CICO the lastest fad diet
Replies
-
If you use more calories than you consume you will lose weight. Otherwise your creating energy out of nothing and are performing a miracle! Problem is hormones can affect how much you eat due to making you hungry. They can also lower you metabolism which will make it harder to have a deficit. What you eat and when you eat can help with the metabolism and the hunger issues so your more likely to eat at a deficit.
Getting weight off for really heavy people is probably more important that trying to be real strict with what you eat but for long term health and sustainability of a diet, you better eat healthy also.
4 -
maggibailey wrote: »A bit of an aside but a question none the less, on this site it is praised, celebrated, and pushed a bit when people maintain or lose on calorie levels that are higher than what the calculators tout they should, but instantly scoffed at when anyone claims to need less than the calculator says. I maintain right around 1700 to 1900 at 5’10”. I have never been overweight. I don’t claim I’m broken I lose when I feel like my pants are too tight and I’m not starving. I do know how many calories I eat so it’s not that I foolishly don’t know how to measure and I’m only 38. Today I hit 8k steps which is pretty average for me. I feel there are probably as many people on the lower end like me, as there are 5’4” women maintaining on 2500 but only one of them is ok to bring up without being told you don’t know how to measure your food. Why is that?
Because the mechanisms that might cause unusually low calorie needs are less easily understood than potential explanations for unusually high calorie needs (such as being fidgety or working out extra hard), even though those easily-understood mechanisms may not be the actual mechanisms at work.
Also, because most people wouldn't recognize a standard deviation if you whacked them over the head with it. Way too many people think NEAT/TDEE "calculators" give you "the answer" not "a statistical estimate".
I agree with your point about how people tend to be treated, 100% . . . not that it has anything to with the main point of this thread.
7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
4.6 percent of the US population (over 12 yo) has hypothyroidism
My daughter is only 7 and has it. And hypothyroidism is hardly the only imbalance that significantly impacts the body's ability to store or burn calories at a normal rate.0 -
maggibailey wrote: »A bit of an aside but a question none the less, on this site it is praised, celebrated, and pushed a bit when people maintain or lose on calorie levels that are higher than what the calculators tout they should, but instantly scoffed at when anyone claims to need less than the calculator says. I maintain right around 1700 to 1900 at 5’10”. I have never been overweight. I don’t claim I’m broken I lose when I feel like my pants are too tight and I’m not starving. I do know how many calories I eat so it’s not that I foolishly don’t know how to measure and I’m only 38. Today I hit 8k steps which is pretty average for me. I feel there are probably as many people on the lower end like me, as there are 5’4” women maintaining on 2500 but only one of them is ok to bring up without being told you don’t know how to measure your food. Why is that?
Because the mechanisms that might cause unusually low calorie needs are less easily understood than potential explanations for unusually high calorie needs (such as being fidgety or working out extra hard), even though those easily-understood mechanisms may not be the actual mechanisms at work.
Also, because most people wouldn't recognize a standard deviation if you whacked them over the head with it. Way too many people think NEAT/TDEE "calculators" give you "the answer" not "a statistical estimate".
I agree with your point about how people tend to be treated, 100% . . . not that it has anything to with the main point of this thread.
It is for sure and I apologize. It has just been on my mind a lot lately. I’m not sure how much of mine is from my thyroid and how much is just that my body is very good at conserving energy. But the topic of hormones brought it back to the front of my thoughts. I’ll step out and stop messing up the thread
0 -
Personally, the whole idea of CI<CO for losing weight, CI>CO for gaining weight, and CI=CO for maintaining weight made sense to me when I encountered it 33-ish years ago ... and it works.
It's just so simple and straight forward. And the best thing about it is that it is flexible. I don't have to lock myself into a particular "diet". I can eat the things I like eating. 10 -
stevencloser wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person
Yup, and different macros affect your body differently so depending on the person, their goals, etc there's more to the story than just calories.
Yup,leptin, insulin , testosterone and others can change the whole calories in vs calories out equation quite a bit.
Insulin is my personal devil. I can CICO all I want but if that insulin isn't in check, I lose nothing. BUT I truly believe that CICO works GREAT too. There is no single right answer. So many factors, such as insulin, age, metabolic damage, disease can affect which methods work best for you. When I was in my 20's, I absolutely loss weight eating McDonald's everyday. But because I was super careful about my calories, I was able to drop weight. I miss those days.....
CICO is not something that works, it's HOW every single diet you may ever do works. Insulin does not stop your weight loss, overeating calories is.
I concur with what you said but the hormones do affect appetite which does affect CI. We all do not have perfect will power to not eat when the hormones are strong and drive blood sugar low. How may have afternoon crashes after eating carbs. Lots of people talk about that. It is very common. When I do IF and skip lunch, I never have a crash and subsequently I'm not looking for more sugar or caffeine to keep me going.
Appetite doesn't affect CI, your own decision as a sentient and sapient being does.11 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.14 -
maggibailey wrote: »A bit of an aside but a question none the less, on this site it is praised, celebrated, and pushed a bit when people maintain or lose on calorie levels that are higher than what the calculators tout they should, but instantly scoffed at when anyone claims to need less than the calculator says. I maintain right around 1700 to 1900 at 5’10”. I have never been overweight. I don’t claim I’m broken I lose when I feel like my pants are too tight and I’m not starving. I do know how many calories I eat so it’s not that I foolishly don’t know how to measure and I’m only 38. Today I hit 8k steps which is pretty average for me. I feel there are probably as many people on the lower end like me, as there are 5’4” women maintaining on 2500 but only one of them is ok to bring up without being told you don’t know how to measure your food. Why is that?
Not necessarily. There are two posters I can think of off the top of my head who have tracked and know they are statistical outliers who need to eat less than the norm to lose because they've tracked and needed to adjust based on real world results.
No one batted an eye reading anything they said.
What does get a reaction is when someone who is obviously not tracking well and fully informed makes claims, they're usually questioned about it.8 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »If CICO is a fad, then we can say that one fad does work to help overweight people lose weight and become healthy.
A caloric deficit is the secret ingredient in every fad diet. The reason that restrictive diets, cleanses, detoxes, fasting, etc, result in (short term) weight loss is because they cause one to eat less calories, not because of some magical concoction of substances that trigger weight loss.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.
So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.
So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.
To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.
To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
I'm British and 25% of the adult populatiob are classified obese (I checked Govt stats)
a fair chunk of those have hormonal problems of all kinds (Type II for instance)
Discussing how hormonal issues affect people trying to lose weight is completely relevant
and the issue came up naturally if you read the whole thread
the guy saying this stuff is OT is completely wrong
Millions of people have all kinds of metabolic hormonal conditions that complicate the CICO equation
or don't they?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
I know some. One very well. It has been a real struggle for her.
I really am curious how your sister's hormone disease actually truly impacts her ability to lose fat. Are they unable to stabilize her levels for some reason? What methods has she implemented to lose fat that seem to have been such a struggle?
There are people on these forums who have lost their thyroids due to cancer who have had success losing large amounts of fat, so I'm interesting in hearing about outliers and what their particular situations entail.
Yes, there was a long process to get the meds right. She has also lost. I never said she didn't or couldn't. I said it was a struggle.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.
So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.
To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.
To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.
No, that's just your spin on it. Influence is not control.5 -
I don't really see that this article did much aside from state the obvious... and frankly, I think CICO is as good a place to start as any. It is simple and if you don't know how to lose weight but know that you need to, diving into all the details about macros and percentages of calories from protein versus carbs, yadda yadda - it gets overwhelming. The KISS method is usually best, and we know that in the long term the nutrition matters to get where you want to ultimately be, but if it's straight up about dropping 20 or 30 or 80 pounds why not CICO?
I started with CICO, dropped somewhere around 20 pounds and I had noticed that mfp tracked macros but didn't pay much attention. Subsequent to reversing the weight gain trend I also joined a gym to get into better shape and then the idea of nutrition sunk in. Now that I'm focused on gaining lean muscle and burning fat more effectively, I've spent the time learning and tweaking to get the results I want. I think it's fairly common sense to know that ho-hos and slim jims aren't going to make your insides healthy even if you shrink your pant size because you are careful about how many calories you're consuming. CICO doesn't promote a terrible diet, it's just recognition of the fact that if you put in less than you send out you're going to have a deficit and lose weight.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.
So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.
To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.
To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.
Right, as if someone might be eating without control vs. noticing "jeez, I'm hungry, maybe I should eat different foods." Someone who overeats because their food choices are poor is making a decision to overeat vs. changing the food.3 -
Nevermind.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person
Yup, and different macros affect your body differently so depending on the person, their goals, etc there's more to the story than just calories.
Yup,leptin, insulin , testosterone and others can change the whole calories in vs calories out equation quite a bit.
Insulin is my personal devil. I can CICO all I want but if that insulin isn't in check, I lose nothing. BUT I truly believe that CICO works GREAT too. There is no single right answer. So many factors, such as insulin, age, metabolic damage, disease can affect which methods work best for you. When I was in my 20's, I absolutely loss weight eating McDonald's everyday. But because I was super careful about my calories, I was able to drop weight. I miss those days.....
CICO is not something that works, it's HOW every single diet you may ever do works. Insulin does not stop your weight loss, overeating calories is.
I concur with what you said but the hormones do affect appetite which does affect CI. We all do not have perfect will power to not eat when the hormones are strong and drive blood sugar low. How may have afternoon crashes after eating carbs. Lots of people talk about that. It is very common. When I do IF and skip lunch, I never have a crash and subsequently I'm not looking for more sugar or caffeine to keep me going.
Appetite doesn't affect CI, your own decision as a sentient and sapient being does.
What I eat affects my appetite. My appetite, and yours does affect our CI (hunger doesn't drive eating - really?). We don't have perfect will power forever. How did you and I get fat to begin with if we had such perfect control? By your logic, no one should be fat. I do agree we do have a lot of control over it, but not infinite control, especially for those who do have disorders that would required very small CI to eat at a deficit. Having said all that, I do think it is within most's ability to control what they eat but I think it is very hard for some. What we eat and when can make it MUCH easier to be compliant with not overeating.6 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »If CICO is a fad, then we can say that one fad does work to help overweight people lose weight and become healthy.
A caloric deficit is the secret ingredient in every fad diet. The reason that restrictive diets, cleanses, detoxes, fasting, etc, result in (short term) weight loss is because they cause one to eat less calories, not because of some magical concoction of substances that trigger weight loss.
I'll kinda argue this point. The reason short term diets, detoxes, cleanses etc. cause weight loss is they clean out you innards and are typically low-carb so they reduce glycogen and the associated water.
But this is just an aside to the conversation.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.
So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.
To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.
To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.
No, that's just your spin on it. Influence is not control.
X influences how much you eat = X will change the amount of food you eat, it is not the only thing that determines how much you eat, but it will make it higher or lower regardless of your wishes.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.
So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.
To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.
To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.
No, that's just your spin on it. Influence is not control.
X influences how much you eat = X will change the amount of food you eat, it is not the only thing that determines how much you eat, but it will make it higher or lower regardless of your wishes.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that influence will always change behavior? If not, can you clarify what you are saying?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
I'm British and 25% of the adult populatiob are classified obese (I checked Govt stats)
a fair chunk of those have hormonal problems of all kinds (Type II for instance)
Discussing how hormonal issues affect people trying to lose weight is completely relevant
and the issue came up naturally if you read the whole thread
the guy saying this stuff is OT is completely wrong
Millions of people have all kinds of metabolic hormonal conditions that complicate the CICO equation
or don't they?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
I know some. One very well. It has been a real struggle for her.
I really am curious how your sister's hormone disease actually truly impacts her ability to lose fat. Are they unable to stabilize her levels for some reason? What methods has she implemented to lose fat that seem to have been such a struggle?
There are people on these forums who have lost their thyroids due to cancer who have had success losing large amounts of fat, so I'm interesting in hearing about outliers and what their particular situations entail.
Yes, there was a long process to get the meds right. She has also lost. I never said she didn't or couldn't. I said it was a struggle.
Gotcha. I had a spell where my thyroid went nutso and stopped responding to the meds, and it took forever to get the dosage right again.
It was a very frustrating process. I can empathize.1 -
jsminer827 wrote: »I don't really see that this article did much aside from state the obvious... and frankly, I think CICO is as good a place to start as any. It is simple and if you don't know how to lose weight but know that you need to, diving into all the details about macros and percentages of calories from protein versus carbs, yadda yadda - it gets overwhelming. The KISS method is usually best, and we know that in the long term the nutrition matters to get where you want to ultimately be, but if it's straight up about dropping 20 or 30 or 80 pounds why not CICO?
I started with CICO, dropped somewhere around 20 pounds and I had noticed that mfp tracked macros but didn't pay much attention. Subsequent to reversing the weight gain trend I also joined a gym to get into better shape and then the idea of nutrition sunk in. Now that I'm focused on gaining lean muscle and burning fat more effectively, I've spent the time learning and tweaking to get the results I want. I think it's fairly common sense to know that ho-hos and slim jims aren't going to make your insides healthy even if you shrink your pant size because you are careful about how many calories you're consuming. CICO doesn't promote a terrible diet, it's just recognition of the fact that if you put in less than you send out you're going to have a deficit and lose weight.
Here's the thing though.
Weight management is an ongoing endeavor and is about more than the weight loss process.
People like me who have had an issue with excess fat since puberty have struggled for an entire lifetime (in my case, it was 40 years) with a lot of conflicting advice from doctors, parents, the media, and the diet industry on how to best handle the problem.
Nothing I ever did ever addressed the issue in a way that paved the path to a sustainable lifestyle.
Let's use your example of calling some foods unhealthy. I like say... Snickers Bars. While on a diet, I'd abstain from Snickers bars, because Snickers bars are unhealthy and I'm going to be healthy and thin now and stay that way forever! Unhealthy food will never pass my lips again!!!!! Well, I lose the weight while life goes on around me and I stand in the grocery store and keep seeing those Snickers bars week after week every time I go through the check out line.
And then Christmas comes and my husband puts one in my Christmas stocking. So of course I eat it, it's only one. And it's the holidays. Dang, that was good. And the next time I go to the grocery store and get another one. Oh the thrill of forbidden fruit! I'm still eating plenty of healthy food too, mind you. But now I'm eating these Snickers bars on top of the healthy food.
And it takes off from there because I start feeling deprived because the world around me is enjoying all sorts of different things that I'm not enjoying.
And I gain all of my weight back.
What the people in the article who talked about junk food likely really meant was not that it comprised the whole of their diet but that they could include it every now and then in their life as long as they stayed within their calories. And they could still lose weight.
Learning that was liberating for me and set me on a sustainable path to not only lose weight, but more importantly, to maintain that loss for a lifetime.
Life will go on. I will encounter Snickers bars. I don't have to live without them.15 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person
Yup, and different macros affect your body differently so depending on the person, their goals, etc there's more to the story than just calories.
Yup,leptin, insulin , testosterone and others can change the whole calories in vs calories out equation quite a bit.
Insulin is my personal devil. I can CICO all I want but if that insulin isn't in check, I lose nothing. BUT I truly believe that CICO works GREAT too. There is no single right answer. So many factors, such as insulin, age, metabolic damage, disease can affect which methods work best for you. When I was in my 20's, I absolutely loss weight eating McDonald's everyday. But because I was super careful about my calories, I was able to drop weight. I miss those days.....
CICO is not something that works, it's HOW every single diet you may ever do works. Insulin does not stop your weight loss, overeating calories is.
I concur with what you said but the hormones do affect appetite which does affect CI. We all do not have perfect will power to not eat when the hormones are strong and drive blood sugar low. How may have afternoon crashes after eating carbs. Lots of people talk about that. It is very common. When I do IF and skip lunch, I never have a crash and subsequently I'm not looking for more sugar or caffeine to keep me going.
Appetite doesn't affect CI, your own decision as a sentient and sapient being does.
What I eat affects my appetite. My appetite, and yours does affect our CI (hunger doesn't drive eating - really?). We don't have perfect will power forever. How did you and I get fat to begin with if we had such perfect control? By your logic, no one should be fat. I do agree we do have a lot of control over it, but not infinite control, especially for those who do have disorders that would required very small CI to eat at a deficit. Having said all that, I do think it is within most's ability to control what they eat but I think it is very hard for some. What we eat and when can make it MUCH easier to be compliant with not overeating.
I don't really think appetite (eating unsatiating foods) or hormone *problems* is the big driver in food overconsumption. I think it's that people evolved eating food when it was available (under environmental and cultural restraints) and so it's natural to want to eat something that is tasty and available (and natural to find high cal foods tasty). So people overeat.
If we think through your "my hormones made me hungry" thing, someone eats, say, a bad breakfast (for them) and is hungry before lunch. (For me that would be potentially a plain bagel, with or without cream cheese or bacon and eggs, for others who are more satiated by fat it might be oats and berries or a low-fat smoothie, both of which I often find quite satiating.) Anyway, even assuming hunger, you still have a choice -- wait until lunch (it's not that far away) and choose something really filling (this is why I find it easy to skip breakfast too or not eat even if I decide to have something not satiating -- pancakes with maple syrup and bacon is a high cal breakfast I have, rarely, when my dad makes it on the holidays, and usually I am hungry before lunch and just deal). Or, if you just can't wait until your next meal, eat something low cal and (for you) filling. For me, this would mean maybe some carrots and celery or even a pickle or some radishes.
Presto, no problem, and you learn from the experience and don't eat the breakfast that made you hungry next time. You try something else.
What I think actually happens is that the person does not plan, eats when he feels like eating (not because of unbearable hunger but because why not, and food is available and looks good). That's fine, whatever, but to then claim your hormones MADE you eat or that hunger did, when there were many options to deal with hunger that would have been more effective is, IMO, self-denial or refusing to take responsibility for your own action.
Sometimes people seem to think that CICO means cutting calories without taking into account things like what is filling, how foods make you feel, so on, and just going on without adjusting which is, well, crazy. Anyone with sense will learn what foods are satisfying and filling to them (or eating times or whatever) as part of the process. Indeed, one reason I think logging is helpful if one is trying to keep a calorie deficit is because you learn what works for you, so the idea that you will be trying to eat 1200 cal of donuts or whatever nonsense requires that the people involved be stupid.7 -
Since we are talking CICO, I have a CO question. I woke up, went #1 then weighed. Two minutes later I had to #2. Since I hadn't had my morning coffee, breakfast, or even water, I decided to weigh again. I weighed .4# more than my initial weigh in. What the hey is that all about?
...I just figured we needed a little comic relief. True story though.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I am continually amazed at how many people don't understand what CICO is.
1. CICO governs energy balance. Nothing else.
2. CICO is not about food.
3. Food contains energy, food also contains nutrients. Nutrients and energy aren't the same thing.
4. Nutrients, energy, and heck, even hormones, are all different things.
CICO is only meant to describe energy balance. It's okay to entertain several different discussions regarding food because it's a complicated issue.
There's a not being able to see the forest for the trees issue a lot of you are making here. Mike Israetel recently gave a Tedx talk (and normally I don't think much of them, but I respect Mike Israetel) on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYeZVfPxwKM
This is only about 15 minutes long. Give it a watch if you are so insistent on picking nits here.
Basically, the TL;DR is that calories are the biggest driver, and are the big picture.
Awesome video! Great summary with lots of information packed into only 15 minutes. How do we get the video stickied in an appropriate forum?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!
See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.
So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.
To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.
To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.
Right, as if someone might be eating without control vs. noticing "jeez, I'm hungry, maybe I should eat different foods." Someone who overeats because their food choices are poor is making a decision to overeat vs. changing the food.
I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying.
At the same time, it surprises me how frequently people - mostly outside MFP, but sometimes in - don't understand the effect of food choices on satiety. How many times do we see/hear things along the line that "you have to eat less, which makes you feel hungry, but if you keep it up your stomach will shrink, then you'll be OK "?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jsminer827 wrote: »I don't really see that this article did much aside from state the obvious... and frankly, I think CICO is as good a place to start as any. It is simple and if you don't know how to lose weight but know that you need to, diving into all the details about macros and percentages of calories from protein versus carbs, yadda yadda - it gets overwhelming. The KISS method is usually best, and we know that in the long term the nutrition matters to get where you want to ultimately be, but if it's straight up about dropping 20 or 30 or 80 pounds why not CICO?
I started with CICO, dropped somewhere around 20 pounds and I had noticed that mfp tracked macros but didn't pay much attention. Subsequent to reversing the weight gain trend I also joined a gym to get into better shape and then the idea of nutrition sunk in. Now that I'm focused on gaining lean muscle and burning fat more effectively, I've spent the time learning and tweaking to get the results I want. I think it's fairly common sense to know that ho-hos and slim jims aren't going to make your insides healthy even if you shrink your pant size because you are careful about how many calories you're consuming. CICO doesn't promote a terrible diet, it's just recognition of the fact that if you put in less than you send out you're going to have a deficit and lose weight.
Here's the thing though.
Weight management is an ongoing endeavor and is about more than the weight loss process.
People like me who have had an issue with excess fat since puberty have struggled for an entire lifetime (in my case, it was 40 years) with a lot of conflicting advice from doctors, parents, the media, and the diet industry on how to best handle the problem.
Nothing I ever did ever addressed the issue in a way that paved the path to a sustainable lifestyle.
Let's use your example of calling some foods unhealthy. I like say... Snickers Bars. While on a diet, I'd abstain from Snickers bars, because Snickers bars are unhealthy and I'm going to be healthy and thin now and stay that way forever! Unhealthy food will never pass my lips again!!!!! Well, I lose the weight while life goes on around me and I stand in the grocery store and keep seeing those Snickers bars week after week every time I go through the check out line.
And then Christmas comes and my husband puts one in my Christmas stocking. So of course I eat it, it's only one. And it's the holidays. Dang, that was good. And the next time I go to the grocery store and get another one. Oh the thrill of forbidden fruit! I'm still eating plenty of healthy food too, mind you. But now I'm eating these Snickers bars on top of the healthy food.
And it takes off from there because I start feeling deprived because the world around me is enjoying all sorts of different things that I'm not enjoying.
And I gain all of my weight back.
What the people in the article who talked about junk food likely really meant was not that it comprised the whole of their diet but that they could include it every now and then in their life as long as they stayed within their calories. And they could still lose weight.
Learning that was liberating for me and set me on a sustainable path to not only lose weight, but more importantly, to maintain that loss for a lifetime.
Life will go on. I will encounter Snickers bars. I don't have to live without them.
Yes to this so much.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
4.6 percent of the US population (over 12 yo) has hypothyroidism
My daughter is only 7 and has it. And hypothyroidism is hardly the only imbalance that significantly impacts the body's ability to store or burn calories at a normal rate.
There are also conditions where you have to navigate intake carefully. I'm nondiabetic hypoglycemic. I need to eat at regular intervals as planned or when my body says it's time to eat in emergencies. This is a case of a delicate balancing act with intake. I'm already smallish with less weight to lose (15 to 20 lbs to go) so I get less calories. I do WW but still track calories. So if I need food, I eat more and lose slower, or just go over. Better than passing out or risking a coma.2 -
I know I see some open diaries of people who stay in calorie goals but eat next to no veggies or fruits. They're losing weight so it works but certainly doesn't seem very healthy. That said, its still much healthier than than eating almost no fruit or vegetables AND massive calorie intake as well.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions