Do you believe it is ALL just CICO?
Replies
-
collectingblues wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »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
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.
sound like Iike your recomping and have inaccurately determined your TDEE. Whatever you think your deficit is, is your TDEE. Your body can and will adapt to very long deficits. could be a number of things going on but your eating at maintenance.
but I'm sorry to say your not special in this sense. the law of thermodynamics is absolute.13 -
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
MFP Forum tip #1). Never mention any nutrition film, documentary or book you may have seen and liked. It will only cause controversy. The only thing allowed/accepted is vetted, science based articles that coincide with the majority opinion.
32 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
This post should have been /end thread
Too bad a bunch of ancillary details from folks majoring in the minors had to be introduced which no doubt confuse OP...
Yes calories are all that matter for weight loss.
Yes nutrition is important, as is satiety, as is enjoyment and sustainability for dietary adherence. What truly matters is that you find a balance of all of the above, but here's the best part... just like in life, every day is not going to be the same. You can have days where you eat less nutritiously and days where you really focus on your macro and micro nutrient goals. What matters is a directionally correct pattern over time.18 -
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
MFP Forum tip #1). Never mention any nutrition film, documentary or book you may have seen and liked. It will only cause controversy. The only thing allowed/accepted is vetted, science based articles that coincide with the majority opinion.
Fortunately there are some very knowledgeable people here on MFP who will point out/challenge woo, junk science and fearmongering, to help newer members from being misled by bad/useless information which won't help them achieve their goals. It's one of the greatest things about MFP!35 -
Yes, you will lose weight.
Yes, it's really that simple.5 -
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
MFP Forum tip #1). Never mention any nutrition film, documentary or book you may have seen and liked. It will only cause controversy. The only thing allowed/accepted is vetted, science based articles that coincide with the majority opinion.
Yes, it's probably a positive thing if a community tends to rely on vetted, science-based information to form strategies for managing their weight, nutrition, and fitness.
26 -
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?
For weight loss, the deficit alone is all that matters.
But the so called "garbage" food... well it still has nutritional value. Candy is usually carb heavy (sugar) and maybe some fat. Chips are carbs (starches) and fat. If you toss in some protein rich snacks and possibly a multi vitamin then it's not as bad as you think. We all need some nutritional balance, but also have to find a balance with life and how and when we eat.
If you tend to eat on the run, you can still find quick things that balance out your macros. Quite a few protein bars are really tasty and small enough to eat in a small time window. And for many of us, certain types of snacks will fill us up longer. I've never opened up a pack of protein bars and eaten them until empty. I wish I could say the same for some other snack foods!7 -
No though it is a big part. Unfortunately nutrition and metabolism also play large roles. You calories consumed get turned into glucose for fuel but you need other nutrients in the process of burning that fuel. Also the body adapts so your metabolism changes to match your calorie intake which causes stalls and rapid weight gain once you go off diet. The simple calorie out part gets complicated by metabolic changes. Just my two cents though.15
-
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?
We wondered recently, in response to a thread like this, why they were posted. In your case, do you really think you are going to be getting most of your diet from these kinds of foods (from what you go on to say, I doubt it) or are you asking if you include SOME less nutritious foods will you lose? In any case, yes, calories are what matter for weight loss, but nutrition can be important for health and just all around feeling good, and what you eat may make it easier or harder to make your calorie goal.
This doesn't mean you need to strive for all nutrient-dense foods, most diets are a mix, and personally I focus on planning in adequate protein and lots of vegetables and then use my extra calories as I like. I find for me that nuts often are a nice alternative to something like chips, but occasionally I might have chips instead, sure.
I don't find snacking a satisfying way to eat for me--I do better with fewer, larger meals, but that's 100% about what makes it easier for me, others feel differently.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.
If you don't go over your calories on those days, it's not a problem for weight loss. (I might find myself going over.) But if you think you aren't eating very nutritiously on those days or are hungry, you might want to see if you can plan to fit in some more filling and nutritious stuff (if you aren't one of those who finds such snacks perfectly filling). But as an occasional thing, it's not going to matter, and of course you can fit in candy and chips and such into a balanced diet also. (A balanced diet is more about what you do eat than what you do not.)3 -
I don't feel the need to believe in CICO, it's just a fact that describes how weight behaves in relation to energy intake and expenditure, just like I don't feel the need to believe that the sun doesn't get eaten by a demon when there is an eclipse. Now, the process of weight loss itself and how it interacts with other aspects of your life is more nuanced. Health can be affected by by what and how much you eat. Your relationships and social life can be affected if you don't handle them properly. Your adherence (which is the cornerstone of weight loss) can be affected if you are following a system that doesn't play well with some of the other aspects of your life...etc.
If relying on candy and chips some days helps you balance these aspects to successfully lose weight then so be it, but you need to understand how it affects you and work around that. Days when you live on candy will likely not provide you with adequate nutrition, so what would be the best way to fix that? Could you prepare nutritious portable foods that last well during the weekend to use on busy days? Would you rather just have these snack days but put more thought and focus into your nutrition on days when you aren't busy to make up for it? How are these days affecting your diet, hunger and adherence-wise? Is this the easiest thing you can do to stay within calories consistently? There are many other questions you could ask, but if you arrive at the decision that having days where you eat nothing but candy is the best course of action for you, you can rest assured that CICO always works.12 -
Look up the Twinkie diet. In my opinion yes it is all about calories in and calories out.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »
Just an FYI this is not a non-plant based vegan diet. They use animal lard in them.
5 -
5
-
For weight loss yes it is just CICO.
For health and satisfaction no it is not just CICO.5 -
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?
It's basic math.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Your body needs XXXX units of that energy to maintain the status quo and function optimally. When you consume energy in excess of what you require, that surplus energy is stored as body fat...it's your backup energy source...your backup generator. When you consume less energy than your body requires, that deficiency has to be reconciled...so your backup generator kicks on and you burn body fat to make up the deficiency.
I tend to eat a diet that is rich in whole food nutrition...I also have pizza nights and like to get my pub grub on at times and will occasionally swing by a Wendy's or McDonalds on a road trip or something.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »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/
Hormone reset diet?
LMFAO!11 -
In your busy teacher role, I am wondering how accurate you are at logging all those junky snacks? Relying on them could push you in to more CI than CO. Another poster suggested packing some protein to balance all the readily available carby snacks. A couple hard boiled eggs or a tuna snack pack could do the trick. You could also pre-log your planned snacks/meals for the day. Then you can remain in a calorie deficit regardless of the quality of the calories that day.0
-
This is the extreme example to show you that, yes, it really is just CICO for WEIGHT LOSS. However, as others have stated, there's more to health than just your weight.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html0 -
andrederosier wrote: »No though it is a big part. Unfortunately nutrition and metabolism also play large roles. You calories consumed get turned into glucose for fuel but you need other nutrients in the process of burning that fuel. Also the body adapts so your metabolism changes to match your calorie intake which causes stalls and rapid weight gain once you go off diet. The simple calorie out part gets complicated by metabolic changes. Just my two cents though.
I actually don't think this entire comment is woo, but I do think the bolded part is. People really latch onto anything that complicates the CICO model, but I suspect that's largely grasping for a reason they aren't losing weight as expected when the real issue is poor deficit compliance. Yes, people do have different metabolisms (i.e. BMR and NEAT), but that doesn't mean CICO is any less applicable. Some people have difficulty digesting certain macros, but CICO still applies. If you're not losing weight, eat less and/or move more.7 -
If we're talking purely about weight loss, all you have to do is create a deficit, regardless of food choices.
If we're talking about weight loss AND health, or weight loss AND satiety, or weight loss AND body composition, we have to consider CICO AND other factors. Where we tend to get into fights is when we have half of the people just talking about weight loss and half of the people talking about weight loss and some other factor.
Whether we're considering just weight loss or weight loss + something else, though, the base is still CICO. Without the deficit, weight loss won't happen.
If you're asking whether a few days now and then of eating food that isn't super nutrient-dense is going to hurt you, the answer is no. Our bodies evolved to handle famines and food environments where we couldn't always get balanced nutrition; they're stronger and more resilient than we tend to give them credit for. Maybe don't do it every day, but if you have some days where you're running on junk food, don't worry about it.10 -
If we're talking purely about weight loss, all you have to do is create a deficit, regardless of food choices.
If we're talking about weight loss AND health, or weight loss AND satiety, or weight loss AND body composition, we have to consider CICO AND other factors. Where we tend to get into fights is when we have half of the people just talking about weight loss and half of the people talking about weight loss and some other factor.
THIS.
I honestly believe it depends where you are in your weight loss journey, and what your goals are.
I'm at a perfectly healthy weight and now into aesthetics rather than simple weight loss, and it turns out to be WAY more complicated than CICO for me to achieve my goals.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You can call it what you want.
One guy (allegedly) ate Twinkies for an extended period of time and lost weight. It's not worth citing.
Just like citing a guy did not count calories on keto and lost weight proves that you don't have to count calories.
Both are ridiculous.
There is a big difference. It takes only one white crow to prove that not all crows are black. To disprove the claim that you can't lose weight eating junk food, one person who ate junk food and lost weight is enough. Of course it would need to be accurately measured and documented, which I'm not sure the twinkie case is. In the case of a person who lost weight eating keto without counting calories, that doesn't contradict with any claim. Counting calories is not required for the CICO equation to apply.12 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You can call it what you want.
One guy (allegedly) ate Twinkies for an extended period of time and lost weight. It's not worth citing.
Just like citing a guy did not count calories on keto and lost weight proves that you don't have to count calories.
Both are ridiculous.
You don't have to count calories, though. You do have to be in a calorie deficit, but that doesn't require counting.8 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You can call it what you want.
One guy (allegedly) ate Twinkies for an extended period of time and lost weight. It's not worth citing.
Just like citing a guy did not count calories on keto and lost weight proves that you don't have to count calories.
Both are ridiculous.
Both of those statements are ostensibly true; why are they ridiculous?
Here are 3 papers which performed isocaloric studies:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/07/05/ajcn.116.133561.full.pdf+html
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/30/2/160.short
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
But you can just find any isocaloric ward study- they will all have approximately the same results.
Really though, how many people reading this will click on any of those study links versus how many people will click on the article about the Twinkies guy?8 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You can call it what you want.
One guy (allegedly) ate Twinkies for an extended period of time and lost weight. It's not worth citing.
Just like citing a guy did not count calories on keto and lost weight proves that you don't have to count calories.
Both are ridiculous.
You don't have to count calories to lose weight, you just have to be in the calorie deficit. Every person that loses weight, is in a calorie deficit whether they are counting them or not, so when you stopped counting calories after 6 weeks or whatever it was, you were still in a deficit even though you didn't have numbers to look at. You focus too much on the little things, to draw conclusions that just aren't there.
6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions