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
-
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
And just for giggles, after ending the celebrations my bride's birthday and stricter limits on my carbs, instead of waking up with 115-120 mg/dL BG levels like I did Sun-Tues, this morning, after having only ~1600 calories and 46g of carbohydrates, I had a more respectable 103 mg/dL BG reading this morning before I went to the gym.
Comparable amounts of exercise on Monday and Tuesday, so no real change there. Just staying as far away as humanly possible to the 225g of carbs and bam, BG levels approach normal.
Who knew you couldn't live on wine and cake?
And who suggests that you can...?
Not exactly wine and cake, but not far off from some real advice peddled these days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxCUHjx7U7Y 6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
Tracking CI is far from a perfect science but at least it's visible and somewhat within our control. CO is the hard part - that's the part that's invisible and we have no idea what's happening on that end, we're just guessing. As I mentioned somewhere, if they could come up with a mobile wearable device that would track your exact caloric output all the time, around the clock, I'd be willing to bet a lot more people, at least those motivated enough, would be successful at using caloric restriction to lose weight.
Is it really that hard to track CI or CO? Or is it that people try to go right up to the line drawn as the upper limit of CI for the day?
If you drive a car, it probably has a fuel gauge. For the purposes of this thought experiment, the gauge works. Now do you drive until the car stops, or do you, at some point, notice the gauge is getting close to the E mark and you need to refuel?
I'd say the vast majority of people don't take the gauge past E to the W or Walk reading.
So why not take that same approach with CI vs CO. Yes, it can be inaccurate. OK, so if you are given 2250 calories/day, as my dietitian gave me, how much margin do you leave yourself so you don't fall victim to inaccuracies?
There are ways to mitigate the inaccuracy. Much like the fuel gauge isn't a scientific instrument, giving you 64bit precision with respect to fuel level, CI measurement, when done properly and with some margin, can give the user an idea of where they are in their calorie allowance for the day.
If I know I'm going to drive 300 miles today, I'm going to get some fuel before the trip. I'll need 8-10 gallons of fuel for that trip. If I know I'm going to a birthday party today, I might shave a few hundred calories off of breakfast so I can have a small square of cake and not run out of allowance.
If I'm measuring cheese for my omelette and 28g is my target, 27g is close enough. I don't need to go right up to 28g if my goal is LIMITING my caloric intake. On the other side of the equation, if I get an extra gram of raw vegetables, such as spinach or peppers, the costs of being wrong are not as high as with cheese or ice cream. So I pick my battles and try to be under on the most calorie (and carb) dense foods and don't mind if I'm over on green leafy vegetables and the like.
In other words, I try to build in reserve and adjust my behavior before I ever reach the reserve.
But how many people leave no margin? They are bad at reading the gauge. They didn't measure how much fuel they put in during breakfast, so they overflow their tank at lunch.
How do I get around the CO portion. I don't eat my exercise calories. Then it simply doesn't matter. If my fit-bit is off by 10 or 20% on how many calories I burned in that 60 minute spin class or my last 25 mile bike ride, it doesn't matter because I'm not eating into my exercise calories.
I get 2250/day with 225g of them being carbs and the other 60% being fat and protein. It doesn't really matter if I channel surfed or ran a 10k, I get 2250 calories, limited to 225g of carbs.
That way, if I happen to go over, it's really no big deal. But that's a once or twice a month thing and isn't going to do anything other than delay my progress for a fraction of a day.
And as I lose weight, I'll adjust that 2250/day proportionally. So if I've lost 10% of the weight when assigned that 2250 calorie target, I can downward adjust my targets so I have say 2025-2140 calories and a similar adjustment to my carb limits.
FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
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.
Don't be sedentary and your margin for error will increase...
Yes, for the majority of sedentary people being sedentary is a choice. If you don't like the results being sedentary has on the amount of calories you burn per day, you can choose to no longer be sedentary.
There is a proverb that says, "some would rather curse the darkness than light a single lamp."15 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
And just for giggles, after ending the celebrations my bride's birthday and stricter limits on my carbs, instead of waking up with 115-120 mg/dL BG levels like I did Sun-Tues, this morning, after having only ~1600 calories and 46g of carbohydrates, I had a more respectable 103 mg/dL BG reading this morning before I went to the gym.
Comparable amounts of exercise on Monday and Tuesday, so no real change there. Just staying as far away as humanly possible to the 225g of carbs and bam, BG levels approach normal.
Who knew you couldn't live on wine and cake?
And who suggests that you can...?
Not exactly wine and cake, but not far off from some real advice peddled these days:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxCUHjx7U7Y
Not going to entertain a response to this nonsense...11 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
And just for giggles, after ending the celebrations my bride's birthday and stricter limits on my carbs, instead of waking up with 115-120 mg/dL BG levels like I did Sun-Tues, this morning, after having only ~1600 calories and 46g of carbohydrates, I had a more respectable 103 mg/dL BG reading this morning before I went to the gym.
Comparable amounts of exercise on Monday and Tuesday, so no real change there. Just staying as far away as humanly possible to the 225g of carbs and bam, BG levels approach normal.
Who knew you couldn't live on wine and cake?
And who suggests that you can...?
Not exactly wine and cake, but not far off from some real advice peddled these days:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxCUHjx7U7Y
Not going to entertain a response to this nonsense...
It's hard to watch because it reminds me of the days when SNL was funny. Today, not so much.
It's humor, lighten up Francis
3 -
10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
Tracking CI is far from a perfect science but at least it's visible and somewhat within our control. CO is the hard part - that's the part that's invisible and we have no idea what's happening on that end, we're just guessing. As I mentioned somewhere, if they could come up with a mobile wearable device that would track your exact caloric output all the time, around the clock, I'd be willing to bet a lot more people, at least those motivated enough, would be successful at using caloric restriction to lose weight.
Is it really that hard to track CI or CO? Or is it that people try to go right up to the line drawn as the upper limit of CI for the day?
If you drive a car, it probably has a fuel gauge. For the purposes of this thought experiment, the gauge works. Now do you drive until the car stops, or do you, at some point, notice the gauge is getting close to the E mark and you need to refuel?
I'd say the vast majority of people don't take the gauge past E to the W or Walk reading.
So why not take that same approach with CI vs CO. Yes, it can be inaccurate. OK, so if you are given 2250 calories/day, as my dietitian gave me, how much margin do you leave yourself so you don't fall victim to inaccuracies?
There are ways to mitigate the inaccuracy. Much like the fuel gauge isn't a scientific instrument, giving you 64bit precision with respect to fuel level, CI measurement, when done properly and with some margin, can give the user an idea of where they are in their calorie allowance for the day.
If I know I'm going to drive 300 miles today, I'm going to get some fuel before the trip. I'll need 8-10 gallons of fuel for that trip. If I know I'm going to a birthday party today, I might shave a few hundred calories off of breakfast so I can have a small square of cake and not run out of allowance.
If I'm measuring cheese for my omelette and 28g is my target, 27g is close enough. I don't need to go right up to 28g if my goal is LIMITING my caloric intake. On the other side of the equation, if I get an extra gram of raw vegetables, such as spinach or peppers, the costs of being wrong are not as high as with cheese or ice cream. So I pick my battles and try to be under on the most calorie (and carb) dense foods and don't mind if I'm over on green leafy vegetables and the like.
In other words, I try to build in reserve and adjust my behavior before I ever reach the reserve.
But how many people leave no margin? They are bad at reading the gauge. They didn't measure how much fuel they put in during breakfast, so they overflow their tank at lunch.
How do I get around the CO portion. I don't eat my exercise calories. Then it simply doesn't matter. If my fit-bit is off by 10 or 20% on how many calories I burned in that 60 minute spin class or my last 25 mile bike ride, it doesn't matter because I'm not eating into my exercise calories.
I get 2250/day with 225g of them being carbs and the other 60% being fat and protein. It doesn't really matter if I channel surfed or ran a 10k, I get 2250 calories, limited to 225g of carbs.
That way, if I happen to go over, it's really no big deal. But that's a once or twice a month thing and isn't going to do anything other than delay my progress for a fraction of a day.
And as I lose weight, I'll adjust that 2250/day proportionally. So if I've lost 10% of the weight when assigned that 2250 calorie target, I can downward adjust my targets so I have say 2025-2140 calories and a similar adjustment to my carb limits.
FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
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.
Don't be sedentary and your margin for error will increase...
Yes, for the majority of sedentary people being sedentary is a choice. If you don't like the results being sedentary has on the amount of calories you burn per day, you can choose to no longer be sedentary.
There is a proverb that says, "some would rather curse the darkness than light a single lamp."
Being a Mean Girl, I'd put it a bit differently:
We each have a limited amount of mental and emotional bandwidth.
If I use it to focus on the factors I personally influence and control, and act on those, I gain a sense of agency and mastery, and usually effect some improvement. The extreme alternative would be to focus on why circumstances are so unfair and try to find a way to understand and change the currently uncontrollable factors, which tends to lead to failure, frustration, and a sense of powerlessness. (It does give me a handy list of reasons why I'm not succeeding - conversation fodder - though).
Even if the only factors I control are my own emotional reactions to circumstances, there's usually room for choice between feeling OK with things and moving on, or becoming mired in unhappy resentfulness. I don't enjoy being unhappy; it's a waste of valuable time.
TL;DR: I have two choices, change myself, or change the uncontrollable circumstances. One has higher odds of success.
I don't really need to say how this applies to CICO or its denial, do I?
15 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
And just for giggles, after ending the celebrations my bride's birthday and stricter limits on my carbs, instead of waking up with 115-120 mg/dL BG levels like I did Sun-Tues, this morning, after having only ~1600 calories and 46g of carbohydrates, I had a more respectable 103 mg/dL BG reading this morning before I went to the gym.
Comparable amounts of exercise on Monday and Tuesday, so no real change there. Just staying as far away as humanly possible to the 225g of carbs and bam, BG levels approach normal.
Who knew you couldn't live on wine and cake?
And who suggests that you can...?
Not exactly wine and cake, but not far off from some real advice peddled these days:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxCUHjx7U7Y
Not going to entertain a response to this nonsense...
It's hard to watch because it reminds me of the days when SNL was funny. Today, not so much.
It's humor, lighten up Francis
It's stupid...9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
Tracking CI is far from a perfect science but at least it's visible and somewhat within our control. CO is the hard part - that's the part that's invisible and we have no idea what's happening on that end, we're just guessing. As I mentioned somewhere, if they could come up with a mobile wearable device that would track your exact caloric output all the time, around the clock, I'd be willing to bet a lot more people, at least those motivated enough, would be successful at using caloric restriction to lose weight.
Is it really that hard to track CI or CO? Or is it that people try to go right up to the line drawn as the upper limit of CI for the day?
If you drive a car, it probably has a fuel gauge. For the purposes of this thought experiment, the gauge works. Now do you drive until the car stops, or do you, at some point, notice the gauge is getting close to the E mark and you need to refuel?
I'd say the vast majority of people don't take the gauge past E to the W or Walk reading.
So why not take that same approach with CI vs CO. Yes, it can be inaccurate. OK, so if you are given 2250 calories/day, as my dietitian gave me, how much margin do you leave yourself so you don't fall victim to inaccuracies?
There are ways to mitigate the inaccuracy. Much like the fuel gauge isn't a scientific instrument, giving you 64bit precision with respect to fuel level, CI measurement, when done properly and with some margin, can give the user an idea of where they are in their calorie allowance for the day.
If I know I'm going to drive 300 miles today, I'm going to get some fuel before the trip. I'll need 8-10 gallons of fuel for that trip. If I know I'm going to a birthday party today, I might shave a few hundred calories off of breakfast so I can have a small square of cake and not run out of allowance.
If I'm measuring cheese for my omelette and 28g is my target, 27g is close enough. I don't need to go right up to 28g if my goal is LIMITING my caloric intake. On the other side of the equation, if I get an extra gram of raw vegetables, such as spinach or peppers, the costs of being wrong are not as high as with cheese or ice cream. So I pick my battles and try to be under on the most calorie (and carb) dense foods and don't mind if I'm over on green leafy vegetables and the like.
In other words, I try to build in reserve and adjust my behavior before I ever reach the reserve.
But how many people leave no margin? They are bad at reading the gauge. They didn't measure how much fuel they put in during breakfast, so they overflow their tank at lunch.
How do I get around the CO portion. I don't eat my exercise calories. Then it simply doesn't matter. If my fit-bit is off by 10 or 20% on how many calories I burned in that 60 minute spin class or my last 25 mile bike ride, it doesn't matter because I'm not eating into my exercise calories.
I get 2250/day with 225g of them being carbs and the other 60% being fat and protein. It doesn't really matter if I channel surfed or ran a 10k, I get 2250 calories, limited to 225g of carbs.
That way, if I happen to go over, it's really no big deal. But that's a once or twice a month thing and isn't going to do anything other than delay my progress for a fraction of a day.
And as I lose weight, I'll adjust that 2250/day proportionally. So if I've lost 10% of the weight when assigned that 2250 calorie target, I can downward adjust my targets so I have say 2025-2140 calories and a similar adjustment to my carb limits.
FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
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.
Don't be sedentary and your margin for error will increase...
Yes, for the majority of sedentary people being sedentary is a choice. If you don't like the results being sedentary has on the amount of calories you burn per day, you can choose to no longer be sedentary.
There is a proverb that says, "some would rather curse the darkness than light a single lamp."
Being a Mean Girl, I'd put it a bit differently:
We each have a limited amount of mental and emotional bandwidth.
If I use it to focus on the factors I personally influence and control, and act on those, I gain a sense of agency and mastery, and usually effect some improvement. The extreme alternative would be to focus on why circumstances are so unfair and try to find a way to understand and change the currently uncontrollable factors, which tends to lead to failure, frustration, and a sense of powerlessness. (It does give me a handy list of reasons why I'm not succeeding - conversation fodder - though).
Even if the only factors I control are my own emotional reactions to circumstances, there's usually room for choice between feeling OK with things and moving on, or becoming mired in unhappy resentfulness. I don't enjoy being unhappy; it's a waste of valuable time.
TL;DR: I have two choices, change myself, or change the uncontrollable circumstances. One has higher odds of success.
I don't really need to say how this applies to CICO or its denial, do I?
You can't calm the storm, so stop trying. What you can do is calm yourself. The storm will pass.
— Timber Hawkeye14 -
I often read, count carbs. But seriously, carbs only -- I can eat a ton of meat & cheese.
0 -
I just wanted to make the 1,000th comment. Carry on.5
-
xFreudianSlip wrote: »In my case, because it's not that simple. I have many autoimmune diseases, including a thyroid one, I have no thyroid. It's just not as simple as CICO for me and people with these issues. However, anyone can lose weight. I've lost 70ish lbs so far.
It is no different for those of us who are sans thyroid. It is that simple.
Thyroid and other hormones have a marginal impact on metabolism ~5% from clinical observation and that is going from full supplementation to zero supplementation.7 -
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.
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':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
People are disagreeing with the bolded because maybe they tried 'eating anything they want' and weren't able to lose weight, for various reasons. Or they followed their calculated TDEE only not to have results (because maybe it's way off for medical or other reasons). None of that invalidates the formula, 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.
It is of tremendous help. If one is unsuccessful then logical course of action is to review their behavior and find out potential errors.
If you are unwilling to review or even acknowledge that behavior is not a root cause and that instead the principle is flawed, then there is quite frankly no power in the known universe that can help you.12 -
nettiklive wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
Tracking CI is far from a perfect science but at least it's visible and somewhat within our control. CO is the hard part - that's the part that's invisible and we have no idea what's happening on that end, we're just guessing. As I mentioned somewhere, if they could come up with a mobile wearable device that would track your exact caloric output all the time, around the clock, I'd be willing to bet a lot more people, at least those motivated enough, would be successful at using caloric restriction to lose weight.
Is it really that hard to track CI or CO? Or is it that people try to go right up to the line drawn as the upper limit of CI for the day?
If you drive a car, it probably has a fuel gauge. For the purposes of this thought experiment, the gauge works. Now do you drive until the car stops, or do you, at some point, notice the gauge is getting close to the E mark and you need to refuel?
I'd say the vast majority of people don't take the gauge past E to the W or Walk reading.
So why not take that same approach with CI vs CO. Yes, it can be inaccurate. OK, so if you are given 2250 calories/day, as my dietitian gave me, how much margin do you leave yourself so you don't fall victim to inaccuracies?
There are ways to mitigate the inaccuracy. Much like the fuel gauge isn't a scientific instrument, giving you 64bit precision with respect to fuel level, CI measurement, when done properly and with some margin, can give the user an idea of where they are in their calorie allowance for the day.
If I know I'm going to drive 300 miles today, I'm going to get some fuel before the trip. I'll need 8-10 gallons of fuel for that trip. If I know I'm going to a birthday party today, I might shave a few hundred calories off of breakfast so I can have a small square of cake and not run out of allowance.
If I'm measuring cheese for my omelette and 28g is my target, 27g is close enough. I don't need to go right up to 28g if my goal is LIMITING my caloric intake. On the other side of the equation, if I get an extra gram of raw vegetables, such as spinach or peppers, the costs of being wrong are not as high as with cheese or ice cream. So I pick my battles and try to be under on the most calorie (and carb) dense foods and don't mind if I'm over on green leafy vegetables and the like.
In other words, I try to build in reserve and adjust my behavior before I ever reach the reserve.
But how many people leave no margin? They are bad at reading the gauge. They didn't measure how much fuel they put in during breakfast, so they overflow their tank at lunch.
How do I get around the CO portion. I don't eat my exercise calories. Then it simply doesn't matter. If my fit-bit is off by 10 or 20% on how many calories I burned in that 60 minute spin class or my last 25 mile bike ride, it doesn't matter because I'm not eating into my exercise calories.
I get 2250/day with 225g of them being carbs and the other 60% being fat and protein. It doesn't really matter if I channel surfed or ran a 10k, I get 2250 calories, limited to 225g of carbs.
That way, if I happen to go over, it's really no big deal. But that's a once or twice a month thing and isn't going to do anything other than delay my progress for a fraction of a day.
And as I lose weight, I'll adjust that 2250/day proportionally. So if I've lost 10% of the weight when assigned that 2250 calorie target, I can downward adjust my targets so I have say 2025-2140 calories and a similar adjustment to my carb limits.
FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
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.
Don't be sedentary and your margin for error will increase...
This gets tossed around a lot when people say they are stuck with 1200 calories to lose ounces a week. The corollary is often stop being so lazy. Of course activity will increase your calorie allowance, but there are people for whom this legitimately isn't an option due to physical limitations or life in general.
There seems to be a large number of people who have the luxury of getting up an hour earlier to exercise, or going for a walk on their lunch, or fitting in more activity instead of sitting on the couch watching tv. This isn't the reality for a lot of people, at least where I live (San Francisco bay area - worked in Silicon Valley).
Before I retired last year, my day was: Get up at 4:00 to be on the road by 4:30 for my hour and a half commute to work. Work at my desk for 9 - 10 hours (lunches were either meetings or preparing reports for meetings, or doing maintenance work on the database while fewer people were logged on). Leave work and do my 2 and a half hours commute home (total 4 hour commute daily). Get home, eat, prepare for next day, fall into bed.
I can't tell you how many times I mentioned my 1200 calorie limit for reference in a thread and was immediately confronted with comments telling me I was eating too little, or wasn't counting my calories properly, or just be more active so I could eat more (there's always weekends, right, because sleep deprivition doesn't exist, and household chores do themselves).
I don't mind explaining if the poster asks instead of assuming (and I do apologize for the bitchy me who sometimes jumped on innocent inquiries). I do mind being told I'm doing it wrong, or I'm aiming for too aggressive a weight loss (ounces a week is hardly aggressive), or I'd be fine if I just incorporate more activity instead of just sitting around.
Note: I'm not the woo-er, and wouldn't, but I can understand the frustration of someone who is working around their limitations to reach their goal and gets toss-away comments about just get moving.
10 -
I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?34 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?
If you're going to claim that some people have genetics that allow them to bypass the laws of energy and you want people to consider your claims seriously, you're going to need something to support that.
If you don't lose weight the way everyone else does (a calorie deficit), what element of your plan is creating weight loss?10 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »I just wanted to make the 1,000th comment. Carry on.
This reminds me of the good old days of MFP when threads would "roll" after 20 pages of comments. On busy threads people used to vie to be the last poster before the roll and the first poster on the new version of the thread topic.... Ah, the good old "rick roll".12 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?
Do you want to know how we know you didn't read a single post of this thread?11 -
Yes people are confused. I wonder if it is because a calorie deficit would be very difficult to maintain if all one did was eat Little Debbie snack cakes. Yes you would loose weight and I don't see how anybody could dispute that, but you would have such little volume of food (and lots of carbs/sugar - insulin spikes, etc.) that you would feel hungry ALL THE TIME. I think the reason people think fad diets work (for a while before it drives the dieter nuts!) is basically because their diets are limited (so there isn't mindless eating/you can't have the slice of cake in the break room), it generally allow foods that are less processed and take longer to digest and so you just aren't eating as many calories....... CICO!
13 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?
What you are describing goes against the basic principles of thermodynamics.
CICO works for EVERYONE. If you are losing weight, it is working for you right now. Even if you weren't losing weight, it's still working, because again, just to be clear - CICO is not a plan, a particular way of eating, and does not mean counting calories. It is a fundamental energy balance that governs all weight loss, gain, and maintenance and it is immutable.
10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »
If you don't lose weight the way everyone else does (a calorie deficit), what element of your plan is creating weight loss?
Energy distribution, i.e., burning fats for energy vs. burning carbs. You may not believe it, but I've consumed the same number of calories per day while exercising consistently for over six months and only lost 4 or 5 lbs. On my current eating plan, I'm consuming the same number of calories and still exercising consistently, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months.15 -
stevencloser wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?
Do you want to know how we know you didn't read a single post of this thread?
I read enough. No, I didn't read all 51 pages.16 -
Just something else, as a fellow small woman, I am 5'1, to OP, increase your TDEE, I for sure don't know my exact number every single day but I just did a bit of adjusting, I started with 1,800 calories and the scale moved slow and the measurements dropped sloooow, I lowered it to 1,600, added 2 days of lifting, and now it's .5 lb per week or so. It wasn't that hard
4 -
oceangirl99 wrote: »Yes people are confused. I wonder if it is because a calorie deficit would be very difficult to maintain if all one did was eat Little Debbie snack cakes. Yes you would loose weight and I don't see how anybody could dispute that, but you would have such little volume of food (and lots of carbs/sugar - insulin spikes, etc.) that you would feel hungry ALL THE TIME. I think the reason people think fad diets work (for a while before it drives the dieter nuts!) is basically because their diets are limited (so there isn't mindless eating/you can't have the slice of cake in the break room), it generally allow foods that are less processed and take longer to digest and so you just aren't eating as many calories....... CICO!
Most of us are in food-rich environments -- at work, socially, in our home, etc. Any diet that gets people to slow down and limit the food we're grabbing *in addition to our meals* has the potential to result in weight loss, at least initially.5 -
I've used MFP off and on since 2011. I've done the CICO formula successfully, and understand those who want to believe that it is just that simple. It worked well every time. For about six months. And then it stopped working. My body adapted to the reduced caloric intake by lowering my BMR. This is a well-documented phenomenon. This article on what happened to contestants on "The Biggest Loser" explains it well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/big-weight-loss-can-slow-metabolism-long-term-make-it-harder-to-stay-slim/
Those who are looking to lose 15-20 pounds may not encounter this phenomenon, but those (like me) who need to shed over a hundred pounds, and (like me) are insulin resistant, must factor in the workings of the endocrine system to find long-term success. The interplay of insulin, ghrelin, leptin, thyroxin, adrenalin, cortisol, glucagon, HGH, and other hormones is complex. Your hormones are affected by both the amount and type of calories you put in your body, as well as your activity, stress, sleep quality, nutritional deficiencies, electrolyte balance, etc. I don't deny that CICO is a huge component, and for some people, it's all they need to know. Others, like me, need to confront weight loss as part of an overall strategy for improving health that addresses hormonal imbalances and other physiological factors as well as caloric requirements. If CICO alone works for you, more power to ya. Just know that for some of us, it is only part of what we have to do to find long-term success.
22 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »
Energy distribution, i.e., burning fats for energy vs. burning carbs. You may not believe it, but I've consumed the same number of calories per day while exercising consistently for over six months and only lost 4 or 5 lbs. On my current eating plan, I'm consuming the same number of calories and still exercising consistently, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months.
I believe you *think* you are consuming (and burning) exactly the same amount, but I am not convinced that you have a genetic mutation that has allowed your body to circumvent the laws of energy.10 -
20 -
Artemis_Acorn wrote: »I've used MFP off and on since 2011. I've done the CICO formula successfully, and understand those who want to believe that it is just that simple. It worked well every time. For about six months. And then it stopped working. My body adapted to the reduced caloric intake by lowering my BMR. This is a well-documented phenomenon. This article on what happened to contestants on "The Biggest Loser" explains it well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/big-weight-loss-can-slow-metabolism-long-term-make-it-harder-to-stay-slim/
Those who are looking to lose 15-20 pounds may not encounter this phenomenon, but those (like me) who need to shed over a hundred pounds, and (like me) are insulin resistant, must factor in the workings of the endocrine system to find long-term success. The interplay of insulin, ghrelin, leptin, thyroxin, adrenalin, cortisol, glucagon, HGH, and other hormones is complex. Your hormones are affected by both the amount and type of calories you put in your body, as well as your activity, stress, sleep quality, nutritional deficiencies, electrolyte balance, etc. I don't deny that CICO is a huge component, and for some people, it's all they need to know. Others, like me, need to confront weight loss as part of an overall strategy for improving health that addresses hormonal imbalances and other physiological factors as well as caloric requirements. If CICO alone works for you, more power to ya. Just know that for some of us, it is only part of what we have to do to find long-term success.
Metabolic changes are accounted for in the CICO formula (they are an intrinsic part of Calories Out). No one here denies that undereating and overexercising for an extended period of time like Biggest Loser contestants do will likely experience a reduction in BMR. That's why posters are often encouraged to take diet breaks, in fact we have a whole pinned thread about it.
What this does support is that people who deny CICO don't actually understand what it is, and most likely don't read the "Most Helpful Posts" thread.
Which I believe has been adequately covered in this thread, but why expect people to actually read through a thread before spinning us back into this lovely circular debate. I'm getting dizzy
17 -
Artemis_Acorn wrote: »I've used MFP off and on since 2011. I've done the CICO formula successfully, and understand those who want to believe that it is just that simple. It worked well every time. For about six months. And then it stopped working. My body adapted to the reduced caloric intake by lowering my BMR. This is a well-documented phenomenon. This article on what happened to contestants on "The Biggest Loser" explains it well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/big-weight-loss-can-slow-metabolism-long-term-make-it-harder-to-stay-slim/
Those who are looking to lose 15-20 pounds may not encounter this phenomenon, but those (like me) who need to shed over a hundred pounds, and (like me) are insulin resistant, must factor in the workings of the endocrine system to find long-term success. The interplay of insulin, ghrelin, leptin, thyroxin, adrenalin, cortisol, glucagon, HGH, and other hormones is complex. Your hormones are affected by both the amount and type of calories you put in your body, as well as your activity, stress, sleep quality, nutritional deficiencies, electrolyte balance, etc. I don't deny that CICO is a huge component, and for some people, it's all they need to know. Others, like me, need to confront weight loss as part of an overall strategy for improving health that addresses hormonal imbalances and other physiological factors as well as caloric requirements. If CICO alone works for you, more power to ya. Just know that for some of us, it is only part of what we have to do to find long-term success.
This adjustment to metabolic activity is not permanent. This is your body reacting to a massive change in energy demand and compensating accordingly. This effect trends toward mean after a matter of weeks. Hormones have a minimal impact on metabolism. ~5% from clinical observation. Don't make this more than it is.9 -
Artemis_Acorn wrote: »I've used MFP off and on since 2011. I've done the CICO formula successfully, and understand those who want to believe that it is just that simple. It worked well every time. For about six months. And then it stopped working. My body adapted to the reduced caloric intake by lowering my BMR. This is a well-documented phenomenon. This article on what happened to contestants on "The Biggest Loser" explains it well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/big-weight-loss-can-slow-metabolism-long-term-make-it-harder-to-stay-slim/
Those who are looking to lose 15-20 pounds may not encounter this phenomenon, but those (like me) who need to shed over a hundred pounds, and (like me) are insulin resistant, must factor in the workings of the endocrine system to find long-term success. The interplay of insulin, ghrelin, leptin, thyroxin, adrenalin, cortisol, glucagon, HGH, and other hormones is complex. Your hormones are affected by both the amount and type of calories you put in your body, as well as your activity, stress, sleep quality, nutritional deficiencies, electrolyte balance, etc. I don't deny that CICO is a huge component, and for some people, it's all they need to know. Others, like me, need to confront weight loss as part of an overall strategy for improving health that addresses hormonal imbalances and other physiological factors as well as caloric requirements. If CICO alone works for you, more power to ya. Just know that for some of us, it is only part of what we have to do to find long-term success.
But do you really think your issues cause you to gain weight while in a calorie surplus? Because I think you're saying that figuring CO can be complicated, and figuring out the energy balance isn't as simple as looking at a chart and plugging in the numbers. You're right, it's not, but that has nothing to do with the basic energy balance equation that is CICO. If you are eating fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight, no matter how you arrive at that number.7 -
nettiklive wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
Tracking CI is far from a perfect science but at least it's visible and somewhat within our control. CO is the hard part - that's the part that's invisible and we have no idea what's happening on that end, we're just guessing. As I mentioned somewhere, if they could come up with a mobile wearable device that would track your exact caloric output all the time, around the clock, I'd be willing to bet a lot more people, at least those motivated enough, would be successful at using caloric restriction to lose weight.
Is it really that hard to track CI or CO? Or is it that people try to go right up to the line drawn as the upper limit of CI for the day?
If you drive a car, it probably has a fuel gauge. For the purposes of this thought experiment, the gauge works. Now do you drive until the car stops, or do you, at some point, notice the gauge is getting close to the E mark and you need to refuel?
I'd say the vast majority of people don't take the gauge past E to the W or Walk reading.
So why not take that same approach with CI vs CO. Yes, it can be inaccurate. OK, so if you are given 2250 calories/day, as my dietitian gave me, how much margin do you leave yourself so you don't fall victim to inaccuracies?
There are ways to mitigate the inaccuracy. Much like the fuel gauge isn't a scientific instrument, giving you 64bit precision with respect to fuel level, CI measurement, when done properly and with some margin, can give the user an idea of where they are in their calorie allowance for the day.
If I know I'm going to drive 300 miles today, I'm going to get some fuel before the trip. I'll need 8-10 gallons of fuel for that trip. If I know I'm going to a birthday party today, I might shave a few hundred calories off of breakfast so I can have a small square of cake and not run out of allowance.
If I'm measuring cheese for my omelette and 28g is my target, 27g is close enough. I don't need to go right up to 28g if my goal is LIMITING my caloric intake. On the other side of the equation, if I get an extra gram of raw vegetables, such as spinach or peppers, the costs of being wrong are not as high as with cheese or ice cream. So I pick my battles and try to be under on the most calorie (and carb) dense foods and don't mind if I'm over on green leafy vegetables and the like.
In other words, I try to build in reserve and adjust my behavior before I ever reach the reserve.
But how many people leave no margin? They are bad at reading the gauge. They didn't measure how much fuel they put in during breakfast, so they overflow their tank at lunch.
How do I get around the CO portion. I don't eat my exercise calories. Then it simply doesn't matter. If my fit-bit is off by 10 or 20% on how many calories I burned in that 60 minute spin class or my last 25 mile bike ride, it doesn't matter because I'm not eating into my exercise calories.
I get 2250/day with 225g of them being carbs and the other 60% being fat and protein. It doesn't really matter if I channel surfed or ran a 10k, I get 2250 calories, limited to 225g of carbs.
That way, if I happen to go over, it's really no big deal. But that's a once or twice a month thing and isn't going to do anything other than delay my progress for a fraction of a day.
And as I lose weight, I'll adjust that 2250/day proportionally. So if I've lost 10% of the weight when assigned that 2250 calorie target, I can downward adjust my targets so I have say 2025-2140 calories and a similar adjustment to my carb limits.
FWIW, my carb limits are due to repeated fasting BG readings in the 170-180 mg/dL range. By limiting my carb intake, I have those numbers consistently down below 120 and some days, I'm below 100 when I wake. They want me to get no more than 40% of my caloric needs via carbohydrates.
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.
Don't be sedentary and your margin for error will increase...
This gets tossed around a lot when people say they are stuck with 1200 calories to lose ounces a week. The corollary is often stop being so lazy. Of course activity will increase your calorie allowance, but there are people for whom this legitimately isn't an option due to physical limitations or life in general.
There seems to be a large number of people who have the luxury of getting up an hour earlier to exercise, or going for a walk on their lunch, or fitting in more activity instead of sitting on the couch watching tv. This isn't the reality for a lot of people, at least where I live (San Francisco bay area - worked in Silicon Valley).
Before I retired last year, my day was: Get up at 4:00 to be on the road by 4:30 for my hour and a half commute to work. Work at my desk for 9 - 10 hours (lunches were either meetings or preparing reports for meetings, or doing maintenance work on the database while fewer people were logged on). Leave work and do my 2 and a half hours commute home (total 4 hour commute daily). Get home, eat, prepare for next day, fall into bed.
I can't tell you how many times I mentioned my 1200 calorie limit for reference in a thread and was immediately confronted with comments telling me I was eating too little, or wasn't counting my calories properly, or just be more active so I could eat more (there's always weekends, right, because sleep deprivition doesn't exist, and household chores do themselves).
I don't mind explaining if the poster asks instead of assuming (and I do apologize for the bitchy me who sometimes jumped on innocent inquiries). I do mind being told I'm doing it wrong, or I'm aiming for too aggressive a weight loss (ounces a week is hardly aggressive), or I'd be fine if I just incorporate more activity instead of just sitting around.
Note: I'm not the woo-er, and wouldn't, but I can understand the frustration of someone who is working around their limitations to reach their goal and gets toss-away comments about just get moving.
All I can say is that I can only control what I say. I, however, can not control how you take it, or what meaning you put behind it. If there is some physical limitation, life limitation what have you, that is on you to provide that information. I am not in the business of mind reading and have no intention to try to do so.11
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