My best friend doesnt believe in CICO

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • laurenebargar
    laurenebargar Posts: 3,081 Member
    Options
    shaggy340 wrote: »
    only thing that works for me is MFP, I'm a cyclist and believe me there are loads of overweight cyclists who ride 100+miles per week, so it's not just about expending calories. On MFP I can eat anything I fancy, sometimesI have a fat MacDonalds burger or fish and chips - doesn't matter, so long as I expend more than I eat I lose weight. I'm rarely hungry even on losing 2lbs a week. I do however, find non-exercise days difficult when sticking to the calories - what exercise gives me is the ability to eat things I like and not be sitting there with salad all the time at meals.

    I also have a degree in Sports Science and Physical Education, maybe you can ask your friend to show you the research that refutes CICO?, she might be hard pressed.

    That was where the conversation was heading when she said she didnt want to talk about it anymore, which leads me to believe she didnt have any evidence.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    DaniG_1987 wrote: »
    From my experience people don't want to the put in the work that comes with CICO. I've lost 59 pounds since January using CICO and I still have people tell me that CICO doesn't work and that it is too much work / not worth it. I've literally had someone tell me they wish they could lose as much weight as I have and asked exactly how I do it and then say, "Oh no, I'm not tracking what I eat. I refuse to do that." after I tell them how I do it. I think of like car maintenance. I know what kind of gas I put in my car and I know how much gas to put in my car--and it has the power to tell the pump to stop feeding it gas. Why shouldn't I know what kind of food I'm putting in my body to help it perform the best and why not know how much food I need to put in my body to have it run properly. My gas pump stopper was broken from decades of being told to clean my plate regardless of if I was hungry or not, so I see tracking calories and using MFP as my gas pump stopper.

    I think
    A) CICO is really easy if you just stick to it (though that part can be hard for some), to the point that it might be almost too easy. Some people might think it can't work because it can't be that simple
    B) There is nothing sexy about CICO, there is nothing to sell you, and most people feel full while doing it (aside from the first week of doing it I haven't had a night where I've gone to bed hungry). It doesn't really feel like you are working hard to achieve your weight loss.
    C) It kind of goes against everything you are taught about diets. Dieting should be no pizza, no burgers, no ice cream, just salmon or a chicken breast, steamed vegetables and plain brown rice. There is no huge sacrifice with CICO. Yes, you can't have pizza every single day but you can have pizza like once a week.

    It also sounds like you are under the assumption that CICO is a process or a way to approach weight loss. It isn't. It is just the governing principle of energy balance that guides whether a person loses, maintains, or gains weight according to the amount of calories they burn. It is not a way of eating, it does not mean counting calories. Tracking what you eat is a way to ensure you are in a calorie deficit, but whether you (or anyone else) tracks the calories or not, all human beings are subject to CICO.

    I think what you are describing in your post is what I would refer to as flexible dieting, or, if you are actively tracking macros, maybe IIFYM. And again, not disputing the approach you are taking as I think you make a lot of good points, its just that continuing to refer to counting calories or eating all things in moderation while in a calorie deficit as "using CICO" just perpetuates the confusion amongst those who really don't understand.
  • Tazzie0208
    Tazzie0208 Posts: 66 Member
    Options
    What you believe and know because of experience, should be what matters to you. This is your journey and when the day comes that you reached your goal and she sees it, you can say "i told you it works". :)
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    Options
    laurenebargar wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Anyway, I want to second (third, whatever) the people who said outdoor exercise does not count is even weirder than the calorie point -- I honestly would like to hear how that's defended, as I can't imagine someone thinking about. Also, I'll second the person who said not to assume it's about sabotage or some such but that many people have very weird, set in stone ideas about how weight loss works and often threatening those ideas (especially, I find, the idea that it must be really hard and involve deprivation) tends to be resisted. I have a male co-worker who yoyos -- he eats 1200 for a while, loses 20, and then falls off the wagon. He is similarly resistant to this not being a great idea, and says (also) things like "I need to lose weight, but am not ready to give up bread." (I don't really eat bread, but that's personal preference, I would if it was something I'd miss.) People not only think it has to be a huge sacrifice, but it seems important to them to believe it.

    Ive seen a few people comment on this, so I figured id ask her, and then add in what this friend said. She feels that hiking was just "walking around with a few hills" something that you should be doing on a daily basis. And that as humans, our bodies are used to be walking around all day, and just walking or running will not contribute to losing any weight.

    To counter that I would just like to add, I've been enjoying my treats, and my food (within my calorie allowance) Hiking, and taking the dog for walks. And today my scale read "199.8" A number I haven't seen in years!

    Full disclosure: I eat back half my exercise calories because I'm not sure I trust the totals MFP gives me, so take this with a grain of salt (unless watching sodium...): I log every walk I take, including 15 minutes round-trip to the corner store. My activity level is set to sedentary to avoid double-dipping (I work from home at a computer, so I consider any walking outside the house to count as activity). I assume that I'm going at 2.5 mph, because I don't walk fast enough to get out of breath, and the approximate distance covered feels right for the time it takes, but I never checked my stride or clocked my pace.

    I just went grocery shopping today. I left the house at 8:32 and returned 11:05. I deducted 12 minutes for waiting in line at checkout/atm, slowing my pace in the grocery aisles, etc. I march in place at red lights. Well... I plugged 140 minutes at 2.5 mph into the exercise tracker and... according to MFP? That's 615 calories. Again, I might be walking a little slower. I'm planning to eat back around 305/310 of those. But even so. 300 calories. From just "walking around". And I can't even pretend there are hills in my part of the world. I've dropped over 60 lbs in 7 months doing a mix of walking, fitness glider, and strength training. And it all counts.

    But it sounds like you know that already. ;)
  • brookekaczor
    brookekaczor Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    You probably have to take it from a scientific point of view. Challenge her with questions. For example, ask her how much energy does it take just to exist, how does she know this? How does the body fuel or provide energy? How is this measured? Doesn't it take energy to move the body? Does it take energy to keep your organs, etc. going? How do you measure all of this? What is the difference between going to the gym and going for a walk? What did people do to lose weight before the gym existed? Why is ice cream bad for you? How does it make you fat? A good scientist asks questions....and then looks for answers to those questions. Asking questions and making them answer gets them to think, but if they won't address the question then they won't change how they think. You can only present the information and demonstrate it through losing that weight, and even then she may stick to her guns....and that is because she doesn't want the truth. Best of wishes with your friend.
  • DaniG_1987
    DaniG_1987 Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    DaniG_1987 wrote: »
    From my experience people don't want to the put in the work that comes with CICO. I've lost 59 pounds since January using CICO and I still have people tell me that CICO doesn't work and that it is too much work / not worth it. I've literally had someone tell me they wish they could lose as much weight as I have and asked exactly how I do it and then say, "Oh no, I'm not tracking what I eat. I refuse to do that." after I tell them how I do it. I think of like car maintenance. I know what kind of gas I put in my car and I know how much gas to put in my car--and it has the power to tell the pump to stop feeding it gas. Why shouldn't I know what kind of food I'm putting in my body to help it perform the best and why not know how much food I need to put in my body to have it run properly. My gas pump stopper was broken from decades of being told to clean my plate regardless of if I was hungry or not, so I see tracking calories and using MFP as my gas pump stopper.

    I think
    A) CICO is really easy if you just stick to it (though that part can be hard for some), to the point that it might be almost too easy. Some people might think it can't work because it can't be that simple
    B) There is nothing sexy about CICO, there is nothing to sell you, and most people feel full while doing it (aside from the first week of doing it I haven't had a night where I've gone to bed hungry). It doesn't really feel like you are working hard to achieve your weight loss.
    C) It kind of goes against everything you are taught about diets. Dieting should be no pizza, no burgers, no ice cream, just salmon or a chicken breast, steamed vegetables and plain brown rice. There is no huge sacrifice with CICO. Yes, you can't have pizza every single day but you can have pizza like once a week.

    It also sounds like you are under the assumption that CICO is a process or a way to approach weight loss. It isn't. It is just the governing principle of energy balance that guides whether a person loses, maintains, or gains weight according to the amount of calories they burn. It is not a way of eating, it does not mean counting calories. Tracking what you eat is a way to ensure you are in a calorie deficit, but whether you (or anyone else) tracks the calories or not, all human beings are subject to CICO.

    I think what you are describing in your post is what I would refer to as flexible dieting, or, if you are actively tracking macros, maybe IIFYM. And again, not disputing the approach you are taking as I think you make a lot of good points, its just that continuing to refer to counting calories or eating all things in moderation while in a calorie deficit as "using CICO" just perpetuates the confusion amongst those who really don't understand.

    Yes, I am counting the calories in (CI) and the calories I burn (CO) to lose weight. Once I get to my goal weight I will then still use CICO to maintain my weight but I will adjust the amount of CI to a higher number and possibly adjust CO to a lower number to stay close to the weight I want to be...so I am using the idea behind CICO to advantageously lose weight but it is still CICO. Everything your body does is CICO. I'm just actively looking at my CICO and modifying it. It sounds like OP is doing this as well.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    Is this your friend?

    gnq3kt3sj44l.png


    Always buying from ACME...always seeing the same results.
  • muri72
    muri72 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    CICO is not true. Sorry. Newer research has proven the theory is flawed. The best explanation of this is from Dr. Fung in his book The Obesity Code. Here are some reference sites on why CICO is flawed.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-it-all-calories-are-not-created-equal-2016110410602

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16549716.2017.1289650


  • laurenebargar
    laurenebargar Posts: 3,081 Member
    Options
    muri72 wrote: »
    CICO is not true. Sorry. Newer research has proven the theory is flawed. The best explanation of this is from Dr. Fung in his book The Obesity Code. Here are some reference sites on why CICO is flawed.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-it-all-calories-are-not-created-equal-2016110410602

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16549716.2017.1289650


    Ill take a look at these, but CICO seems to be working for me, and hundreds of other people on this site.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,395 MFP Moderator
    Options
    muri72 wrote: »
    CICO is not true. Sorry. Newer research has proven the theory is flawed. The best explanation of this is from Dr. Fung in his book The Obesity Code. Here are some reference sites on why CICO is flawed.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-it-all-calories-are-not-created-equal-2016110410602

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16549716.2017.1289650


    CICO isn't really disproved, it's widely misunderstood. All things come down to energy balance and none of these articles have been able to disprove that. On the contrary though, Kevin Hall has done a few of the metabolic ward studies to provide no differences in weight loss whether its low carb, ketogenic or high carb when calories are controlled.

Categories