It is more than a simple "CICO" - why can't we just admit it?
Replies
-
^^^ So many strawmen.15
-
If it was more than CICO, there would be a ton of obese starving African children.12
-
nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. CICO is the most miserable way to lose weight.
So many strawmen & incoherent statements. Controlling CICO is by definition not overeating, pretty much everyone responding is concerned about their health and what they put into their bodies. You're just making stuff up because you can't understand a conditional statement without changing the subject.
Brb THE necessary condition for losing weight is the most miserable way to do it. Uhhh...
You literally have no idea what us "angry people" are saying, you don't understand the term "CICO", and you conflate your misunderstandings with whatever half baked ideas you have about healthful eating.19 -
As so many others here tried to explain, weight loss is as simple as CICO. The rate of weight loss is a huge variable from person to person, depending on many other factors, but it all comes down to calories in vs calories out. The rate of loss is the variable for each individual.2
-
nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless you're a magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).11 -
mactaffy428 wrote: »Why do people say that it is all down to CICO as if it is really that simple? Why does dieting not work, then, if all we have to do is shut our pie holes every in a while? Now, before anyone gets snarky, yes one needs to burn more than they eat, but saying that it is all " CICO" is very misleading. You take 2 different 200 pound women. Give them a month, have then do the same level if activity and eat the exact same food, and I guarantee they will not have the same weight loss. This leaves people frustrated.
It is so very hard to figure out what our CO" is as our bodies affect how we process the same foods. Tom might use more energy digesting his peanut butter sandwich than Hank, even though they ate the exact same amount. That's more "CO" for Tom. It's also hard to figure out our "CI"; since, by law, packaged foods are allowed to be "off" a certain amount on what the companies that is the nutritional balance, etc. All we can do is our best educated guess and that's just is not perfect enough to boil everything down to CICO.
It is so tiring to see people just boil complex biological functions down to a half-baked formula. Yes, what you eat does matter (and you may not even know it [your Big Mac may be your weekly treat but it could very well be someone else's poison]) and what you do does matter (exercise has been shown to to do so many things that affect this CICO over-used jargon).
"It is more than a simple "CICO" - why can't we just admit it?"-Because it's unnecessary.
Some people need to work in a laboratory and see that ideal calculations are not exactly the same in the real world. There's a margin of error for everything. For example, in the laboratories of my electronics courses, we calculate ideal values and obtain measured values. Sure, the voltages or currents are *supposed* to be a certain value, but when measured in real life, the numbers are NEVER perfect. Maybe the measuring devices are not entirely precise or the voltage supplies are off, etc, etc. However, they are close enough such that the theorems and laws learned are reliable for building and designing hardware.
Similarly, online calculators and fitness devices help calculate ideal numbers for weight loss and calorie burns. However, in real life, the numbers will vary from person to person and should be tweaked as necessary. Either way, the simple, underlying science behind it, CICO, is good enough to get results.
It's really not that hard to understand.3 -
the thing is, there isn't a simple answer, and you want a simple answer, and "CICO" sounds like its being presented as a simple answer.
CI and CO are estimates. They can never be anything more. Which makes CI<CO an estimation as well.
And that's okay. Because it's the guiding principle as you work to get more accurate understanding of your specific CI and CO. That basic statement underlies all successful weight loss.
Its simple to say, but not simple in practice. It requires experimenting with your own diet and activity to figure out what's going on. That can be hard, and everyone wants easy. Everyone wants thought-free, work-free answers. THey're willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money for promises of thought-free, work-free answers. But if any of those easy answers actually worked for most people, no one would be overweight.5 -
nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss is that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. CICO is the most miserable way to lose weight.
The reason I decided to lose the extra weight was because I had been diagnosed as a prediabetic. I've lost several family members to type 2, and am now watching my only living grandmother slowly die, in excruciating pain, from complications to her type 2. So yes, better health was the only reason why I decided to lose weight. And I did, by understanding how weight loss actually works (CICO). I wasn't miserable during my weight loss phase, because I continued to eat all the foods I liked, I just learned how to eat them in the correct calorie amounts. I lost around 50lbs and improved all my health markers, including normalizing the high glucose number.
I'm now several years in maintenance and I'm the only one in my family who's reversed the progression of pre-diabetes. I'm in great health by every marker my doctor uses and I have a bmi of just under 21. I continue to focus on my calorie intake and I still eat all the foods I like. This is a realistic and sustainable method for me, for the next 45+ years.
If you'd like to compare blood work panels /health markers I'd be happy to do that with you.14 -
Threads like this always perplex me because I can't decide if people are intentionally misinterpreting statements like "weight loss comes down to CICO" as "ignore health and nutrition and eat nothing but donuts and Doritos" or if people are coming into this with a preconceived belief that everything has to be a certain "diet" and so they believe those who talk about CICO being the driving force for all weight loss must mean that they are prescribing a way of eating?
OP you are right that there are some variable complexities that may come into play for certain individuals. Things like underlying medical conditions may influence the CO side of the equation. Even these complexities though, don't invalidate the concept. It just means that certain people have to be more diligent or tweak that side of the equation, but the fact remains that those individuals still need to consume less calories than they burn in order to lose weight. And for the vast majority of people, it really is that simple, and being precise down to the decimal place of what. someone burns isn't necessary. All that is required is consistency and monitoring over time, making adjustments as actual results occur. Being directionally correct is good enough for almost everyone in the population.
I find that trying to imply that it is more complex than CICO because some of these "majoring in the minor" details just feeds into people's beliefs that weight loss is too hard for them, or they are destined to fail, or there is some other factor prohibiting them from being successful. If most people took the time to understand the basic energy balance of CICO, and some time logging their calories in and estimating their calories out - I think a lot more people would be successful not only at losing the weight, but at keeping it off.18 -
VintageFeline wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Threads like this always perplex me because I can't decide if people are intentionally misinterpreting statements like "weight loss comes down to CICO" as "ignore health and nutrition and eat nothing but donuts and Doritos" or if people are coming into this with a preconceived belief that everything has to be a certain "diet" and so they believe those who talk about CICO being the driving force for all weight loss must mean that they are prescribing a way of eating?
OP you are right that there are some variable complexities that may come into play for certain individuals. Things like underlying medical conditions may influence the CO side of the equation. Even these complexities though, don't invalidate the concept. It just means that certain people have to be more diligent or tweak that side of the equation, but the fact remains that those individuals still need to consume less calories than they burn in order to lose weight. And for the vast majority of people, it really is that simple, and being precise down to the decimal place of what. someone burns isn't necessary. All that is required is consistency and monitoring over time, making adjustments as actual results occur. Being directionally correct is good enough for almost everyone in the population.
I find that trying to imply that it is more complex than CICO because some of these "majoring in the minor" details just feeds into people's beliefs that weight loss is too hard for them, or they are destined to fail, or there is some other factor prohibiting them from being successful. If most people took the time to understand the basic energy balance of CICO, and some time logging their calories in and estimating their calories out - I think a lot more people would be successful not only at losing the weight, but at keeping it off.
My guess is it's all of the above and also people projecting. "If I wouldn't restrict my foods to only what Cosmo told me I'd only eat donuts all day, so obviously that is a problem for everyone else too, so I'm morally superior."5 -
nomorepuke wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!
Alright, to use @ninerbuff 's favorite answer to this kind of stuff: why aren't people in prison all morbidly obese then? They get the worst quality food you can imagine, the only constant between them is that they get a fixed amount.15 -
I believe the statement should not be "simply cico" Yes, the concept is simple. The solution is simple. BUT the application is where it gets hard. It's no fun to eat at a deficit, I get that. I'm there right now! What makes it complicated is our brains. Yes, a morbidly obese person can lose weight just using a calorie deficit, but it is a very long, painful process! It's not wonder we fall off the wagon. We want to be that 10-year-old kid again and eat ice cream and a bag of doritos. It can consume your thoughts! So, in a sense, you're right. It's not simple to lose weight. But keep in the back of your mind, even weeks when you don't lose a pound, it is biologically impossible not to lose weight if I'm truly taking in fewer calories than I'm expending, it will all catch up eventually.3
-
nomorepuke wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!
The bolded. Doubtful. You gained weight because you ate more than you moved your body.20 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
Once again. I'm not denying the psychological factors. Nobody is.
The argument here is that CICO doesn't apply to everyone. It does.11 -
nomorepuke wrote: »
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!
To lose 21lbs in one month, your balance of CICO necessarily fell to put you in deficit, regardless of how much "bulk" you're eating. The poster you're talking to and misunderstanding is specifically referring to eating less in the context of CALORIES, which you aren't counting, regardless of how much poundage you're putting into your mouth. Presumably you went to eating less calorie dense diet than what will usually follow from uncontrolled snacking on processed junk food on the go. CICO still applied.
I eat 1lb of Spinach a day, so in a sense of poundage passing my tongue I'm eating "more" than replacing that with a chocolate bar. But I'm eating less (calorie wise). Context & reading what people are actually saying matters.15 -
I think what you're overlooking is that the CICO models and calculators available to you are essentially ballpark figures - a starting point. YOU have to make adjustments based on the weight you are/are not losing. It's pretty simple: Gain weight, reduce your intake or increase activity. Lose too much weight, increase intake or reduce activity.
There isn't some mystical voodoo priest who will wipe away your calories for avoiding carbs and gluten, wrapping your torso in cling wrap, or drinking "detox" shakes. You have to put in the work. Period.
ETA: This is assuming you are eating a balanced diet and at least looking at your macronutrients. I'm not even going to start with the, "But you could eat 2,000kcal butter vs. spinach!" argument.1 -
nomorepuke wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!
Don't feel sorry for me, I don't, I'm perfectly content with my dietary choices. I've never yoyo'd because I never committed to changing my lifestyle before, I actually maintained my weight within a very small range my entire adult life until I decided I didn't want to maintain as overweight and some health factors had led to some weight gain, I decided that was enough. I have never paid a cent to anyone to lose weight, the diet industry has made no money from me directly. I have paid for fitness equipment that I have more than got my money out of because I enjoy my workouts.
People are serial starters because they don't address the underlying issues behind their poor relationship with food, not because they calorie count.
You don't eat more calories, you eat more volume due to better food choices.
Farking sick of these ridiculous strawmen.30 -
cnurenasue wrote: »I believe the statement should not be "simply cico" Yes, the concept is simple. The solution is simple. BUT the application is where it gets hard. It's no fun to eat at a deficit, I get that. I'm there right now! What makes it complicated is our brains. Yes, a morbidly obese person can lose weight just using a calorie deficit, but it is a very long, painful process! It's not wonder we fall off the wagon. We want to be that 10-year-old kid again and eat ice cream and a bag of doritos. It can consume your thoughts! So, in a sense, you're right. It's not simple to lose weight. But keep in the back of your mind, even weeks when you don't lose a pound, it is biologically impossible not to lose weight if I'm truly taking in fewer calories than I'm expending, it will all catch up eventually.
I 100% don't mind eating at a deficit. I think that's where everyone needs to be to be successful long term but I accept that's a hard place to get to. I think my focus not being about the number on the scale principally helps a huge amount.4 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
Look above you for an example. There's lots of people who DON'T know they have to eat less calories. They think food x, y or z is the reason they got fat, then complain they didn't lose weight "even though they're eating healthy". That's the reality.
People have all kinds of issues, and everyone has different ones that we on a forum can't sort out for them from what little we know about those people.
What we CAN do is educate them. No you won't get fat from that twinkie. No you don't have to punish yourself for going over your calories one day. Diet Soda won't make you fat and added sugar won't kill you and give you diabetes either.
Because there is one thing that is true for every single person coming on here looking to lose weight, without fail. The one thing that will always lead to weight loss. It's not low carb or high carb or paleo or vegan, it's eating less calories than you burn in a sustainable way for you. I can't tell you what's going to be sustainable for you because you're literally just a paragraph of text on the internet from someone thousands of miles away, you need to find that out yourself, we can only give suggestions.18 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
Look above you for an example. There's lots of people who DON'T know they have to eat less calories. They think food x, y or z is the reason they got fat, then complain they didn't lose weight "even though they're eating healthy". That's the reality.
People have all kinds of issues, and everyone has different ones that we on a forum can't sort out for them from what little we know about those people.
What we CAN do is educate them. No you won't get fat from that twinkie. No you don't have to punish yourself for going over your calories one day. Diet Soda won't make you fat and added sugar won't kill you and give you diabetes either.
Because there is one thing that is true for every single person coming on here looking to lose weight, without fail. The one thing that will always lead to weight loss. It's not low carb or high carb or paleo or vegan, it's eating less calories than you burn in a sustainable way for you. I can't tell you what's going to be sustainable for you because you're literally just a paragraph of text on the internet from someone thousands of miles away, you need to find that out yourself, we can only give suggestions.
This is such a clear, logical explanation, that no one should have trouble understanding the reality of CICO.
Everyone that loses weight did so because they ate less calories than they were burning.
6 -
I don't understand why it is so difficult. My CI is less than 2100 cals every day. I eat McDonalds every single day. I stay under my 2100 calorie limit. I lose weight. I've never "dieted" before. I literally eat what I want, when I want. It is clearly CICO the is doing the work.5
-
stevencloser wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
Look above you for an example. There's lots of people who DON'T know they have to eat less calories. They think food x, y or z is the reason they got fat, then complain they didn't lose weight "even though they're eating healthy". That's the reality.
People have all kinds of issues, and everyone has different ones that we on a forum can't sort out for them from what little we know about those people.
What we CAN do is educate them. No you won't get fat from that twinkie. No you don't have to punish yourself for going over your calories one day. Diet Soda won't make you fat and added sugar won't kill you and give you diabetes either.
Because there is one thing that is true for every single person coming on here looking to lose weight, without fail. The one thing that will always lead to weight loss. It's not low carb or high carb or paleo or vegan, it's eating less calories than you burn in a sustainable way for you. I can't tell you what's going to be sustainable for you because you're literally just a paragraph of text on the internet from someone thousands of miles away, you need to find that out yourself, we can only give suggestions.
I completely agree with you and @VintageFeline.
My biggest issue, and I'm working in it, is the oversimplification of a complex issue.
If it was as easy as CICO, I wouldn't be spending thousands of dollars on an education to help people lose weight.
Like I said before, calories count!
But maybe we should dig a little before asking someone if they weigh food, or flat out accuse them of eating too much.
Simply ask the lifestyle questions!0 -
nomorepuke wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!
Lost 21 lbs eating more what? Not eating more calories, that is scientifically impossible. If you've chosen a way of eating that fills you up for less calories because you are eating low cal but high volume foods, and that works for you for the long term, great! But it is still CICO that is driving your weight loss. Or are you claiming that you eat more calories than you burn because of the types of food and are still losing weight?
Also, losing 21 lbs in a month? It's you, or your muscles (including heart) that I feel sorry for. That's not healthy or desirable....23 -
I lost 26lbs in less than 2 months simply by cutting hugely down on junk and eating as many bulky veg as I felt happy with (and exercising for strength and cardio health).
Didn't count a calorie until then. Guess what? CICO still applied and was a necessary condition for the weight loss. What I did were heuristics to push me into more CO than CI; if they failed, the shortest path would be to take a direct look at CICO.1 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!
The bolded. Doubtful. You gained weight because you ate more than you moved your body.
Yes otherwise anorexics would be obese not severely underweight4 -
mactaffy428 wrote: »Why do people say that it is all down to CICO as if it is really that simple? Why does dieting not work, then, if all we have to do is shut our pie holes every in a while? Now, before anyone gets snarky, yes one needs to burn more than they eat, but saying that it is all " CICO" is very misleading. You take 2 different 200 pound women. Give them a month, have then do the same level if activity and eat the exact same food, and I guarantee they will not have the same weight loss. This leaves people frustrated.
It is so very hard to figure out what our CO" is as our bodies affect how we process the same foods. Tom might use more energy digesting his peanut butter sandwich than Hank, even though they ate the exact same amount. That's more "CO" for Tom. It's also hard to figure out our "CI"; since, by law, packaged foods are allowed to be "off" a certain amount on what the companies that is the nutritional balance, etc. All we can do is our best educated guess and that's just is not perfect enough to boil everything down to CICO.
It is so tiring to see people just boil complex biological functions down to a half-baked formula. Yes, what you eat does matter (and you may not even know it [your Big Mac may be your weekly treat but it could very well be someone else's poison]) and what you do does matter (exercise has been shown to to do so many things that affect this CICO over-used jargon).
...because nearly everything you state is disproved by facts. CICO is the physical principle behind it. Human behavior is the outstanding variable.
Metabolism is remarkably similar in humans - the only outstanding variable being lean muscle mass. The difference being in the amount of physical work performed between two people.
Just as in finance its a simple matter of managing a budget. You cannot expect to spend more than you make and not have this catch up to you, just as you cannot expect to eat more than you burn and have similar ramifications.
What's truly tiring is the amount of energy expended in constructing excuses.3 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions