Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO -- what does it mean?
lemurcat12
Posts: 30,886 Member
in Debate Club
Break-off from the holistic medicine thread. Hope this is okay.
4
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Break-off from the holistic medicine thread. Hope this is okay.
Calories in, calories out. If you eat more calories (calories in) than you burn/need (calories out), you'll gain weight and if you eat less calories than you need, you'll lose weight.6 -
Focusing just on the CICO bit:NotEmphatic wrote: »Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.
Your deal with CICO seems to be your fear that it means your weight is your fault.
CICO has nothing to do with blame. The meaning is only that the balance of CI and CO determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain weight (barring water fluctuations which don't matter for fat loss (what most are concerned about with weight loss), although they might matter for health in extreme circumstances).
Various medical conditions might affect CO, such as hypothyroid. You seem to be saying that your medical condition means less exercise, which would affect CO, but hardly contradicts CICO.
Other things also affect CI -- some people naturally get more calories from food than others (which, ironically, is the body acting more efficiently, so would in most circumstances be good). Some medications increase appetite. So on.
You still do "eat too much" (if too much means enough to gain weight), but you are the one putting the negative spin on this, not anyone else. And it may or may not be "your fault." I don't see self-recrimination here as useful so certainly don't phrase it that way, and if someone is hypothyroid and untreated, trying to eat super low cal isn't a great idea (so eating "too much" might be better in the short term). Treatment should resolve the issue, though.
I'm not aware of anything else that could affect CO significantly (I know about metabolic adaptation, but don't think it interferes with CICO working or is that significant). However, I believe that both CI and CO can be affected, so am open to an explanation. I think you are misunderstanding in thinking that changes to CI and CO mean that CICO is wrong -- no one says everything can be boiled down to known numbers or that everyone's numbers are the same. This just seems like a very basic misunderstanding.13 -
CICO an energy balance equation that drives weight management.
CI<CO lose weight
CI = CO maintain weight
CI>CO gain weight.
However, I think what might be more helpful to posters who are confused or laboring under some misconceptions would be a discussion like:
What does CICO NOT do/mean?
I will start...
CICO does not mean that nutrition is unimportant
CICO does not accurately predict to the decimal what a persons TDEE is - several factors can influence that but as a simplistic equation focusing on weight management and used by a person who can reasonably estimate calorie intake and calorie burn, monitoring and adjusting with real results over a period of time - it is very practical.
CICO is not a cure for all medical conditions however a number of health benefits can be realized simply by effectively using CICO to achieve a healthy weight.
13 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »The human endocrine system is way too complex for CICO to be the final determinant of the weight loss question.
In a perfect human machine CICO is correct - if it only has one energy variable.
I have lots of variables...so do you.
As I explained in the prior post, many things go into determining what your CI and CO is. So again you seem to be working with a misunderstanding.There are too many good people on this forum who struggle.
That people struggle is not a reasonable argument for CICO being wrong. One possibility is that they misjudge their CI or CO so need to adjust. Another (even more common, IMO) is that they have difficulty keeping CI down, and there are lots of reasons for this and ways to help with it. This is where food choice may matter, habits may matter, so on.My N+1 is this:
Excess cholestorol...naturally occurring...statins must be taken...resulting muscle weakness prevents exercise...liver overworks to negate chemicals...kidneys overwork as well.
Human pysiology does not conform to machine-like inputs.
Again, no one says the body is just like a machine.
However, unless you are explaining yourself very badly, what you seem to be saying is that you struggle with exercise. Even if true, that doesn't have a thing to do with the workings of CICO.And...not a scientist but as religiously dogmatic as the Mormons.
Why slam Mormons? Please don't.11 -
CICO is an eating equation and there are many philosophies on these boards. It's up to you to figure what works for you and I have only seen support.
What is it you are exactly looking for Lemur? We can all agree there is no magic but hard work depending on what program you choose. What do YOU want....all Mormans aside?
Do you just want an argument or an answer?
2 -
There was another thread on holistic nutrition getting derailed by a poster who kept... blindly insisting that we all were blindly insisting that CICO was the answer to various questions, none of which had been asked by the OP. After repeated attempts to get said poster to explain how their argument was connected, Lemur suggested taking the debate to a new threat. This one.
OP is, IMHO, pretty darn knowledgeable about what CICO is and isn't.7 -
Oh so this is an extension of a debate......got it. I will move on.4
-
-
CICO is an eating equation and there are many philosophies on these boards. It's up to you to figure what works for you and I have only seen support.
What is it you are exactly looking for Lemur? We can all agree there is no magic but hard work depending on what program you choose. What do YOU want....all Mormans aside?
Do you just want an argument or an answer?
There have been arguments against CICO brought up in another thread that has nothing to do with CICO or weight loss at all, and I'm just trying to get it out of that thread.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Ah ok. I took the question literally and thought that the OP wasn't sure about what the anogram stood for, hence my brief reply. I know its in the debate forum but ppl often post things in forums which they don't seem to belong in.2 -
I wonder if the "naturally skinny" might be less efficient at converting food to energy. Where does the surplus energy go? By the way of all that the body discards.
The CI, CO principle still applies. For the skinny trying to gain weight, they have to get more Calories In.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »CICO an energy balance equation that drives weight management.
CI<CO lose weight
CI = CO maintain weight
CI>CO gain weight.
However, I think what might be more helpful to posters who are confused or laboring under some misconceptions would be a discussion like:
What does CICO NOT do/mean?
I will start...
CICO does not mean that nutrition is unimportant
CICO does not accurately predict to the decimal what a persons TDEE is - several factors can influence that but as a simplistic equation focusing on weight management and used by a person who can reasonably estimate calorie intake and calorie burn, monitoring and adjusting with real results over a period of time - it is very practical.
CICO is not a cure for all medical conditions however a number of health benefits can be realized simply by effectively using CICO to achieve a healthy weight.
I still take a bit of issue with this explanation, especially the last portion "however a number of health benefits can be realized simply by effectively using CICO to achieve a healthy weight".
This seems to be confusing CICO with calorie counting or some other way of eating. It isn't a way of eating. And, I think the explanation becomes more confused when this is done.
Except for the first 4 lines, all of this makes more sense if CICO is replaced with Calorie Counting.
3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »CICO an energy balance equation that drives weight management.
CI<CO lose weight
CI = CO maintain weight
CI>CO gain weight.
However, I think what might be more helpful to posters who are confused or laboring under some misconceptions would be a discussion like:
What does CICO NOT do/mean?
I will start...
CICO does not mean that nutrition is unimportant
CICO does not accurately predict to the decimal what a persons TDEE is - several factors can influence that but as a simplistic equation focusing on weight management and used by a person who can reasonably estimate calorie intake and calorie burn, monitoring and adjusting with real results over a period of time - it is very practical.
CICO is not a cure for all medical conditions however a number of health benefits can be realized simply by effectively using CICO to achieve a healthy weight.
I still take a bit of issue with this explanation, especially the last portion "however a number of health benefits can be realized simply by effectively using CICO to achieve a healthy weight".
This seems to be confusing CICO with calorie counting or some other way of eating. It isn't a way of eating. And, I think the explanation becomes more confused when this is done.
Except for the first 4 lines, all of this makes more sense if CICO is replaced with Calorie Counting.
I think WinoGelato's point is that you can use CICO (the knowledge that weight loss happens if CI is less than CO) to lose weight (or to gain, etc.). You can do that whether you actually count calories or not.4 -
It's what the world would be like, if there wasn't diet magic.4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO is an eating equation and there are many philosophies on these boards. It's up to you to figure what works for you and I have only seen support.
What is it you are exactly looking for Lemur? We can all agree there is no magic but hard work depending on what program you choose. What do YOU want....all Mormans aside?
Do you just want an argument or an answer?
There have been arguments against CICO brought up in another thread that has nothing to do with CICO or weight loss at all, and I'm just trying to get it out of that thread.
Okay....understood now.0 -
CICO is the name many use for the energy usage equation in the human body whereby if calories in < calories out (often referred to on the boards as eating at a defecit) weight loss should occur.
Many people find the principle invaluable for their own weight loss. MFP board frequenters so are often in this group.
Some people (myself included) find it simplistic, feel it contains undefinable variables ( especially CO) and think it is about as useful as the mantra "just eat less and move more". It is true, but mostly unhelpful to me in my weightloss. This opinion (CICO may be true but just knowing the CICO principle isn't very helpful to my weight loss progress) is not usually respected on the MFP boards, in my experience.
Any experience such as mine (same CICO with daily calorie restriction had minimal weightloss (~2.5 lb month but when I switched meal timing and added 16:8 and 5:2 intermittent fasting (again, same weekly CICO as 4 previous months) weightloss is now 6+ lb a month) will be discounted, called woo and/or false, or possibly explained away as that just shows CICO is the only important thing at play here anyway.
I think the CICO principle is true but extremely incomplete and subject to individual variables that make it of different importance to different individuals.
To some CICO is an easy to understand and experience key to weight management. To others (me) it fails to explain huge shifts in my weight management experience so I find it pretty useless as a tool for weightloss.
I respect both viewpoint. I certainly think that it is a perfect place to start a weightloss program.15 -
It's the energy balance equation...nothing more, nothing less.
When your calories (energy) coming in is less than energy being expended, something has to make up for that deficiency...so you burn stored energy (ie body fat).
There are certainly things that can affect the CO part of the equation that we may not have much control over...but that doesn't mean the equation is wrong...it just means that you may not fall in line with one of these calculators. I think a lot of people take the numbers these calculators give them as some kind of gospel and they fail to make adjustments as per their actual results.
Not to mention, when you throw calorie counting into the mix, there's a lot of inherent estimation, and with that comes errors.4 -
Endocrine impact on CICO? From clinical observation this amounts to ~5% in the most extreme cases. Note that this is limited to Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) and has no impact on physical activity.
Your weight is an output of behavior.7 -
I'll cut some slack to people suffering from anemia - that seriously limits your NEAT because you just feel like dog poo even on a good day. I've been defeated by a single half flight of stairs (a whooping 5 steps) when my iron was at it's lowest (blood serum levels of ferritin couldn't get any lower). But that's an easily corrected medical conditions.
The thing is, things like anemia simply modify the CO part of CICO. Don't move as much? Don't burn as much. Meaning you need to eat less to prevent blowing up like a balloon.
The aspect you have the most control over is the CI part of CICO. You control how much you are eating. Gaining weight? Erm... maybe eat less? Statistical models can predict where your numbers could be, but then any smart person should adjust based on real life results.
I'm sometimes frustrated that those simple facts seem to be so otherworldly complicated to understand.
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »CICO an energy balance equation that drives weight management.
CI<CO lose weight
CI = CO maintain weight
CI>CO gain weight.
However, I think what might be more helpful to posters who are confused or laboring under some misconceptions would be a discussion like:
What does CICO NOT do/mean?
I will start...
CICO does not mean that nutrition is unimportant
CICO does not accurately predict to the decimal what a persons TDEE is - several factors can influence that but as a simplistic equation focusing on weight management and used by a person who can reasonably estimate calorie intake and calorie burn, monitoring and adjusting with real results over a period of time - it is very practical.
CICO is not a cure for all medical conditions however a number of health benefits can be realized simply by effectively using CICO to achieve a healthy weight.
I still take a bit of issue with this explanation, especially the last portion "however a number of health benefits can be realized simply by effectively using CICO to achieve a healthy weight".
This seems to be confusing CICO with calorie counting or some other way of eating. It isn't a way of eating. And, I think the explanation becomes more confused when this is done.
Except for the first 4 lines, all of this makes more sense if CICO is replaced with Calorie Counting.
I think WinoGelato's point is that you can use CICO (the knowledge that weight loss happens if CI is less than CO) to lose weight (or to gain, etc.). You can do that whether you actually count calories or not.
Yes, this. In fact I'm often one who is nitpicky in threads clarifying for people that CICO is not a way of eating, nor a synonym for calorie counting. Your interpretation of my meaning is spot on - by using the principles of CICO to achieve a healthy weight - many people have favorable improvements in health markers, etc. Often that is conflated with the types of food they ate to achieve their weight loss - ie claiming that going keto cured (insert ailment du jour here) but in fact, many of the perceived health benefits may have resulted directly from weight loss regardless of the foods eaten along the way.4 -
I wonder if the "naturally skinny" might be less efficient at converting food to energy. Where does the surplus energy go? By the way of all that the body discards.
The CI, CO principle still applies. For the skinny trying to gain weight, they have to get more Calories In.
From the studies and observations I've seen, the "naturally skinny" aren't any less efficient in converting food to energy. Their behaviors are different though, resulting in lower calorie intakes and/or a higher TDEE. They just to be natural behaviors and habits that the person doesn't put much thought into.9 -
CICO is a simple statement of energy balance relating to our bodies as a biochemical system. Biochemistry being subject to the laws of chemistry, chemistry being subject to the laws of physics.
The biochemical system of our bodies use and store energy in chemical form. Energy storage adds to our weight in matter with high potential chemical bonds (such as glycogen and lipids). Breaking those chemical bonds to release energy also breaks down those chemicals to simpler molecules that we exhale (CO2) or excrete (H2O). The energy potential of oxidizing the matter in food is measured in calories, and the energy expended in various bodily functions and activities is also measured in calories. Therefore comparing CI vs CO is useful in that if I can estimate my calories required for an average day, I can estimate how much food I should be eating for my individual goals.
Hormones play a marginal role in use and storage of chemical energy in the body, and they simply cannot create more matter and energy than was present in the food consumed. Nutrition is still very relevant, it is merely secondary when it comes to weight management.
CICO says how much is in my calorie budget, nutrition says how much of that budget gets allocated to different kinds of foods.
5 -
CICO is what I'm going to name my next houseplant.
In all seriousness, most of you (and you know who you are) have covered this brilliantly. It's sad that this needs to be stated over and over again due to how it's constantly misunderstood.8 -
I posted this back in July. I didn't read every single post here, but it seems like this may help
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage2 -
I posted this back in July. I didn't read every single post here, but it seems like this may help
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage
This is excellent, thanks for posting! Very clear and easy to read.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Focusing just on the CICO bit:NotEmphatic wrote: »Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.
Your deal with CICO seems to be your fear that it means your weight is your fault.
CICO has nothing to do with blame. The meaning is only that the balance of CI and CO determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain weight (barring water fluctuations which don't matter for fat loss (what most are concerned about with weight loss), although they might matter for health in extreme circumstances).
Various medical conditions might affect CO, such as hypothyroid. You seem to be saying that your medical condition means less exercise, which would affect CO, but hardly contradicts CICO.
Other things also affect CI -- some people naturally get more calories from food than others (which, ironically, is the body acting more efficiently, so would in most circumstances be good). Some medications increase appetite. So on.
You still do "eat too much" (if too much means enough to gain weight), but you are the one putting the negative spin on this, not anyone else. And it may or may not be "your fault." I don't see self-recrimination here as useful so certainly don't phrase it that way, and if someone is hypothyroid and untreated, trying to eat super low cal isn't a great idea (so eating "too much" might be better in the short term). Treatment should resolve the issue, though.
I'm not aware of anything else that could affect CO significantly (I know about metabolic adaptation, but don't think it interferes with CICO working or is that significant). However, I believe that both CI and CO can be affected, so am open to an explanation. I think you are misunderstanding in thinking that changes to CI and CO mean that CICO is wrong -- no one says everything can be boiled down to known numbers or that everyone's numbers are the same. This just seems like a very basic misunderstanding.
Actually metabolic adaptation totally screws CICO up....it renders it a non existent principle.40 -
This content has been removed.
-
cliffski13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Focusing just on the CICO bit:NotEmphatic wrote: »Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.
Your deal with CICO seems to be your fear that it means your weight is your fault.
CICO has nothing to do with blame. The meaning is only that the balance of CI and CO determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain weight (barring water fluctuations which don't matter for fat loss (what most are concerned about with weight loss), although they might matter for health in extreme circumstances).
Various medical conditions might affect CO, such as hypothyroid. You seem to be saying that your medical condition means less exercise, which would affect CO, but hardly contradicts CICO.
Other things also affect CI -- some people naturally get more calories from food than others (which, ironically, is the body acting more efficiently, so would in most circumstances be good). Some medications increase appetite. So on.
You still do "eat too much" (if too much means enough to gain weight), but you are the one putting the negative spin on this, not anyone else. And it may or may not be "your fault." I don't see self-recrimination here as useful so certainly don't phrase it that way, and if someone is hypothyroid and untreated, trying to eat super low cal isn't a great idea (so eating "too much" might be better in the short term). Treatment should resolve the issue, though.
I'm not aware of anything else that could affect CO significantly (I know about metabolic adaptation, but don't think it interferes with CICO working or is that significant). However, I believe that both CI and CO can be affected, so am open to an explanation. I think you are misunderstanding in thinking that changes to CI and CO mean that CICO is wrong -- no one says everything can be boiled down to known numbers or that everyone's numbers are the same. This just seems like a very basic misunderstanding.
Actually metabolic adaptation totally screws CICO up....it renders it a non existent principle.
This is part of the misunderstanding of CICO.
Metabolic adaption means that you have dropped your CO (calories out).
So.....you can try to increase your CO (exercise, refeed, etc), or decrease CI.
Working to increase CO is obviously the better strategy...
Understanding this simple equation is very liberating. I don't understand why people want to fight its veracity so much....14 -
cliffski13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Focusing just on the CICO bit:NotEmphatic wrote: »Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.
Your deal with CICO seems to be your fear that it means your weight is your fault.
CICO has nothing to do with blame. The meaning is only that the balance of CI and CO determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain weight (barring water fluctuations which don't matter for fat loss (what most are concerned about with weight loss), although they might matter for health in extreme circumstances).
Various medical conditions might affect CO, such as hypothyroid. You seem to be saying that your medical condition means less exercise, which would affect CO, but hardly contradicts CICO.
Other things also affect CI -- some people naturally get more calories from food than others (which, ironically, is the body acting more efficiently, so would in most circumstances be good). Some medications increase appetite. So on.
You still do "eat too much" (if too much means enough to gain weight), but you are the one putting the negative spin on this, not anyone else. And it may or may not be "your fault." I don't see self-recrimination here as useful so certainly don't phrase it that way, and if someone is hypothyroid and untreated, trying to eat super low cal isn't a great idea (so eating "too much" might be better in the short term). Treatment should resolve the issue, though.
I'm not aware of anything else that could affect CO significantly (I know about metabolic adaptation, but don't think it interferes with CICO working or is that significant). However, I believe that both CI and CO can be affected, so am open to an explanation. I think you are misunderstanding in thinking that changes to CI and CO mean that CICO is wrong -- no one says everything can be boiled down to known numbers or that everyone's numbers are the same. This just seems like a very basic misunderstanding.
Actually metabolic adaptation totally screws CICO up....it renders it a non existent principle.
No. No, it most certainly doesn't. Science says otherwise:
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/10 -
...and let's face it, there are also people who do not want to accept CICO for what it is either. It's incredible the number of people who are willing to believe carbs makes you fat, but not CICO.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CICO is what I'm going to name my next houseplant.
In all seriousness, most of you (and you know who you are) have covered this brilliantly. It's sad that this needs to be stated over and over again due to how it's constantly misunderstood.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions