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 is overrated in my opinion
Replies
-
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories.
CICO just is, regardless of the diet you choose. Clearly you are confusing CICO with calorie counting...7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Ah okay, that makes sense then.
I thought you were bringing it up as some sort of argument from authority that you have expertise in biochemistry and therefore you know more about what you are saying than most people with regards to thermodynamics and energy balance. Is that your area?
Not exactly true. This was the exchange...
9 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
They use it as a means of dieting. So, in fact, engage in a cico diet.
Was that a no to the question of your field being thermodynamics?
As an EE, it's a huge part of my field. Next?9 -
as an EE, no, thermodynamics is not a huge part of my field at all. I took it in college as an elective, and can definitely say that in my career field, I have not had to maintain an awareness of anything I learned and promptly forgot in that class - in fact, thermodynamics was a ME core class and many colleges don't even require EEs to take it as an elective.
While I know that principles from the laws of thermodynamics of course underpin the reality of life, I don't have to directly use those principles in my career field any more than I have to directly use the basic principles of chemistry, and I certainly cannot use the basic information I got in the entry level chemistry and thermodynamics classes to claim that I am any kind of authority on the matter, especially in comparison to someone who majored in chemistry and took many more advanced classes on the subject. Its no different than how human beings live and operate in a reality governed by the laws of mathematics without completely understanding the essential elements of those laws - for instance, how the great wonders of the ancient world were built by people who only had a rudimentary understanding of mathematics and science gained solely through observation. Or how my father, who barely made it through high school, can't understand trigonometry formulas or solve mathematical equations beyond basic algebra and yet can still figure out how to design and build houses, models, or whatever else he wants to make. Being able to build a house or make a model certainly doesn't qualify my father to be an authority over a civil engineer whose career field is structural design!
So no, I do not consider engineering to be at the same level as a scientist; it all depends on what career field you used your degree in - are you a research EE or a designer? It makes a huge difference. And even as an EE, does that truly give you authority over a career biologist or physicist PhD who's career is in a research laboratory?
In my first job out of college, I worked for a naval lab where the engineers were very much into design and research. I left that job and went to work for a power utility where there was much less research and much more application of previously established rules and guidelines in troubleshooting problems and adding/upgrading circuits and facilities. In my particular job, I don't even directly apply the theories of electromagnetic fields in my day to day work, even though they directly apply to my career field; if I need to design a power line, I simply apply my design criteria to the established tables provided by my company's guidelines and use the results provided; I don't go back to my electromagnetic fields course materials to try to design the power line from scratch, and in fact, I'd have to think long and hard on how to even do that since I haven't had to go that deep into the theory behind the subject in 15 years.2 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Calories do not equal food anymore than kilograms equal density. Calories are simply a unit of energy measurement the same as kilograms are a measure of mass. Saying how many calories are in a unit of food tells you absolutely nothing about it other than just that....how many calories are in it.
Not all foods have the same impact on the body, but that doesn't mean that 100 calories doesn't equal 100 calories. When you talk simply about weight loss then what is behind that is energy balance. That doesn't mean that it would be a good strategy for weight loss to eat whatever as long as it adds up to the prerequisite number of calories....clearly it would be better to eat a balanced diet with good nutrition than nothing but candy.
Taking the fact that not all food choices are equal for health and using that as some sort of indictiment of CICO by analogy it would be like talking in reference to weightlifting and saying not all kilograms have the same impact on the body because clearly it is a lot harder to lift 100 pounds of feathers than it is to lift 100 pounds of iron, the feathers get all over the place and its hard to hold them. It is just like you are intentionally missing the point. The statement that lifting 100 kilograms has the same affect on your strength regardless of what comprises those kilograms does not mean that buying 100 pounds of feathers for your home gym is a good idea, it is just a statement of fundamentals. Spending a lot of time talking about the different types of materials you can lift and the benefits and drawbacks of each does not somehow negate the concept that at the end of the day it is the total mass you are lifting that matters.
In the exact same way yeah of course it matters what foods you choose for weight loss or weight gain or health, but in the end of the day if you want to look at the fundamentals that govern changes in weight then calories are all that matter.
13 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Which brings us back to where we started, I.e. the definition of cico when used here. The equation or the diet. I am using it to mean the diet per my search results and also what I’ve seen from the majority of the posters here.
I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Woo away!
See, this is where it's good to have a liberal arts degree**, even though lots of people diss them routinely.
You're using a figure of speech called a "synecdoche", but don't seem to realize it, leading to what appears to be a conceptual error.
(** Better yet, I never once had to use the words "Would you like fries with that?" in a professional capacity.
) 14 -
Whether you want to count calories or not, your body counts them, and determines whether you maintain lose or gain.
Hormones may figure into exactly how many calories you burn, or how hungry you get, but in the end.....it all depends on the balance of calories eaten vs calories burned....5 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
If I run a precisely measured mile on a flat, smooth, paved walking trail on a calm 70F degree day, it's going to be vastly different than if I run a precisely measured mile on a steep, craggy, rock-strewn mountain trail in -20F degrees and 50 mph winds during a blizzard.
But either way, I've just run a mile. If we're speaking strictly of distance traveled, there is zero difference. If we're going to factor other elements into the discussion, it's a completely different discussion which has nothing to do with the point that the distance traveled was one mile.
Exact same thing applies when discussing energy balance/weight loss in isolation, as opposed to including general nutrition, satiety, adherence, body composition, energy levels, workout performance, etc. in the conversation.14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Calories do not equal food anymore than kilograms equal density.
The two most confused notions...
1. CICO and Calorie Counting...
2. Calories and Food...11 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
I like this Star6 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Which brings us back to where we started, I.e. the definition of cico when used here. The equation or the diet. I am using it to mean the diet per my search results and also what I’ve seen from the majority of the posters here.
I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Woo away!
See, this is where it's good to have a liberal arts degree**, even though lots of people diss them routinely.
You're using a figure of speech called a "synecdoche", but don't seem to realize it, leading to what appears to be a conceptual error.
(** Better yet, I never once had to use the words "Would you like fries with that?" in a professional capacity. )
Highly dependent upon the decade one received the degree. (I speak from experience holding my first BAs in Anthropology & Sociology).
...and our medical department runs far more efficient and at a much higher level thanks to the addition of an English major. I just feel dirty saying it, but cannot argue with objective evidence.4 -
Efficiently?4
-
MaggieGirl135 wrote: »Efficiently?
I laughed much harder than I should have. I think this just proves his point. My English is horrible. It's just not in my brain wiring. I am thankful for spellcheck.2 -
So I'm reading Lyle Mcdonald's new book, "The Women's Book". The first 7 chapters are a bit of a snoozer if you are a regular MFP lurker who doesn't post threads like this one. (If you are, then read them).
Chapter 8 starts some interesting tidbits.
"
The importance of NEAT in TDEE cannot be overstated in terms of its potential impact on TDEE, fat gain or fat loss. When people are locked into a room where they can't move around much, NEAT may burn 100-600 calories; low levels of NEAT are also predictive of both weight and fat gain over time. More importantly, variations in NEAT end up explaining the majority of the differences in TDEE between two people, at least when neither is performing large amounts of exercise. From the highest to lowest levels, NEAT can vary by 2000 calories per day for two people of the same weight and body composition and any large scale differences in TDEE are due to variations in NEAT (3).
"
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2827-2832). Lyle McDonald.
2000 cal per day?!?!?!?!8 -
some other good stuff, which emphasizes why resistance training is so important..
It should be clear from the chart above that one pound of fat and one pound of muscle contain a different amount of stored energy. In the case of muscle, one pound contains 600-700 calories while only one pound of body fat actually represents the 3,500 calorie rule value. Put differently, if someone created a 3,500 calorie deficit and lost 100% fat they would lose exactly one pound of body weight. If they lost 100% skeletal muscle, they would actually lose 5-6 lbs of total weight (3500 calories/ 600-700 cal/ lb = 5-6 lbs). Both represent 3,500 calories of energy lost but the total weight loss is clearly very different.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2904-2909). Lyle McDonald.4 -
This has two major implications. The first is that scale weight will go down faster if skeletal muscle LBM is lost due to the differences in how much energy it contains. I actually strongly suspect that the reason that many rapid weight loss centers recommend against exercise as it limits the loss of LBM while dieting. By deliberately allowing LBM loss to occur, the number on the scale will drop more quickly than if muscle were not lost even if body composition is not improving as much as it should be. If that approach is combined with a low-carbohydrate diet, the weight losses that are achieved can be extremely large due to the amount of water loss that will occur. The number on the scale will drop rapidly although the changes that are actually occurring are irrelevant (water) or negative (LBM loss).
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2915-2920). Lyle McDonald.9 -
In addition to all of the issues discussed above, there is an arguably even more important factor, one that is critical for the understanding of the dynamics of weight/ fat loss or gain. This is that both sides of the energy balance equation can and do change in response to changes in food intake, activity levels and the actual changes in weight or body composition. I can't tell if this fact is unknown or simply ignored by those who deny the energy balance equation but it is critical to both understand and accept. As I will discus thoroughly in the next chapter, in response to weight/ fat loss, the body will adapt and both increase hunger/ appetite (in an attempt to get people to eat more) while it decreases TDEE. This also occurs in response to weight gain although it seems that the body is better at defending weight/ fat loss than weight and fat gain under most conditions.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2959-2964). Lyle McDonald.4 -
Good stuff from Lyle, as usual. Thanks for sharing @annaskiski !8
-
5
-
You are stating the obvious for reasons unkown. CICO is a tool. A component of fat loss strategy. You can't lose fat without it, but you don't have to lose muscle because of it. Obviously, not all calories have equal nutritional value. 8 ounces of fish or veggies has more nutritional value than 8 ounces of vodka. That's were you have to figure out your macros, figure out how much of a calorie deficit you plan to run, and how you track your progress.11
-
SweatLikeDog wrote: »You are stating the obvious for reasons unkown. CICO is a tool. A component of fat loss strategy. You can't lose fat without it, but you don't have to lose muscle because of it. Obviously, not all calories have equal nutritional value. 8 ounces of fish or veggies has more nutritional value than 8 ounces of vodka. That's were you have to figure out your macros, figure out how much of a calorie deficit you plan to run, and how you track your progress.
So not all ounces are the same, either? JK. 9 -
Just break up.2
-
Results from 3 years following CICO. Basically, about 70% healthish and 30% junk (I think) with the only food limitation being calories:
9 -
SweatLikeDog wrote: »You are stating the obvious for reasons unkown. CICO is a tool. A component of fat loss strategy. You can't lose fat without it, but you don't have to lose muscle because of it. Obviously, not all calories have equal nutritional value. 8 ounces of fish or veggies has more nutritional value than 8 ounces of vodka. That's were you have to figure out your macros, figure out how much of a calorie deficit you plan to run, and how you track your progress.
Calorie counting is a tool. CICO is not Calorie counting.
CICO is the scientific principle that states that consuming fewer Calories of energy (via food) than one utilizes will result in weight loss (and vice versa).
Calories do not have nutritional value at all beyond energy, regardless of their source. Foods provide energy (measured in Calories) as well as nutrients. Some foods provide a lot of energy but not many nutrients. Others provide a lot of nutrients but not much energy. The two are unrelated and has nothing to do with the "quality of Calories."13
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions