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
-
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.
CICO is NOT calorie counting...
11 -
Y'all are so patient.
18 -
Extreme examples prove nothing. Find me one poster that advises eating nothing but Little Debbie Snack Cakes...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.
See above...oceangirl99 wrote: »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.
^^^100%oceangirl99 wrote: »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!
6 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »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.
Nope...13 -
This thread makes me frustrated and I haven't even posted in it until right now. Kudos to you all with the patience of saints.
One more time for the people in the back...
CICO is not calorie counting. Two different things. I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp about this.
Oy vey.13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Oh, ok. You're probably correct. You probably know much more than I do about my health and my diet and exercise habits. I never said that I have a "genetic mutation," but every woman on my mother's side of the family has hypothyroidism and insulin resistance. The insulin resistance is probably not genetic, but probably the result of our family following the government recommendations to eat a low fat diet for decades, which naturally results in eating more carbohydrates. You're probably also correct when you say that I only *think* I'm consuming the same amount, because I'm probably consuming more calories than I used to, and I'm still losing weight. It's just not from the same sources, and I don't feel like I'm constantly hungry any more.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.
No matter what way of eating you choose, your results are directly related to CICO. You don't "do" CICO, CICO is happening all the time...13 -
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.
Not likely...9 -
alyssa_rest wrote: »This thread makes me frustrated and I haven't even posted in it until right now. Kudos to you all with the patience of saints.
One more time for the people in the back...
CICO is not calorie counting. Two different things. I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp about this.
Oy vey.
When you begin to see the extent of mental gymnastics some are willing to commit to justify and excuse their failure, then you begin to understand that success was never the goal.
Fear of success is a very real problem. Success means change and change can be terrifying, but once you take that leap there is no feeling quite like success.17 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Oh, ok. You're probably correct. You probably know much more than I do about my health and my diet and exercise habits. I never said that I have a "genetic mutation," but every woman on my mother's side of the family has hypothyroidism and insulin resistance. The insulin resistance is probably not genetic, but probably the result of our family following the government recommendations to eat a low fat diet for decades, which naturally results in eating more carbohydrates. You're probably also correct when you say that I only *think* I'm consuming the same amount, because I'm probably consuming more calories than I used to, and I'm still losing weight. It's just not from the same sources, and I don't feel like I'm constantly hungry any more.
what you posted has NOTHING to do with CICO - make-up of macros doesn't negate that weight loss is CICO...
break break - i'm permanently hypothyroid (since I have none) and I eat 360-470g of carbs a day and weight stable (female, 5'3" and 160lbs)14 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »Oh, ok. You're probably correct. You probably know much more than I do about my health and my diet and exercise habits. I never said that I have a "genetic mutation," but every woman on my mother's side of the family has hypothyroidism and insulin resistance. The insulin resistance is probably not genetic, but probably the result of our family following the government recommendations to eat a low fat diet for decades, which naturally results in eating more carbohydrates. You're probably also correct when you say that I only *think* I'm consuming the same amount, because I'm probably consuming more calories than I used to, and I'm still losing weight. It's just not from the same sources, and I don't feel like I'm constantly hungry any more.
Nope...10 -
10 -
12 -
Calories and adherence for the win...10
-
If you gained weight, CICO... If you lost weight, CICO... if your weight stayed the same, CICO...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.
CICO is NOT calorie counting...
Clearly. I should have said, "tracked calories and exercised diligently with a deficit." I apologize for thinking that was implied.13 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Oh, ok. You're probably correct. You probably know much more than I do about my health and my diet and exercise habits. I never said that I have a "genetic mutation," but every woman on my mother's side of the family has hypothyroidism and insulin resistance. The insulin resistance is probably not genetic, but probably the result of our family following the government recommendations to eat a low fat diet for decades, which naturally results in eating more carbohydrates. You're probably also correct when you say that I only *think* I'm consuming the same amount, because I'm probably consuming more calories than I used to, and I'm still losing weight. It's just not from the same sources, and I don't feel like I'm constantly hungry any more.
I don't know anything about your health, your diet, and your exercise habits. I don't have to know an individual's habits to know how human biology works. If you're arguing that you have a mutation that makes you an exception to how the human body works, you're free to make that case. But you haven't made it. You're just stating it and expecting us to accept that.
If you are saying that your body will not lose weight in a deficit and that you have the power to lose weight when not at a deficit and this is due to your genetics, you are asserting that you have some sort of mutation.
Would you believe me if I came in here and assured you that I had the power of flight, that human genetics are all different and this is something that my genetics let me do? Or would you want to see something else before accepting that claim?
I'm sorry that your family focused on the recommendation to eat low fat instead of focusing on what matters for a healthy weight -- the number of calories consumed. I get that it's frustrating that we haven't always had straightforward, easy-to-follow dietary recommendations from the government. You're certainly not the only person who has had difficulties because of this -- most people here have wasted time trying things that didn't work for us.
What I think has happened for you is what has happened for a lot of people -- you've found a plan that makes it easier for you to consistently hit a deficit, so weight loss seems easier. This sometimes makes it easy to conclude that it was never the calories -- that it was macros (like it seems to be in your case) or meal timing or eliminating certain foods or whatever. That a calorie deficit creates weight loss doesn't mean that all ways of creating a deficit are equally easy or sustainable for people. So people have various "tricks" or methods that help make a deficit easier. This doesn't mean it isn't the deficit doing the work, but it can sometimes make it seem that way.
