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
-
The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. CICO says it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you eat the correct number of calories for your activity level. This claim is based on the physics first law of thermodynamics which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system. CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is automatically stored as fat. Again, this is easy and simple to understand, but it isn't how the body works. For one, the body is not a closed system. Second, energy and fat storage are processes that, like every other process in the body, are tightly regulated by hormones. If you take two plates of food with equal calories, say, a plate of cookies and a plate of salmon cooked in olive oil, the body will not process them the same way. The cookies will raise insulin a lot, the salmon will not. Too much insulin over time will cause insulin resistance and insulin resistance will cause weight gain.
The Harvard Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II) are among the largest prospective investigations into the risk factors for major chronic diseases in women. It has been called one of the most significant studies ever conducted on the health of women. Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the information provided by 238,000 nurse-participants over 40+ years has allowed NHS to produce important advances in medical practice and dietary guidelines.
The analysis examined how an array of factors influenced weight gain or loss. The average participant gained 3.35 pounds every four years, for a total weight gain of 16.8 pounds over 20 years. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said this in an interview: “This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach. What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating."
40 -
Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. CICO says it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you eat the correct number of calories for your activity level. This claim is based on the physics first law of thermodynamics which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system. CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is automatically stored as fat. Again, this is easy and simple to understand, but it isn't how the body works. For one, the body is not a closed system. Second, energy and fat storage are processes that, like every other process in the body, are tightly regulated by hormones. If you take two plates of food with equal calories, say, a plate of cookies and a plate of salmon cooked in olive oil, the body will not process them the same way. The cookies will raise insulin a lot, the salmon will not. Too much insulin over time will cause insulin resistance and insulin resistance will cause weight gain.
The Harvard Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II) are among the largest prospective investigations into the risk factors for major chronic diseases in women. It has been called one of the most significant studies ever conducted on the health of women. Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the information provided by 238,000 nurse-participants over 40+ years has allowed NHS to produce important advances in medical practice and dietary guidelines.
The analysis examined how an array of factors influenced weight gain or loss. The average participant gained 3.35 pounds every four years, for a total weight gain of 16.8 pounds over 20 years. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said this in an interview: “This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach. What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating."
1. Might be helpful to read the thread before you jump in. Much of what you claim has already been discussed.
2. You seem to be another who is misusing CICO. It doesn’t mean eat anything you want in moderation. It is not synonymous with counting calories. It is a fundamental energy balance that if you take in less than you burn, you will lose weight. It does not have anything to do with nutritional properties of food.
3. If CICO isn’t responsible for weight loss, weight gain, what do you believe is?
4. So those of us who have lost weight and kept it off using the principles of CICO to determine and manipulate our energy balance to achieve goals are what... wrong? I didn’t lose weight? I’m not really wearing a size 4 instead of a size 10?33 -
there is no mention whatsoever in that study of how participants tracked their food consumption...
from the study specifically:
Total energy intake is not well estimated from dietary questionnaires, nor does it reflect energy balance, which is necessarily codetermined by energy expenditure. Thus, weight change is the best population metric of energy imbalance and at least partly captures energy intake after adjustment for determinants of expenditure (e.g., age, body-mass index, and physical activity).
which negates your entire argument -21 -
Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. CICO says it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you eat the correct number of calories for your activity level. This claim is based on the physics first law of thermodynamics which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system. CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is automatically stored as fat. Again, this is easy and simple to understand, but it isn't how the body works. For one, the body is not a closed system. Second, energy and fat storage are processes that, like every other process in the body, are tightly regulated by hormones. If you take two plates of food with equal calories, say, a plate of cookies and a plate of salmon cooked in olive oil, the body will not process them the same way. The cookies will raise insulin a lot, the salmon will not. Too much insulin over time will cause insulin resistance and insulin resistance will cause weight gain.
The Harvard Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II) are among the largest prospective investigations into the risk factors for major chronic diseases in women. It has been called one of the most significant studies ever conducted on the health of women. Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the information provided by 238,000 nurse-participants over 40+ years has allowed NHS to produce important advances in medical practice and dietary guidelines.
The analysis examined how an array of factors influenced weight gain or loss. The average participant gained 3.35 pounds every four years, for a total weight gain of 16.8 pounds over 20 years. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said this in an interview: “This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach. What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating."
This is your third post in this thread. You might want to read the responses rather than jumping in, spewing the same nonsense, and flouncing off.16 -
Wow. 40 pages of this:
and this:
...
13 -
Some of the ish coming from Harvard has been suspect or possibly taken out of context. I'd have to know more about the Mozzafarian quote to know for sure which one is at play here.
I know this much:
An epidemiologist who would give a quote implying that you could get causative findings from a cohort study isn't worth listening to.
Furthermore, that has nothing to do with what CICO means and spare me the insulin nonsense theory that's been falsified.16 -
nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
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.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
Which is why you will see people encouraged to partner with a doctor or other medical professional once the obvious issues of inaccurate estimation of calories in/out, logging issues, "cheat days," etc have been addressed and eliminated.
We just don't automatically jump to "You must have a defective board" when someone posts "Hey, I have a question about how to put a bookshelf together."11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Some of the ish coming from Harvard has been suspect or possibly taken out of context. I'd have to know more about the Mozzafarian quote to know for sure which one is at play here.
I know this much:
An epidemiologist who would give a quote implying that you could get causative findings from a cohort study isn't worth listening to.
Furthermore, that has nothing to do with what CICO means and spare me the insulin nonsense theory that's been falsified.
And it's important to note that just because a doctor/researcher says a study shows something, doesn't mean the study actually shows that. Especially when they're being interviewed and are either trying to garner publicity or raise money. A sound study can still lead to facepalm statements from the researchers involved.9 -
Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. . . . .
This is like saying that safer sex doesn't work because people still get STDs despite advice from professionals to practice safer sex or that budgets don't work because people are still getting into debt despite professionals telling us we shouldn't spend more money than we have.
Yes, we are told to eat less and move more. But without understanding how many of us *actually apply* that advice and how effectively, it's impossible to use that as evidence that CICO doesn't work.
People can ignore good advice. People ignore good advice all the time.26 -
That seems to me to be like saying speedometers don't work because people still get caught speeding.
The speedometer isn't the issue - it is the application of the driver.
Likewise CICO or Eat less, move more isn't the issue - it is the application of the 'drivers'23 -
Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work.
It doesn’t?
But if reducing my CI and increasing my CO isn’t what caused my 15 stone weight loss, then what did? AM I DYING OF AN UNDIAGNOSED CHRONIC DISEASE?!?!
...oh, no, wait, false alarm, it was CI<CO after all. Don’t scare me like that.24 -
Does that mean I have to give back the 72 pounds I've lost eating whatever I want and maintaining a calorie deficit?Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work...
16 -
It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
The point that current research makes is that CICO matters, certainly, but it is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.28 -
Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
The point that current research makes is that CICO is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss quite so easy.
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get it under control, it might be more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.
You do not appear to understand what CICO means.30 -
stevencloser wrote: »You do not appear to understand what CICO means.
Lol, not only can I tell you what CICO means, I can tell you how the idea was developed and who first coined the phrase.
CICO refers to the concept of "Calories In Calories Out." Meaning that if Calories Out remains stable over time, then reducing Calories In should produce weight loss. The basis for this thinking is the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. This is the law invoked to support the Calories In/Calories Out model, and was most notably used by a prominent obesity researcher, Dr. Jules Hirsch in a 2012 New York Times article. He stated, "There is an inflexible law of physics— energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content— reduce obesity— one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras."
You do bring up an interesting point however, that perhaps not all posters on this thread actually know what CICO means.
14 -
Hermesonly wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You do not appear to understand what CICO means.
Lol, not only can I tell you what CICO means, I can tell you how the idea was developed and who first coined the phrase.
CICO refers to the concept of "Calories In Calories Out." Meaning that if Calories Out remains stable over time, then reducing Calories In should produce weight loss. The basis for this thinking is the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. This is the law often invoked to support the Calories In/Calories Out model, and was most notably used by a prominent obesity researcher, Dr. Jules Hirsch in a 2012 New York Times article. He stated, "There is an inflexible law of physics— energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content— reduce obesity— one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras."
You do bring up an interesting point however, that perhaps all posters on this thread don't actually know what CICO means.
How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
16 -
Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO.
Nobody is "upset." People are debating you. As you point out, that's exactly what this space is for.14 -
Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
The point that current research makes is that CICO matters, certainly, but it is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.
Not really--I would say that "correct calorie counting" is hard to do. THAT is the problem with CICO, not that it's irrelevent. As for the obesity epidemic, the media is not pushing calorie counting--no profit to be made. It's easier to say it doesn't work, but hey, you can lose 10 lbs in a week easy if you just buy this magazine or book or whatever, and find out how.11 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
The point that current research makes is that CICO matters, certainly, but it is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.
Not really--I would say that "correct calorie counting" is hard to do. THAT is the problem with CICO calorie counting, not that it's irrelevent. As for the obesity epidemic, the media is not pushing calorie counting--no profit to be made. It's easier to say it doesn't work, but hey, you can lose 10 lbs in a week easy if you just buy this magazine or book or whatever, and find out how.
FIFY
CICO is not a diet. It happens internally, inside your body, no matter what you are doing on the outside.
11 -
Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
Cite some of this forward thinking research, please. I'm going to assume it consists of the highest standard, which is the meta-analysis.The point that current research makes is that CICO matters, certainly, but it is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
CICO isn't calorie counting. CICO is the energy balance that regulates weight management. The whole premise of this paragraph is flawed.It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Again, CICO is NOT the act of counting calories. It is the regulation by the body of energy balance.Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.
By what is the body's regulation of energy balance getting left in the dust?
It's quite apparent that the whole foundation of your arguments is based on a fundamental misunderstanding on what CICO is.
15 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
The point that current research makes is that CICO matters, certainly, but it is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.
Not really--I would say that "correct calorie counting" is hard to do. THAT is the problem with CICO calorie counting, not that it's irrelevent. As for the obesity epidemic, the media is not pushing calorie counting--no profit to be made. It's easier to say it doesn't work, but hey, you can lose 10 lbs in a week easy if you just buy this magazine or book or whatever, and find out how.
FIFY
CICO is not a diet. It happens internally, inside your body, no matter what you are doing on the outside.
I KNOW that. The poster is bashing CICO and calorie counting uses CICO (as does any diet) to be successful.0 -
Hermesonly wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You do not appear to understand what CICO means.
Lol, not only can I tell you what CICO means, I can tell you how the idea was developed and who first coined the phrase.
CICO refers to the concept of "Calories In Calories Out." Meaning that if Calories Out remains stable over time, then reducing Calories In should produce weight loss. The basis for this thinking is the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. This is the law invoked to support the Calories In/Calories Out model, and was most notably used by a prominent obesity researcher, Dr. Jules Hirsch in a 2012 New York Times article. He stated, "There is an inflexible law of physics— energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content— reduce obesity— one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras."
You do bring up an interesting point however, that perhaps not all posters on this thread actually know what CICO means.
Umm-hmmmIt also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get it under control, it might be more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
8 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
22 -
"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...27 -
stevencloser wrote: »"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...
13 -
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get it under control, it might be more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Interesting combination of:
&
8 -
BishopWankapin wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...
I think we can all agree--you can't triple stamp a double stamp (Lloyd!).5 -
BishopWankapin wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...
I think we can all agree--you can't triple stamp a double stamp (Lloyd!).
3 -
Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.30 -
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.
If you had bothered to read the thread in its entirety... you would realize that you have nothing productive to contribute to the conversation as these points have largely all been addressed already. Thanks for your, um, help, though20
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions