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 ?

1…3031333536…49

Replies

  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    abbynormal52 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    abbynormal52 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    abbynormal52 wrote: »
    Caralarma wrote: »
    So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong

    I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.

    Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?

    And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?

    Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.

    Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")

    This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.

    Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".

    Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.

    What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?

    Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?

    I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.

    (Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).

    CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.

    This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.

    Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.

    CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.


    Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.

    I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.

    I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.

    I think the disconnect is that you're using "CICO" as a way to say "counting calories." They're different -- CICO is happening whether one is counting calories or not. We all adhere to CICO, we have no choice. It's just how our bodies operate. Within that context, some of us count calories and others don't.

    Got it- I've always used CICO and "counting calories" interchangeably, which apparently is confusing others :smiley:

    CICO is just shorthand for the first law of thermodynamics which states that the change in energy in a system is equal to the input of energy minus the energy exported by the system into the enviornment.

    Calorie counting is just a strategy some people employ to track weight loss/gain/maintenance.

    They aren't the same thing. You can say that the strategy of calorie counting for weightloss relies on CICO....but in the same way you could say that the strategy of weightlifting for strength gains relies on gravity.

    Stating that CICO is just a step or one option for weightloss would be like stating that gravity is just a step or one option for strength gains...it just a weird and rather inaccurate way of saying it.

    Totally understand why this happens though, a lot of people on the internet use the term to mean calorie counting even though it literally just stands for calories in calories out (account for total change in calories in a system).

    Thanks for the explanation of CICO - but I stated above that I referenced CICO instead of “calorie counting”. I meant calorie counting - I was talking about calorie counting.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,563 Member
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Honestly, although I seem to keep getting sucked in, the CICO or not debate typically ends up just boring me because largely it stems just from two different groups using the same term completely differently.

    One group views CICO to be a reference to the concept of energy balance derived from thermodynamics stating that simply put if you account for all of the energy input and output from a system you can account for the change in energy of that system. Applied to humans and food that basically just means if you can account for the calories you eat and the calories your body requires to be alive and do work then you should be able to track how many calories you are netting which corresponds directly to how much weight you are putting on or losing in terms of your caloric storage (fat/glycogen). This group cannot fathom why anyone would question CICO itself since that is like going after gravity...it is a fundamental rule of reality, in what way does it make sense to question it? With CICO defined that way...they are right.

    The other group views CICO to be a particular strategy when it comes to weightloss, specifically calorie counting. They view people who tout CICO as the be-all-end-all to be arrogant reductionists who think their way of doing things (calorie counting) is the ONLY way of doing things and that if you question them you are just an idiot. They see people defend the strategy of calorie counting by claiming that CICO is all that matters and that you could eat ho-ho's all day and still lose weight and they find that a ridiculous claim to make....because as a strategy for weight loss that is terrible. With CICO defined that way....they are right.

    One group sees CICO as a reference to a fundamental law that is objectively true while the other group sees CICO as a strategy that may work for some people, but not for everyone. The disagreements and arguments are 99 times out of 100 just them completely talking past one another because they are using the same term to mean two separate things...which is rather a waste of time.

    I understand your POV, but I'll stand by the CICO<>calorie counting. They are two separate concepts and the fact that some confuse them for each other doesn't change that. Yes, it's about definition, but it's like the old question of how many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg. The answer is 4 because you can't count the tail as a leg.

    CICO is not a process, method, way of eating or anything other than a fundamental law.

    I think his post is right on target, though, as to the why of the endless cross-posts on CICO, (and why it's necessary to repeat over and over and over why CICO and calorie counting are two different things). There's no catchy name for calorie-counting, it's not a specific diet, it's not a "way of eating", and newbys especially interpret "you can eat anything you want within your calorie goal" as encouragement to ignore meeting basic nutrition needs and discouragement from improving the nutrient-density of their diet as they lose weight.

    I bet if someone invented a catchy name for calorie counting and put together some restrictive rules* the difference between CICO and Calorie Counting (the CC way of eating?) there would be less confusion between the two.

    *Please nobody do this, there's enough misinformation running around the boards as it is :(
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    nettiklive wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is arguing against the physical principle of CICO. For the purpose of discussion here, I see it as a synonym for calorie counting, or not necessarily counting but basically consciously limiting caloric intake to lose weight. I think any debate on the topic should focus around that and not go around and around in circles restating that CICO is not a weight loss method but a scientific formula. It's pointless, like restating that gravity is a scientific concept is not that helpful in a discussion of how to get a paper plane to fly better.

    But the bolded is NOT what it is. If you want to talk about calorie counting or consciously eating less, moving more or some such, why not do that and avoid the confusion? Especially after people have explained over and over and over again that they do not see CICO as a synonym for calorie counting.
    This very thread started with the OP clearly referring to CICO as a weight loss method, and asking why people 'don't believe in it'

    The question was why people don't see CICO as the reason for weight gain, loss, or maintenance. Once you understand that, YES, you can use it for intentional weight loss, as OP stated, but you don't need to count calories to do so. Thus, the thread is not about calorie counting. For example, I think not believing in CICO is common, yet absurd, while I think the position that "calorie counting is not a good method for everyone" is a sensible one.
    but the fact that the formula exists is little help for people who are unable to lose weight using the recommended MFP-type caloric deficit and tracking.

    Not if you use common sense and adjust.

    Yes, the TDEE calculators don't work for everyone. They can be wrong for outliers, they are often wrong for people with huge amounts to lose (as it's muscle more than fat that determines TDEE in reality), they are very often wrong because people aren't accurate about the amount they move or eat or whatever. That doesn't make calorie counting (or ELMM) hard to apply if you just adjust based on results.

    That said, yes, of course weight loss can be difficult for lots of reasons and like I said above I don't think calorie counting is the best method for all. That has zero to do with CICO.

    What an understanding of CICO does, however, is to allow you to use that information to figure out what does work well for you, whatever your goals.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    edited May 2018
    [Deleted because didn't read the entire post before replying.]
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    edited May 2018
    nettiklive wrote: »
    Haha.

    As a short, small, sedentary woman close to goal weight , my maintenance is around 1400-1500 and losing .5 lb a week means 1200. Leaving a margin for failure is much much harder than with another 1000 calories.

    True,

    90% of 2250 is larger than 90% of 1200. My alarm bells in my head go off at 2k calories. For someone with a 1200 limit, that 90% point is 1080 calories, leaving only a 120 calorie gap.

    Not impossible, but it does make the task harder.

    But then, I have to fit everything into only 225g of carbohydrates. You could have 300g of carbohydrates (and nothing else) and be at 1200 calories.

    We all have our struggle :)

Categories