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?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.33 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf12 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
Maybe instead of copy and pasting text from a source you didn’t cite, you could share why you feel CICO is hocus pocus. The OP provided a good definition of what CICO is - simply an energy balance equation that has nothing to do with nutrition or satiety - and those points were also reinforced by others in this thread and countless others.
So what is it about CICO that you think is invalid?8 -
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?
lol- you must be new here.9 -
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, that's not even close and adaptive thermogenesis (the actual term) has both short-term and long-term changes, but none of them are particularly powerful in terms of changing metabolic rates. Your body MUST generate energy in order for you to survive, and generating energy (your metabolism) is the primary goal of your body above all else. The body is very restricted in it's ability to alter it's metabolism other than consuming itself, e.g. skeletal muscular atrophy, it can do things like increase mitochondria to improve energy efficiency and it can reduce thyroid hormones to slightly reduce metabolism plus a few other noted changes, but none of these really change the bodies metabolism greatly.
Even if you could greatly alter metabolism, as in the case of some genetic and thyroid disease, you would only be altering the components of the equation. There is still a point where CI=CO, but it might be very low. You can't defeat a principle merely by changing the numbers.9 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
You claim that something is hocus pocus, then proceed to enter into the realm of pseudoscience at breakneck pace to show you don't understand what you are talking about.7 -
moosmum1972 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
You claim that something is hocus pocus, then proceed to enter into the realm of pseudoscience at breakneck pace to show you don't understand what you are talking about.
Even worse.
They stole the text. ..
Ahh, plagiarism is something I really can't abide. Quoting is fine but site your sources.7 -
CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf
Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.
Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.
It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.
The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."
The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.
The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."
http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf
Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.
Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions