It is more than a simple "CICO" - why can't we just admit it?

1356

Replies

  • jmp463
    jmp463 Posts: 266 Member
    For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.
  • lightenup2016
    lightenup2016 Posts: 1,055 Member
    Can I just say that CICO is not the same thing as counting calories?

    This whole thread seems to be talking about counting calories but calling it CICO. They are not the same thing.

    I've lost 70 lbs by counting calories.

    But why are you counting calories, and why has it work for you to lose weight? Because that's how you're making sure you're keeping your CI < CO.
  • lightenup2016
    lightenup2016 Posts: 1,055 Member
    hookandy wrote: »
    CI<CO is simple, that is not the same as saying it is easy. Everybody has their own daemons to fight and get in order. Now I just need to figure out how to keep my daemons from making CI>CO

    ^^This!! :smile:
  • donjtomasco
    donjtomasco Posts: 790 Member
    How refreshing, a simple post debunking CICO in a very simple way, with all the very simple comments (which I agree with) saying, "Errrrrr, Yes It Is CICO". Every now and then we get one of these to clean the pipes out.

    Further agreeing with some other points, our accuracy in measuring both sides of the equation is where most of us get flummoxed.

    I think another one (speaking for me personally) is that my wife is a great cook, chef quality, and she watches her CICO too. But when it comes to cooking dinner her creativity and taste buds take over, and I am quite certain that a few evenings of her cooking results in me consuming higher quantities of sodium then I bargained for, but I am not about to complain or ask the exact ingredients she included in her dish(es). A good chef does not measure, and she takes that to the next planet. Kosher salt, spices, olive oil, taste and dash with more salt, you get the picture.

    When she travels I seem to weigh less simply because my cooking or take outs are more calculable of my macros. When she is in town for 3-5 days, I just accept that while my caloric intake is great, I will be higher on the scale, but that will flush itself out. I will accept a few days of 'fluffiness' for the great cooking I get.

    Plus, I weigh daily and can see the swings (which I accept and tolerate since I am a data honk) and my wife weighs "When she feels like she has lost weight". lol. Like most women, she is perceptive and can tell when she has lost weight, so no matter how long she stays off the scale, she is always "losing weight" (since we both have a goal to get to, mine higher then hers).

    Perfect example, Friday night our son came into town to visit. We love Sushi, and he picked it. I don't like being a MFP picky macro Debbie Downer, so I eat what comes to the table (which is our ordering fashion at the Sushi Restaurant, lot's of check marks on the long sheet of paper they give us). This makes it virtually impossible to calculate what I am eating, then my son hits the edamame with the regular soy sauce (loaded with sodium). Fun dinner.

    Saturday, all out and needing lunch, and I have never known what Seafood Gumbo at the restaurant has in it. I followed my wife's order and got a bowl, with rice. Loading it later in MFP, that was a whopping dose of sodium.

    Saturday night was our belated Valentines dinner. She ordered appetizers that I knew were on the higher side of everything, but it was a celebratory evening.

    Sunday, great eating day, then she wanted to incorporate what her fish dish the night before tasted like with braised chicken breast. Well, that involved capers, salt, heavy spices on the rooted cauliflower, you get the idea. That is the time when I just enjoy the dish and don't ask, since it was a great dish, but this morning I saw the results on the scale, or rather, it might have just been the three days in a row. Up one pound for the night, up 1.5 pounds for the two days, and up 2 pounds for Friday thru Sunday night.

    So, YES, it is CICO, but there are lots of variables. Throw in a hard session of weight lifting on Sunday mid-day and my body probably was retaining even more fluids and nutrients to repair the muscles that were broken down.

    But when you understand all of this, it makes it easier to scoff at the scale. This is where (what I always read on MFP) weight loss is not linear. And I know a week from now, as long as I have kept working out, and my calories are in check, the body will process everything else out, and this increase on the scale for me will just be a blip on the long term radar screen.
  • 3rdof7sisters
    3rdof7sisters Posts: 486 Member
    hookandy wrote: »
    CI<CO is simple, that is not the same as saying it is easy. Everybody has their own daemons to fight and get in order. Now I just need to figure out how to keep my daemons from making CI>CO

    ^^This, and always this. CI<CO=weight loss; CI>CO=weight gain

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    jmp463 wrote: »
    For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.

    Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.

    So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.

    Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited February 2017
    Thermic effect of food is roughly 10%, so for someone eating 2000 calories that's roughly 200 calories. If Tom uses 2 more calories digesting his peanut butter than Hank, how exactly would that affect weight loss in any meaningful way? Functional CI is also easy to calculate. Eat at a certain calorie level logging as accurately as you can (so your logging error is as consistent as possible), and after a couple of months you will be able to estimate your deficit by using pounds lost to calculate it. The numbers don't need to be accurate, they only need to be functional.

    If you want to get down to it, there is also hormones, absorption percentage, sodium and glycogen levels, adaptation, NEAT compensation, temperature regulation, BMR deviation, movement economy and many other factors. Jumping into that rabbit hole will needlessly confuse you without providing any practical use.

    The CICO equation is simplified down to calories eaten and general calories burned without taking the other factors into account because for practical purposes a consistent estimate for CI and CO is enough to produce results and adjust strategies. Again, it doesn't need to be accurate, it only needs to be consistent.

    We have enough to worry about trying to manage the mental part of the game, over-complicating the math part is counterproductive when it can practically be the easiest part.
  • JustMissTracy
    JustMissTracy Posts: 6,338 Member
    This argument is so redundant....and old. Semantics.
  • kgirlhart
    kgirlhart Posts: 5,141 Member
    It does all boil down to CICO. Some people just have a harder time shutting their pie hole than others. If it doesn't work for both of your 200 pound women it is because one of them is going over her calorie limit, not because CICO doesn't work. CICO is a math equation. It will always work. Putting it into practice is another story, but that doesn't negate the fact that losing weight is as simple as eating less calories than you burn.
  • SCoil123
    SCoil123 Posts: 2,110 Member
    I agree it is a complex process. For some, like myself, the CO is very inconsistent and challenging. With my health issues my metabolism slows and speeds up. While this may only cause a difference in 100-200 cals burnt on any given day (for same exact activity levels) being within 10-15lbs of goal that 200 cals can kill my deficit almost completely. When my deficit was larger and I was losing more I didn't notice the affect at all. Once my hormones stop bouncing all around my doctor will adjust medication and I believe my results will be more consistent again.

    That said I do think the formula once you play with it and find your numbers is pretty reliable for people without any medical issues complicating it.
  • MaybeLed
    MaybeLed Posts: 250 Member
    It really was CICO for me and nothing else. I actually am annoyed I didn't know it was this "easy" years ago. 193 pounds to 137 in 30 weeks for me, ONLY by eating a calorie deficit.

    I felt like this too, I was having real issues with being 'perfect', with whatever a 'healthy' diet was with no real guidance. Just decided to give it another go, on a random Thursday, no waiting till the folloing Monday or the start of the month. I logged what I are for a while, worked out what was high/low satiety, what was worth the calories (gin = yes, pasta = meh, lemonade = no).

    It meant that when I started cutting, and I hadn’t prepared something I could just go into a super market, read the label and fit it in. Part of me is annoyed that I didn’t get stared sooner but I’ve started now.

    I’m not negating that people have physical and psychological barriers that make it harder. I know when my depression is bad I can’t leave my bed let alone go outside. So my CI has to reflect my issues with CO.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    MaybeLed wrote: »
    It really was CICO for me and nothing else. I actually am annoyed I didn't know it was this "easy" years ago. 193 pounds to 137 in 30 weeks for me, ONLY by eating a calorie deficit.

    I felt like this too, I was having real issues with being 'perfect', with whatever a 'healthy' diet was with no real guidance. Just decided to give it another go, on a random Thursday, no waiting till the folloing Monday or the start of the month. I logged what I are for a while, worked out what was high/low satiety, what was worth the calories (gin = yes, pasta = meh, lemonade = no).

    It meant that when I started cutting, and I hadn’t prepared something I could just go into a super market, read the label and fit it in. Part of me is annoyed that I didn’t get stared sooner but I’ve started now.

    I’m not negating that people have physical and psychological barriers that make it harder. I know when my depression is bad I can’t leave my bed let alone go outside. So my CI has to reflect my issues with CO.

    This is all me also. Just been CICO really, and it seemed absurd I didn't understand it earlier. Once I got it, it stuck like glue, and I've been off to the races with weight loss.
  • smelliefeet
    smelliefeet Posts: 71 Member
    CICO is simply the basis on which to start for strictly weight loss.

    Then you have to take your individual person into account - what times of day do you prefer to eat depending on your work / life schedule? Do certain types of food leave you hungry whilst others fill you quickly? What foods do you enjoy / crave? I never crave sugar, for example, I am a salty person.

    On top of that is various other things - do you have a good amount of muscle mass already, or have you never lifted a finger in your life? Do you HATE cardio? Because if you do, don't even try to stick to so-and-so's cardio weight loss routine!

    So, yes, there are so many other factors we as individuals have to account for, but overall weight loss IS all about CICO. Nobody ever said it was easy to figure out the CO part though.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    I must have missed that "debunking". Can someone direct me to where CICO got "debunked"?
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    CICO absolutely is simple. It's a basic math equation as simple as 1+1.

    I am now empowered because I know exactly what I need to do to lose weight. It's on me now. I don't have to sit around guessing is it the food I'm eating, is it because I'm old or because I had a hysterectomy?

    I have to figure out macros or meal frequency/timing. for satiation. I have to make sure I'm getting nutritious foods so I can have occasional "junk food". I have to figure out how to moderate. This is the work I put in. Because I have to figure this out doesn't negate the simplicity of CICO.

    Let's say due to health (major medical issues aside) your CO is lower well you just slightly lower CI or you up CO by working out a little more.

    I cannot emphasize enough how much of a lightbulb moment CICO/TDEE was for me.

    I wish the fact that CICO is simple but figuring out how to adhere might not be easy would not be confused!!
  • mikeisgod83
    mikeisgod83 Posts: 21 Member
    The difference from person to person "in general" is not a great deal. If you cut your calories by roughly 500-700 daily (some people do more, some less) even with minimal mislabeled nutrition information, you will lose. Exactly as pointed out above, if you're dropping 500 calories today, from what you were eating before and you're not seeing weight loss, adjust it to 600, or 700, wait a week or two and see if you're losing then. Once you find a good amount of calories to take in, stick to that for a while. Weigh and adjust, its that easy.
This discussion has been closed.