(Your hunger, or lack of it, is irrelevant to the purposes of this conversation. People can be hungry at a surplus or full on a deficit, this is a place where macros/meal timing can be important).14 -
nellypurcelly 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.
CICO is NOT calorie counting...
Clearly. I should have said, "tracked calories and exercised diligently with a deficit." I apologize for thinking that was implied.
The only reason you got pegged on this was that a LOT of posters in this thread have sworn up and down that CICO is calorie counting (which it is NOT) and that has been a lot of the back and forth that is going on.9 -
nellypurcelly 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.
CICO is NOT calorie counting...
Clearly. I should have said, "tracked calories and exercised diligently with a deficit." I apologize for thinking that was implied.
This is where reading the thread would have come in handy. It's clear, from the number of times we've gone down this path, that it isn't implied. Many people think that CICO and counting calories is the exact same thing.10 -
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.
No, it means that it takes time. Wiggle room for people close to goal exists, but you have to adjust your expectations and maybe make use of a trending app to see that progress is being made because progress is slow in happening.
Vanity weight doesn't drop off "Biggest Loser" style. It's a very long process and you're looking at months of work before you see it concretely due to fluctuations and inaccuracies.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't know anything about your health, your diet, and your exercise habits. I don't have to know an individual's habits to know how human biology works. If you're arguing that you have a mutation that makes you an exception to how the human body works, you're free to make that case. But you haven't made it. You're just stating it and expecting us to accept that.
^^^This...
9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »No, it means that it takes time. Wiggle room for people close to goal exists, but you have to adjust your expectations and maybe make use of a trending app to see that progress is being made because progress is slow in happening.
^^^ So much this...
7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Oh, ok. You're probably correct. You probably know much more than I do about my health and my diet and exercise habits. I never said that I have a "genetic mutation," but every woman on my mother's side of the family has hypothyroidism and insulin resistance. The insulin resistance is probably not genetic, but probably the result of our family following the government recommendations to eat a low fat diet for decades, which naturally results in eating more carbohydrates. You're probably also correct when you say that I only *think* I'm consuming the same amount, because I'm probably consuming more calories than I used to, and I'm still losing weight. It's just not from the same sources, and I don't feel like I'm constantly hungry any more.
I don't know anything about your health, your diet, and your exercise habits. I don't have to know an individual's habits to know how human biology works. If you're arguing that you have a mutation that makes you an exception to how the human body works, you're free to make that case. But you haven't made it. You're just stating it and expecting us to accept that.
If you are saying that your body will not lose weight in a deficit and that you have the power to lose weight when not at a deficit and this is due to your genetics, you are asserting that you have some sort of mutation.
Would you believe me if I came in here and assured you that I had the power of flight, that human genetics are all different and this is something that my genetics let me do? Or would you want to see something else before accepting that claim?
I'm sorry that your family focused on the recommendation to eat low fat instead of focusing on what matters for a healthy weight -- the number of calories consumed. I get that it's frustrating that we haven't always had straightforward, easy-to-follow dietary recommendations from the government. You're certainly not the only person who has had difficulties because of this -- most people here have wasted time trying things that didn't work for us.
What I think has happened for you is what has happened for a lot of people -- you've found a plan that makes it easier for you to consistently hit a deficit, so weight loss seems easier. This sometimes makes it easy to conclude that it was never the calories -- that it was macros (like it seems to be in your case) or meal timing or eliminating certain foods or whatever. That a calorie deficit creates weight loss doesn't mean that all ways of creating a deficit are equally easy or sustainable for people. So people have various "tricks" or methods that help make a deficit easier. This doesn't mean it isn't the deficit doing the work, but it can sometimes make it seem that way.
(Your hunger, or lack of it, is irrelevant to the purposes of this conversation. People can be hungry at a surplus or full on a deficit, this is a place where macros/meal timing can be important).
This is one of the best responses I've seen on MFP....13 -
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...
Truth! Conscientiously shifting my lifestyle from being sedentary to becoming active has made a huge difference to my TDEE. It's not all about killing yourself with cardio, either. Just walk.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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...
Truth! Conscientiously shifting my lifestyle from being sedentary to becoming active has made a huge difference to my TDEE. It's not all about killing yourself with cardio, either. Just walk.
Yes!6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nellypurcelly 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.
CICO is NOT calorie counting...
Clearly. I should have said, "tracked calories and exercised diligently with a deficit." I apologize for thinking that was implied.
This is where reading the thread would have come in handy. It's clear, from the number of times we've gone down this path, that it isn't implied. Many people think that CICO and counting calories is the exact same thing.
It's like groundhog day....over and over again.12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »No, it means that it takes time. Wiggle room for people close to goal exists, but you have to adjust your expectations and maybe make use of a trending app to see that progress is being made because progress is slow in happening.
^^^ So much this...
Agree! Adjusting expectations makes all the difference between being constantly disappointed over the 2 lb. monthly loss vs. feeling successful that the weight loss is progressing as planned.5 -
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?
8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »No, it means that it takes time. Wiggle room for people close to goal exists, but you have to adjust your expectations and maybe make use of a trending app to see that progress is being made because progress is slow in happening.
^^^ So much this...
Agree! Adjusting expectations makes all the difference between being constantly disappointed over the 2 lb. monthly loss vs. feeling successful that the weight loss is progressing as planned.
I also think it helps to have some performance goals in mind. Takes the mind off the physical goals which can be a real grind. Losing a half a pound will visually be insignificant and hard to see in the mirror, but adding a pullup, decreasing your one minute mile, pushup numbers, deadlift etc (whatever you do) is very empowering...7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions