Do you believe it is ALL just CICO?

andreayup

Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?

For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?

Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.

Thoughts?

ZoneFive

If you keep to CI<CO, the weight will probably come off while you eat straight junk, yes.

Your health, on the other hand, will suffer. Lack of proper nutrition shows up in lots of different ways. It may not show immediately, but over time it'll show in your skin, hair, quality of sleep, level of energy and mood. If you have any kind of incipient health issue, the lack of proper nutrition will likely bring it to the surface. And I ironclad guarantee you that the weight will come back, sooner or later.

It's everyone's choice for themselves.

TimothyFish

Technically, if you ate food with absolutely no nutritional value you would starve to death. All food has some nutritional value, but the amount of nutrition it has or doesn't have has no impact on how much of it is converted to fat. It is converted to fat because you have more than you need.

MegaMooseEsq

I would say that CICO is 90% of weight loss, and the remaining 10% is so complicated, variable, and unproven that it's not worth worrying about. My results and the results of many people here speak for themselves. If you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight. Also, I totally made up those percentages.

And there really is no such thing as garbage food. Food provides calories, and calories fuel our bodies. Nutrients play additional important roles, but calories are not garbage. If you need energy fast, which as a teacher I imagine you do, then energy-dense food is absolutely fine in moderation. Just make sure you get those nutrients elsewhere, and if you want to lose weight, that your total calories are below your total energy output.

GaleHawkins

andreayup wrote: »

Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?

For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?

Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.

Thoughts?

@andreayup welcome to MFP forums.

Will you define what you mean by ALL?

GlassAngyl

If you eat nothing but mcDonalds at a deficiet, you will lose weight. But I can't promise you will be healthy. To lose weight, yes, it is as simple as cico. To be healthy.. that's another topic.

Heather4448

Yes

Out_of_Bubblegum

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

seska422

Nutrition is an important thing that you need to be sure that you get in sufficient quantities whether you are trying to lose, maintain, or gain weight.

Weight loss is entirely about calorie balance. Consume fewer calories than your body uses and you'll lose weight. Nutrition is still important but a separate topic. It's like asking if you still need to buy gas for your car as long as you keep making the car payments. You need to do both in order to use your car but doing one doesn't have any direct connection to doing the other.

"Garbage" foods don't have a multiplier. They still have 4 calories for each gram of carbs, 4 calories for each gram of protein, and 9 calories for each gram of fat.

clicketykeys

"Garbage" is often not only low in important micronutrients, it's also usually calorie-dense. For many people, that makes it more difficult to stay at a calorie deficit.

GottaBurnEmAll

Weight loss is all about calories.

BUT...

Nutrition is important.

And not just for health, which is obvious.

A consistently poor diet might make compliance with a calorie deficit harder if it leads to nutritional deficiencies, because that might result in cravings. Quite the catch 22.

Occasional spells of relying on convenience packaged foods to get you through busy days aren't going to hurt you if you balance those days with otherwise nutritionally sound ones.

stevencloser

GaleHawkins wrote: »

andreayup wrote: »

Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?

For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?

Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.

Thoughts?

@andreayup welcome to MFP forums.

Will you define what you mean by ALL?

It's a common way of addressing a number of people in place of "everyone".

GottaBurnEmAll

stevencloser wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

andreayup wrote: »

Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?

For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?

Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.

Thoughts?

@andreayup welcome to MFP forums.

Will you define what you mean by ALL?

It's a common way of addressing a number of people in place of "everyone".

Or did he mean ALL as in "ALL just CICO".

I think the answer is 42.

GaleHawkins

Here are 5 factors of weight loss that often get overlooked.

saragottfriedmd.com/balance-your-hormones-balance-the-scale-5-ways-to-lose-weight-through-natural-hormone-balancing/

AnnPT77

andreayup wrote: »

Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?

For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?

Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.

Thoughts?

Calories for weight loss, nutrition for health. I'm betting you'd like both?

Seriously, you can eat some less nutrient-dense foods within your calorie goal and still lose weight, but you'll feel more satiated and generally good if most of your food gives you well-rounded nutrition.

Why not simply log what you're eating, compare it to the MFP default nutrition goals, and adjust gradually as needed for good satiation, better nutrition, and if course tastiness?

Also, consider keeping some shelf-stable nutritious grab'n'eat foods that you enjoy in your desk or locker for busy times: Applesauce or fruit cups, instant soup or oatmeal, reasonable portions of dry-roasted nuts or soybeans, maybe reasonable protein bars, etc.

There's no need to make it complicated. Best wishes!

Katzblue

Have you ever watched the film "That Suger Film" it is very informative. It will show you what the sorts of food you are eating do to your body.
I was horrified

AnvilHead

Katzblue wrote: »

Have you ever watched the film "That Suger Film" it is very informative. It will show you what the sorts of food you are eating do to your body.
I was horrified

That Sugar Film is poorly researched, agenda driven junk science and propaganda - just like virtually every other "documentary" about nutrition. There are many far more reliable, evidence-based sources than Netflix for nutrition information.

FatAFNoMore

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I think the answer is 42.

But what is the question? I'll wait.

Alatariel75

Katzblue wrote: »

Have you ever watched the film "That Suger Film" it is very informative. It will show you what the sorts of food you are eating do to your body.
I was horrified

Which is exactly what it was written for. It wasn't made to inform, its scaremongering.

collectingblues

Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.

But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...

And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.

So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.

And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?

Alatariel75

collectingblues wrote: »

Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.

But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...

And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.

So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.

And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?

But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale