born in the late 60s. In the 70s and through at least the mid-80s, our "normally" WAS NOT today's "normally". "A lot" at dinner was not the giant-size plates we see today. Neither were eating-out and take-out portions, although even those were much much rarer than I see today. I remember a "small" drink was actually small. Twelve ounces was NOT small, LOL. Maybe six ounces? Anybody remember getting Cokes in the glass bottles? Those were six ounces. I mean...literally. I think they went up to eight ounces at some point right before glass bottles went out of common usage.
Another thing: we did not snack constantly. A lot of kids got an after-school snack, but at least where the mom wasn't working and could oversee, LOL, I remember two small cookies (which we didn't see as small...we thought an Oreo-size cookie was normal, go figure) being a snack. That was it unless maybe with a small glass of milk. If you snacked it was because you hadn't been fed properly for your "three square meals," according to the beliefs of the time. Other than that, only toddlers and kindergartners needed a snack on a regular basis. When you got bigger, and had either an allowance or got paid for chores if your parents did that, you might bike your butt three miles to the Wawa to buy junk, eat or drink that junk, then pedal the three miles back to your friend's house to play PHYSICALLY outside until you were forced to come in long enough to have your dinner, then you WALKED OR RAN (yes, with feet) back outside to play (using your whole body...not just your fingers) until it got dark.
We didn't have "a treat" after every freakin' meal. We didn't even have dessert every day. When we did have it, it might be two small cookies or a small dish of ice cream...like literally the half-cup that *is* a serving, but which people laugh at today saying "That's not a serving!" Or, it might be an orange.
That was a long post, but no, IME, anyway, people in the past did not "eat normally and stay slim" if you're considering today's eating habits "eating normally." Not even close. There's no way in hell that even with big Sunday dinners and our "three square" meals a day with meat and potatoes for dinner, we ate anywhere close to the amount of calories that a "normal" eater consumes today.
Absolutely!!
When I was growing up, my mother fed us a small breakfast, lunch and dinner. We had dessert after dinner, but dessert was a very small bowl of fruit or jello or something similar. We had an after-school snack too ... one small cookie and a glass of milk. And we had a snack before bed ... a piece of fruit.
We didn't go hungry, and my mother tried to feed us a good variety of food, but we certainly didn't eat a lot in comparison with today's standards.
We also walked and cycled everywhere. My whole family did! My grandparents walked, my parents walked and cycled ... and of course, so did I.
Just about every afternoon, we were sent outside to run around and play ... even in the dead of winter on the Canadian prairies.
2 -
ShammersPink wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »I keep hearing about this magical generation that wasn't overweight, but in my family we have overweight/obese people going way back-my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc, When we do our big family reunion (oldest person there is in their late 80s), I stick out like a sore thumb
Whatever your family history, there is no doubt at all that the current prevalence of obesity is unprecedented. Look at the graph on the right. The thinnest state today is way fatter than the fattest state of 25 years ago:
http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
Love this link! I wonder how New York, Montana, Ohio and Minnesota did it. From the link:U.S. adult obesity rates decreased in four states (Minnesota, Montana, New York and Ohio), increased in two (Kansas and Kentucky) and remained stable in the rest, between 2014 and 2015. This marks the first time in the past decade that any states have experienced decreases — aside from a decline in Washington, D.C. in 2010.
I can't speak for the other 3 states, but Montana has recently had a huge influx of people young and old alike that have moved here for all the recreational opportunities that the state offers so it may be skewing the numbers a bit. That said, we also have the highest suicide rate in the nation....no correlation, but I expect as time goes on those numbers should improve as well.
So you snagged the thin people from other states, making those states even fatter as a result. Recreational opportunities, eh? Montana, who knew?
Shhhh...don't tell anyone. The town I live in, known for it's rock & ice climbing, hiking, biking, backpacking, skiing, fly fishing, proximity to Yellowstone Park and on and on is the fastest growing community in the nation right now. It's created a nightmare for locals as the cost of living has sky rocketed, comparable to larger cities (my daughter's rent for a one bedrooom apartment is $1400/month), the schools are over packed with little rugrats, the traffic designed for much less traffic is horrid. We have a university rated by "Outside Magazine" as the best in the nation for said recreational activities. So yes, we are stealing all those skinny people and even people like me are getting skinny just so we don't stand out and feel self-conscious! It's supposed to be -25F tonight with wind chills down to -50 so maybe some folks will leave.
at 1400 a month rent you cant afford to eat so ya gotta be skinny lol
good luck2 -
So I'm not really convinced that CICO is the formula for weight loss/gain. I'm not questioning the ability to lose weight counting calories and eating healthy (I lost 18 kg counting calories over 15 years ago); I just don't believe excess calories are the thing that makes us fat. My parents' generation for example never knew what calories even were and they used to eat normally and still were slim. And we all have friends who eat like crazy and never workout, but are TOO thin, or at least normal weight. It's just too overwhelming counting every single thing you eat and monitoring your CICO every single day.
So what's the real deal?
Update: I know that counting calories is how you monitor your CICO (and CICO is not equal to counting calories) and I know it works, but I also lost a hell lot of weight with a nutritionist who would let me eat unlimited quantities of food, and even have vanilla ice-cream for dinner if I wanted to! So my point is there must be something else.
Calories determine your weight whether you count them or not. People can gain, lose or mainain a weight without knowing the calories they are eating if they happen to eat the right amount for their activity level. CICO applies to everyone. It doesn't require belief.
If you logged that unlimited quantity of food and losing weight you would notice that you probably would be making choices that are lower calorie and/or have increased your activity level. You would not be eating an extra large meat lovers pizza, peanut butter shake, triple bacon cheeseburger, guacamole and chips, baked potato, fried chicken, and lasagna at every meal every day and sit most of the time. You would probably have some higher calorie days and much lower calorie days that evened things out over the week.
My parents and grandparents were overweight as adults. I guess they were slim in their youth. I can't say exactly what they did or did not do then. Less convenience/restaurant food, more physical labor or walking is my guess.
I grew up thin. I often skipped breakfast, sometimes lunch. I walked to and from school. I was not athletic but was just active more of the day. I got overweight as an adult too and it was eating an extra 300-500 calories over every day not unlimited quantities of food... an extra helping at dinner maybe, drinks, the food my dd didn't finish or just more high calorie stuff. I became much more sedentary at the same time.
My dh lost 30+ lbs and maintains without counting calories or exercising. He just ate less.
I need to see the numbers and log everything to lose weight and eat like a normal person.
If you don't want to log eat smaller portions of higher calories foods. Eat more lower calorie foods like vegetables and lean meats. Move more. When the scale number goes down you know you have hit the right amount of CICO to lose weight.
1 -
red99ryder wrote: »ShammersPink wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »I keep hearing about this magical generation that wasn't overweight, but in my family we have overweight/obese people going way back-my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc, When we do our big family reunion (oldest person there is in their late 80s), I stick out like a sore thumb
Whatever your family history, there is no doubt at all that the current prevalence of obesity is unprecedented. Look at the graph on the right. The thinnest state today is way fatter than the fattest state of 25 years ago:
http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
Love this link! I wonder how New York, Montana, Ohio and Minnesota did it. From the link:U.S. adult obesity rates decreased in four states (Minnesota, Montana, New York and Ohio), increased in two (Kansas and Kentucky) and remained stable in the rest, between 2014 and 2015. This marks the first time in the past decade that any states have experienced decreases — aside from a decline in Washington, D.C. in 2010.
I can't speak for the other 3 states, but Montana has recently had a huge influx of people young and old alike that have moved here for all the recreational opportunities that the state offers so it may be skewing the numbers a bit. That said, we also have the highest suicide rate in the nation....no correlation, but I expect as time goes on those numbers should improve as well.
So you snagged the thin people from other states, making those states even fatter as a result. Recreational opportunities, eh? Montana, who knew?
Shhhh...don't tell anyone. The town I live in, known for it's rock & ice climbing, hiking, biking, backpacking, skiing, fly fishing, proximity to Yellowstone Park and on and on is the fastest growing community in the nation right now. It's created a nightmare for locals as the cost of living has sky rocketed, comparable to larger cities (my daughter's rent for a one bedrooom apartment is $1400/month), the schools are over packed with little rugrats, the traffic designed for much less traffic is horrid. We have a university rated by "Outside Magazine" as the best in the nation for said recreational activities. So yes, we are stealing all those skinny people and even people like me are getting skinny just so we don't stand out and feel self-conscious! It's supposed to be -25F tonight with wind chills down to -50 so maybe some folks will leave.
at 1400 a month rent you cant afford to eat so ya gotta be skinny lol
good luck
Increase their population and then starve 'em! Then the actual weight decrease can start and not just this shuffling around of state populations. Genius!2 -
Yeah, weirdly, for us, TV dinners were a "special treat." For that reason we looooooooooooooooved them! 99% of the time, however, it was something with these three elements: a meat/poultry/fish piece, a veggie, and "a starch" (potatoes or rice or whatever). Voila. Dinner? It's done.
TV dinners (same thing you describe) were a special treat for us, too. We'd only get them when my parents were going out to dinner and we had a babysitter (or later, when I was considered old enough to watch my sister).
They were pretty small, probably smaller than a normal meat (meat bit was about the same, but less healthy normally -- breaded fish or chicken with skin and definitely some grease or salisbury steak), but they were perfectly satisfying.
Comparing dinners, I don't think my dinners (or what I think of as an average dinner) are bigger than in the '70s and '80s (my dishes are the same size, we'd eat dinner on dinner plates and had smaller ones often used at breakfast and lunch), but the plate would be filled with a meal serving, some kind of starch serving, and lots of vegetables (I find now too that size of meal has little to do with calories and more with preparation and if I include a lot of veg). I do, of course, think that average restaurant sizes are larger, but back then we didn't go out that much -- it was a special treat.Lunch was a sandwich pretty much all the time. Except for when I bought school lunches (at various times), it was a sandwich. And a piece of fruit. We didn't have chips or anything with those...I guess we were filled up on just that? My parents would do the same thing. My father would bring sandwiches to work.
This was common when I was a kid too, except I was a weirdo (kind of picky, but in strange ways) as a kid and would not eat packaged bread, which I thought was horrible, and also didn't like PB or lunch meats, so I'd bring a thermos of soup or leftover chicken/turkey and fruit and carrots and maybe some saltines, weird combos like that.I do remember pork and beans. That fatty piece was just blarghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Woe to the child who accidentally got that fatty piece in her forkful. Seriously...that made me gag. We usually only had those for barbecues or something, though.
Heh, agreed and same.We weren't poor but we weren't rich either.
Yeah, same here, and pretty boring straightforward cooking for the most part (not an insult). I learned later my mom disliked cooking, but we had good balanced meals with vegetables. Always meat, plenty of potatoes (but they were the starch course, not considered a replacement for vegetables), and the one perhaps less common thing was that we were in Alaska for part of the time (so lots of canned and frozen veg) and my dad always had lots of friends who fished (he did some, but not as much, we all did on various family outings), so we had lots of great fish.
After school snack was small, not a lot of unplanned snacking and adults weren't eating throughout the day. Maybe a cookie in the lunch but it was small and not an always thing. We were pretty active as kids too.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 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
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions