CICO the lastest fad diet
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »https://medlineplus.gov/news/fullstory_169921.html
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 22, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- What if you could have your cake, eat it, too, and lose weight?
A nutritional fad called CICO -- short for "Calories In, Calories Out" -- promises just that for those looking to shed some pounds.
...
MFP does not advocate a fad diet or a diet craze. In fact, the word "diet" is literally banned from this site, in favour of "lifestyle change".
MFP also does not say counting calories alone improves health. Counting calories is good for weight loss. Overall health is a separate issue from weight loss, and needs to be looked at by both those who are fat and those who are thin.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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.
Obese middle aged females have hormonal issues too.
You know what? It doesn't change the fact that eating less calories than you burn makes weight loss happen.
Source: am middle aged woman with hypothyroidism who managed to lose fat just fine
How did this rabbit trail start again?
Calories are the main driver people, the rest of all of these rabbit trails are just noise.
Calories always the driver on body mass.
The hormone thing just changes the variables in the in/outt math.
You can have all sorts of hormone issues and still lose weight. May have more challenges along the way than a hormonally optimal person but doesn't stop weight loss.
If you aren't losing weight it's not the someone's fault. It's typically the 3500 calories= a pound thing. We know now that the equation really only works in a vacuum. It's not as simple as plugging numbers into a calculator. Hormones are just one of several reasons why counting calories can be tricky.
Calculators are close enough estimates for starting points if you make a good effort to track diligently, then adjust to real world results.
Close enough is usually good enough, and hormonal issues aren't usually enough to wipe out a 3500 calorie differential, unless water weight is confounding things (which it sometimes is). Hormones usually only impact things by fractions of this amount, and trends over time can tell the story.
Raising these issues muddies the waters for most people, and I really, really wish you could see that you're doing more harm than good and not really adding productively to any of this discussion.
The fact is, that even with hormones or what have you aside, people in and of themselves will deviate from standard norms just statistically and there will be outliers. It's always suggested to start with calculators and then adjust based on real world data.
This doesn't mean that online calculators aren't useful starting points. Together with real world data, they can be powerful tools. Once you know how your real numbers relate differentially to the calculators, you're golden.
There are people on this site who differ statistically from the norm who do just fine because they've tracked and know.
This is not complicated.
Actually, I agree that calculators are a good starting point. You just have to keep in mind that just because you don't lose weight when your calculation says you should that there are multiple factors.
Hormones are one, proper tracking is probably the biggest, water weight is another......etc.
I"m not saying most people's biggest problem are hormones. That's simply not the facts.There are people who it does make a big difference but most people it's just one of many small factors. For 90%+ of people hormone imbalances play relatively small roles in whether they are losing weight or not.
My main point on CICO is simply that it is highly variable and hormones are one of many.
It's not "highly" variable, though. It's minorly variable. You're talking maybe .8 pounds a week instead of a pound a week in most cases. And sometimes it works the other way where it's 1.2 pounds instead of a pound (this is assuming we're back to the 3500 calorie scenario).
It's not really a very large differential. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Actually no.
Established calories for foods varies quite a bit, calories burned is nearly impossible to calculate or estimate without a lab. When I say highly variable I'm talking CICO as a whole.
Calories in foods vary from what we plug in on MFP.
Calories burned per listings here are probably widely off.
Everone's hormonal make up and genetics are different.
Two people can eat an apple and chicken breast and they can metabolize quite differently.
All this stuff here on MFP is good to start but each person's metabolism is different and may need some very large adjustments.
If it was as simple as just plug your info into MFP and follow the intake levels religiously everyone would lose weight every week in a very linear path. We know that doesn't happen.
15 -
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?5
-
It's not if you need less than what the calculator says per se. It's when someone claims that they maintain on 1200 (or worse, 1,000) and thus need to eat 800 in order to lose.
3 -
Maybe but my bet is if I started a thread and said I can’t lose I’m eating 1700 calories I move a lot and I don’t lose weight, the majority of the answers would be “you don’t have to eat that little get a food scale and start tightening up your tracking, if you were actually eating 1700 at your height and age you would lose. I eat 2200 and lose a pound a week.” When the reality is that I would not. Again I totally get that 8 out of 10 of the posts like that are probably a logging issue but for the two that are not those replies always make me cringe.3
-
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.5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »People cannot let go of their need to have a magic bullet / snake oil solution to weight gain. Here is an extract of a comment on an obesity article on social media:
All of the comments on his post just gushed over this. Some of what he is doing may have merit in terms of general health practices, but have nothing to do with losing weight, other than incidentally causing him to eat less calories in general by eating less processed food or intermittently fasting.
I don't know why you are knocking him. If he found success in this, then let him have his victory and be happy for him. He's not taking anything away from you and your weight loss journey. Different stroke for different folks. If you don't like it, then scroll on, but don't be tacky and post his personal post on a public forum without his permission.
1) He posted this on a public site, so his comments are all fair game. Note how I kept his name and picture anonymous?
2) He is needlessly over-complicating weight loss and making people believe that they must give up processed food, eat plant-based diets, and intermittently fast to lose weight. No, no, and no. This sort of instruction is what intimidates people into needlessly abandoning the simple and sustainable to embrace the complex and temporary, and then becoming frustrated because it is not sustainable for most people because they want processed food, meat, and have difficulty fasting for 16+ hours at a time.
I find it interesting that a heavy person would have a difficult time fasting for 16 hours. That is only tell lunch. The only way I think that would be very hard is if their hormones are screwed up.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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
And the percentage who have hypothyroidism to the point that it's an impact to weightloss is likely statistically insignificant.
More pointedly, as one standard deviation for RMR is around 5-8% of the average, the 5% hypo penalty is pretty close to lost in the statistical noise anyway.3 -
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!5 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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
And every single one of them will lose weight eating less than they burn.
I think the other poster meant people who have issues losing weight due to their hormones.
And about everyone of them will be more likely to eat less than they burn if they watch what they eat and when they eat.4 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions