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.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
Cowbells9
-
"CICO is the worst form of weight control, except for all the others." Winston Churchill12
-
3 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody who's defending the validity of CICO has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.25 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
I have never seen a thread where someone has shared that a certain food is a trigger for their ED and they were told to eat it anyway. I'm sorry you saw that happen to someone here, I don't think that is representative of overall community sentiment.
In the vast majority of threads where people discuss their EDs, I see posters recognizing that they don't have the necessary expertise to provide much help. People are encouraged to partner with their treatment team or to begin treatment if they don't have a team.
I don't see people knocking IF much on here. There are plenty of veterans who do *IF* or things that could be considered variants on it, like skipping breakfast. I will see people point out there is nothing *magical* about it, but that's usually coupled with the acknowledgement that if it is working for someone, then it's a good thing.20 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
I think the only reason people bash "diets" is that some people think they need to do that to lose weight, when it is just one way to have a deficit. So, it is more informing people that they don't have to follow that diet to lose weight. If one wants to follow a diet, go ahead, but don't think you have to to lose weight, unless it is for compliance with a deficit.7 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.9 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.20 -
Well, I guess it IS Friday, so sure. Everyone jump in and say how annoying the advice volunteers in the forum give to complete strangers is. We should just offer every OP a list of 30 questions they must answer so we can get a good history of their health, their personal relationship with food, and the affects their individual environment has on their diet. Then we should take a few minutes to research all the theoretical possibilities of what could go wrong, and then respond with a 5 paragraph work up where we offer nutrition, medical, and psychological advice. Finally we should provide our cell phone numbers so if they need moral support we can stop what we're doing and talk them through it. Because otherwise it's just REALLY unfair to expect an OP to think critically about the quick advice several internet strangers have offered for free and find creative ways to apply it to their own lives.
Guess what? We get a little tired too of hearing about how our attempts to help aren't good enough. I *kitten* give up. Let me get an endocrinology degree, become a registered dietician, and bone up on my psychology and then maybe I will be able to give useful advice to someone who doesn't know how to log food or use a kitchen scale.29 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.
Which is why I never discredited CICO, just said that the execution of CICO is vastly simplified for most people. Most understand that CICO is the way to lose weight, there is not much understanding or sympathy for those who struggle to execute it or choose to execute in their own way via other diet plans.8 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.
Which is why I never discredited CICO, just said that the execution of CICO is vastly simplified for most people. Most understand that CICO is the way to lose weight, there is not much understanding or sympathy for those who struggle to execute it or choose to execute in their own way via other diet plans.
You're obviously new here, lol. One read through the forums will quickly show you that's nowhere near the truth. People asking about ACV, fat burners, intermittent fasting, water fasting, cabbage diet, keto diet, insisting that insulin is responsible for obesity or that carbs and/or sugar are what matter for weight loss, etc.
I'd say the percentage of people (especially newer posters) who understand that CICO is the way to lose weight are probably the minority.16 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.
Which is why I never discredited CICO, just said that the execution of (calorie counting) is vastly simplified for most people. Most (don't) understand that CICO is (the formula used to measure the energy balance that occurs when one loses) weight, there is not much understanding or sympathy for those who struggle (with the ability to separate the underlying process behind ALL forms of weight loss and the current standard formula used to measure it from various methods, such as calorie counting which is the primary method espoused by MFP).
Yeah I fixed all that for you.9 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).30 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.
Which is why I never discredited CICO, just said that the execution of CICO is vastly simplified for most people. Most understand that CICO is the way to lose weight, there is not much understanding or sympathy for those who struggle to execute it or choose to execute in their own way via other diet plans.
And to add. Who is unsympathetic?10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
^ Outstanding analogy. Well said.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
Thank you for saying this without throwing a hissy fit like I did. This is kind of perfect
15 -
nettiklive wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
That's actually a really good example. Someone with no clue of how gravity works may think that gravity doesn't apply to birds. Just like there's people that count calories for a week, don't see the results they expect for one of the billion reasons that we tell them about every time they come to these forums, and think CICO doesn't work as it should.
Yes, but just as gravity does not prevent birds from flying, CICO may not prevent someone in a slight caloric deficit or surplus from losing or gaining weight, because other mechanisms are at work that alter the equation
What? Gravity doesn't even prevent YOU from flying as said gravitational constant equals centripetal acceleration . Are you saying this is not always the case? ... please reference physics citations ... A plane at either pole doesn't require the same velocity as a plane at the equator ... they both still fly and if it is the same airline both have the same baggage charges because the equation accounts for the extra 500m/s needed to keep the equator plane in the air. So it is not like there is an extra force in the equation and suddenly the rules don't apply.
These analogies are getting worse as this thread continues.6 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.
Which is why I never discredited CICO, just said that the execution of CICO is vastly simplified for most people. Most understand that CICO is the way to lose weight, there is not much understanding or sympathy for those who struggle to execute it or choose to execute in their own way via other diet plans.
And to add. Who is unsympathetic?
It's weird because I see so many people in this thread who volunteer their time and energy to help others (and I'm including myself in that) troubleshoot their logging, come up with strategies to be more successful, get more out of their exercise, better understand weight loss/fitness concepts, and -- YES -- even offer just support and empathy when they see a need for it.
And it's like none of it counts because we also accept CICO.
Whatever. It's Friday. I refuse to feel bad about the help I've tried to give people in other areas of the discussion board.19 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
The difference is that I am talking about directions that simply say "take the pieces out of the box and put them together." Those instructions, while some may be able to figure out how to put the bookshelf together, others may not. The way that CICO is presented on this site and the way people are judgmental of others who are trying to lose weight is not a step by step that you would get when putting a bookcase together.14 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody who's defending the validity of CICO has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_balance
So you are now saying that the way we may develop our own energy balances 'have absolutely nothing to do with CICO itself'?
I think this issue in some recent posts are not so much about what is meaningful or not meaningful but how some are willing to verbally abuse others if they disagree.
If CICO was actually scientifically validated that proof would be posted by someone every time the subject comes up. While CICO as used by some here is a term without validated scientific meaning as often used here it is good to run up the number of posts counter.
29 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
I stand corrected, this is an excellent analogy!4 -
IzzyFlower2018 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
That's actually a really good example. Someone with no clue of how gravity works may think that gravity doesn't apply to birds. Just like there's people that count calories for a week, don't see the results they expect for one of the billion reasons that we tell them about every time they come to these forums, and think CICO doesn't work as it should.
Yes, but just as gravity does not prevent birds from flying, CICO may not prevent someone in a slight caloric deficit or surplus from losing or gaining weight, because other mechanisms are at work that alter the equation
What? Gravity doesn't even prevent YOU from flying as said gravitational constant equals centripetal acceleration . Are you saying this is not always the case? ... please reference physics citations ... A plane at either pole doesn't require the same velocity as a plane at the equator ... the both still fly and if it is the same airline both have the same baggage charges because the equation accounts for the extra 500m/s needed to keep the equator plane in the air. So it is not like there is an extra force in the equation and suddenly the rules don't apply.
These analogies are getting worse as this thread continues.
That will happen as people realize their arguments are poor and they begin grasping at straws. It's very telling that they make an analogy that they think supports their argument... and then everyone tears it apart (as they should because, like you said, they're terrible analogies). It's like they think if they just explain it a different way... maybe it will make sense. ...
7 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.
Which is why I never discredited CICO, just said that the execution of CICO is vastly simplified for most people. Most understand that CICO is the way to lose weight, there is not much understanding or sympathy for those who struggle to execute it or choose to execute in their own way via other diet plans.
And I will challenge you, as I challenged other posters earlier in this thread, to find some actual examples of threads where people are dismissive of individuals and their approaches when it is presented as "this is how I like to eat in order to achieve my calorie deficit". The only time people tend to push back is when there are wild claims that a particular way of eating has benefits for CICO, ie "when I eat keto, I can eat more calories and still lose weight".
Personally I ALWAYS say that CICO is simple in principle, but not necessarily easy to implement. But again, if you've got examples of people who are dismissive or mean when someone expresses their personal challenges - I'd love to take a look. It's Friday after all, so timing is good.
18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
The difference is that I am talking about directions that simply say "take the pieces out of the box and put them together." Those instructions, while some may be able to figure out how to put the bookshelf together, others may not. The way that CICO is presented on this site and the way people are judgmental of others who are trying to lose weight is not a step by step that you would get when putting a bookcase together.
You and I are I guess reading different threads. I never see a struggling newbie just told to eat less. I mean one poster might say that, but there will be multiple other posts that go into rather great detail. I've seen multiple OPs who come back to reveal they have an ED told to consult their treatment team rather than count calories right now. I have seen threads that go for pages and pages as OP continues to ask questions and reveal more data, and posters hang in there patiently explaining all the different factors involved.
I started spending my spare time posting here because I saw other posters doing so when I started and I learned so much from them. I guess that's why I through my little fit. I see so many generous and patient volunteers here spend more time with an OP than any "professional" ever has until they get there issue figured out and it bothers me to see all that effort ignored and devalued.
If you see posts that are only being told to eat less, please feel free to chime in with more info, or heck even tag one of the many folks posting in here asking them to help the OP.17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
The difference is that I am talking about directions that simply say "take the pieces out of the box and put them together." Those instructions, while some may be able to figure out how to put the bookshelf together, others may not. The way that CICO is presented on this site and the way people are judgmental of others who are trying to lose weight is not a step by step that you would get when putting a bookcase together.
I think we're talking about two different groups of people. There are people who literally don't understand the "bookshelf instructions." They're the people coming here and asking questions like "Can I still lose weight if I eat bread once a week?" or "Help -- I want to lose weight but I can't exercise at all!" They don't get it, they need help with the instructions.
Then there are people who completely get the instructions, but they don't understand how to apply them in their own life. They're like me, knowing I need a ten inch board but feeling unsure how to really know if my board is ten inches. Or the instructions say to spread all the pieces on the living room floor to count them but they live in a studio and they can't do that. Or they were doing great but now they've dropped the hammer on their foot and they can't stop yelling at their husband. They understand what to do, they just don't know how to do it within the context of their skills, apartment, and marriage.
I'm straining the example here, I'm sure. The point is that I personally see help and sympathy for both types of people here. I see threads where people try to help others understand how weight loss happens, I see threads where people share what they are struggling with (how to accurately measure, how to make their schedule work, how to avoid exceeding their calorie goal, etc). You don't see those threads, we've had really different experiences here. I don't know if there is a bridge for that. May I suggest that you try to provide the type of help that you feel the veterans here are failing to provide?14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
The difference is that I am talking about directions that simply say "take the pieces out of the box and put them together." Those instructions, while some may be able to figure out how to put the bookshelf together, others may not. The way that CICO is presented on this site and the way people are judgmental of others who are trying to lose weight is not a step by step that you would get when putting a bookcase together.
I want my awesome button back! Qft19 -
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
However, what I'm seeing when I read through the forums isn't so much people insisting that CICO (though calorie counting is what usually meant) is the only way to lose weight; what I see is rather the opposite: it's the keto crowd and the IF crowd and the clean eating crowd and the macros crowd that are shrilly insisting that their way is the only way, not the folks who understand the principles of CICO and their application. And even if you CAN get a keto evangelist to even agree that perhaps a person CAN lose weight and still have more than 10% carbs in their daily diet, they are quick to claim that the person would still feel so much better and lose so much more weight and be so much more healthier if they'd do keto because everyone knows its superior to everything else!
The point that many of these respondents are trying to make is to help the OPs of those various threads understand that there isn't only one method that works, and that they don't have to give up anything or have to eat keto or have to give up sugar or whatever if they really don't want to, which for most people who are starting out is a relief - it makes changing their lifestyle a little easier by not having to drastically change everything at once (unless, of course, they are one of those folks who responds best to such changes). I don't see the respondents bashing these people if they want to try low carb diets or intermittent fasting or any other reasonable diet plan; what I see the rational, knowledgeable respondents trying to do is get the person to understand the basic mechanism behind losing weight so they can actually open up their options and gain more tools in losing the weight they want to achieve, instead of just being handed a hammer and a straight blade screwdriver and told they have to climb Mt. Achievement with only those tools because those are the only tools that work, which is what I hear from the other activists for whatever their favorite diet flavor is.
25 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
However, what I'm seeing when I read through the forums isn't so much people insisting that CICO (though calorie counting is what usually meant) is the only way to lose weight; what I see is rather the opposite: it's the keto crowd and the IF crowd and the clean eating crowd and the macros crowd that are shrilly insisting that their way is the only way, not the folks who understand the principles of CICO and their application. And even if you CAN get a keto evangelist to even agree that perhaps a person CAN lose weight and still have more than 10% carbs in their daily diet, they are quick to claim that the person would still feel so much better and lose so much more weight and be so much more healthier if they'd do keto because everyone knows its superior to everything else!
The point that many of these respondents are trying to make is to help the OPs of those various threads understand that there isn't only one method that works, and that they don't have to give up anything or have to eat keto or have to give up sugar or whatever if they really don't want to, which for most people who are starting out is a relief - it makes changing their lifestyle a little easier by not having to drastically change everything at once (unless, of course, they are one of those folks who responds best to such changes). I don't see the respondents bashing these people if they want to try low carb diets or intermittent fasting or any other reasonable diet plan; what I see the rational, knowledgeable respondents trying to do is get the person to understand the basic mechanism behind losing weight so they can actually open up their options and gain more tools in losing the weight they want to achieve, instead of just being handed a hammer and a straight blade screwdriver and told they have to climb Mt. Achievement with only those tools because those are the only tools that work, which is what I hear from the other activists for whatever their favorite diet flavor is.
^ Hit the nail right on the head.11 -
So just so we are clear, with every post we are supposed to add the following disclaimers:
Calories are what matter for weight loss! (annotated reference to detailed discussions about nutrition and overall health).
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! (detailed discussion of every possible way of eating and dietary preference that may be chosen, along with detailed discussion of every possible rare metabolic disorder that may be a factor even though the OP didn't disclose any medical issues in his/her post)
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (with the caveat that no one can know precisely what their own calorie burn is to the decimal since we are not bomb calorimeters and there are a host of external variables that don't matter in the big picture but nevertheless need to be mentioned to appease some posters).
Gotcha.21 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So just so we are clear, with every post we are supposed to add the following disclaimers:
Calories are what matter for weight loss! (annotated reference to detailed discussions about nutrition and overall health).
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! (detailed discussion of every possible way of eating and dietary preference that may be chosen, along with detailed discussion of every possible rare metabolic disorder that may be a factor even though the OP didn't disclose any medical issues in his/her post)
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (with the caveat that no one can know precisely what their own calorie burn is to the decimal since we are not bomb calorimeters and there are a host of external variables that don't matter in the big picture but nevertheless need to be mentioned to appease some posters).
Gotcha.
Whelp. So I guess in other words, unless you have advanced degrees in physiology, molecular biology and psychology/behavioral sciences, and are willing to write a detailed dissertation in each and every post, don't even bother responding.
That oughta cut down the amount of discussion in the forums.14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 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