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
-
My god I think they've converted me just by the sheer act of mindless repetition.
CICO doesn't work for everyone just like gravity doesn't work for everyone.
QED BIRDS!
Now I understand it all and have never felt thinner!11 -
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?
Can you tell us specifically the genetics differences and specific medical conditions you have that defy the principles of energy balance and the mechanism by which they do so?
Can you name the chemical additives the food industry puts in food to generate greater profit margins and what they have to do with your argument?
What eating plan have you been following? How did you track calories before? Did you use a food scale? Did you use a website like MFP and verify that you were using correct calorie data for the foods you were eating? How did you calculate how many calories you should be eating to create a calorie deficit at that point?
Lastly, just what do you think CICO is?12 -
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?
The serenity to accept the things I cannot change
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference4 -
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'm hypothyroid, it's genetic in my family, and I have to eat low fat because I have familial hypercholesterolemia (also genetic).
I'm 55 years old, 5'1 and 120 pounds. I love carbs. I'm going to have a big bowl of popcorn tonight, in fact.10 -
Calories and adherence for the win...
O/T
Thanks for posting that strength training graphic. My program isn't ideal, but I came to the conclusion that programming something that I'd habitually do and do regularly (adhere to) was better than something I got sick of and stopped doing. This is the longest I've stuck with a lifting program in ages. (BTW, I ran it by SideSteel and PsuLemon and it's actually pretty okay even though I came up with it myself).
Yup, calories and adherence for the win. Adherence is a fundamental for habit formation, and habits are the foundation for sustainability.8 -
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.
This is a debate thread. More than on the other forums here, these threads are pretty analytical and very difficult to jump into mid-stream. Your points have been debated numerous times in this very thread by those who have read and participated in the 51 pages.
The whole CICO <> calorie counting has, also, been discussed several times in this very thread.
Hence the head-banging gifs.
Check out the more general forum areas and you will get a somewhat warmer reception.8 -
TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:
For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.15 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:
For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.
once again that is NOT CICO - that is calorie counting or macro make-up!8 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:
For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.
the blatant misunderstanding of CICO in this article from a professional is concerning...no one is advocating eat whatever you want at the risk of causing nutritional deficiencies10 -
deannalfisher wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:
For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.
once again that is NOT CICO - that is calorie counting or macro make-up!
The concept of CICO implies that all that matters is calories in, calories out, and all calories are the same and calories are all that matters. Or am I reading the meaning of this thread wrong? Please explain to me. I'm receptive.4 -
CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...7
-
deannalfisher wrote: »CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...
Okay then we're not talking about the same thing. I wasn't talking about whether eating 300 calories of this will make you hungry so you eat 300 more calories of that. I'm talking about a closely-monitored diet where you're restricting yourself to, say, 1500 calories of garbage food, versus 1500 calories of reasonable food. I have experimented with this myself. I took in the same number of calories under both circumstances, ignoring any extra cravings the crappy eating regimen would cause. The energy being consumed was identical regardless. I still lost more weight on the healthier regimen.20 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:
For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.
once again that is NOT CICO - that is calorie counting or macro make-up!
The concept of CICO implies that all that matters is calories in, calories out, and all calories are the same and calories are all that matters. Or am I reading the meaning of this thread wrong? Please explain to me. I'm receptive.
You're reading it wrong. CICO is an energy equation - Calories In vs Calories Out. It's been repeated endlessly in this thread. Calories are all that matter for WEIGHT MANAGEMENT. CALORIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A MEASURE OF ENERGY. Calories don't have attributes, they are just a measure of energy.
Nutrition matters for health and sustainability, and different foods with the same number of calories have different nutritional profiles. Before we spiral back into the bottomless vortex of oreos vs broccoli.6 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
The article that is linked here refers to the CICO diet... which is calorie counting... please understand that CICO is not a diet, it is an equation that dictates weight loss or gain. IT IS NOT A DIET, it is an equation9 -
9
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »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.
This is a debate thread. More than on the other forums here, these threads are pretty analytical and very difficult to jump into mid-stream. Your points have been debated numerous times in this very thread by those who have read and participated in the 51 pages.
The whole CICO <> calorie counting has, also, been discussed several times in this very thread.
Hence the head-banging gifs.
Check out the more general forum areas and you will get a somewhat warmer reception.
I note it only took one post for the thread to get back to conflating the two.10 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
The article that is linked here refers to the CICO diet... which is calorie counting... please understand that CICO is not a diet, it is an equation that dictates weight loss or gain. IT IS NOT A DIET, it is an equation
Quoting from the article:
"Pigott-Jones gives the examples of Mars bars - you could consume 1500kcal in Mars bars alone over the course of a day thus creating a calorie deficit for yourself, but you won’t be healthy."
Because God forbid if people understand that weight management is governed by energy balance, all they'll eat is Mars bars. And oreos, of course. If you shield them from this fact they'll eat a nutritious diet.
edited for clarity8 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...
Okay then we're not talking about the same thing. I wasn't talking about whether eating 300 calories of this will make you hungry so you eat 300 more calories of that. I'm talking about a closely-monitored diet where you're restricting yourself to, say, 1500 calories of garbage food, versus 1500 calories of reasonable food. I have experimented with this myself. I took in the same number of calories under both circumstances, ignoring any extra cravings the crappy eating regimen would cause. The energy being consumed was identical regardless. I still lost more weight on the healthier regimen.
did you read any of the 54 pages of this discussion...your comment has been hashed out several hundred times already7 -
Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?22
-
I admit that I jumped in mid-thread, and if there's astral projection or narwhal physiognomy informing it then I better just jump back out. You guys are clearly in the middle of something and I'm out of my element. :-)12
-
TitaniaEcks wrote: »I admit that I jumped in mid-thread, and if there's astral projection or narwhal physiognomy informing it then I better just jump back out. You guys are clearly in the middle of something and I'm out of my element. :-)
Or, you know, you could actually read the thread before you follow after Leroy Jenkins.
It's crazy to think that, in 50-some pages of debate, maybe your assertions have been covered already, and you might benefit from the knowledge that actually reading through the thread would give you before you post.
Wait ... Isn't that how forums are supposed to work?10 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?
the only people I know who mix up CICO and calorie counting are those that say if you follow IIFYM you eat only twinkies (hyperbole, but you get the point)10 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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?
Can you tell us specifically the genetics differences and specific medical conditions you have that defy the principles of energy balance and the mechanism by which they do so?
Can you name the chemical additives the food industry puts in food to generate greater profit margins and what they have to do with your argument?
What eating plan have you been following? How did you track calories before? Did you use a food scale? Did you use a website like MFP and verify that you were using correct calorie data for the foods you were eating? How did you calculate how many calories you should be eating to create a calorie deficit at that point?
Lastly, just what do you think CICO is?
Also, assuming consistent tracking, adherence, and confirmed good data, when weight loss didn't occur as predicted after a reasonable period of time, did you adjust your target downward by a reasonable amount and resumed consistent tracking and adherence...and continued this refining process until satisfactory progress?
Because no website can determine an individual's TDEE and also guess correctly their inevitable error biases in tracking.10 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...
Okay then we're not talking about the same thing. I wasn't talking about whether eating 300 calories of this will make you hungry so you eat 300 more calories of that. I'm talking about a closely-monitored diet where you're restricting yourself to, say, 1500 calories of garbage food, versus 1500 calories of reasonable food. I have experimented with this myself. I took in the same number of calories under both circumstances, ignoring any extra cravings the crappy eating regimen would cause. The energy being consumed was identical regardless. I still lost more weight on the healthier regimen.
Yet another medical miracle joins the discussion.12 -
I just want to say this thread makes me feel so much better about my daily struggle. I teach high school physics. If y'all have this much trouble explaining this concept to adults, think about teaching concepts to adolescent, distracted students, lol.
I have found that most people see a "calorie" as being very food specific. They don't get that you can express the energy contained in gasoline in terms of calories - or joules. The units of joules are kg*(m/s)^2 - N*m - work... It has NOTHING to do with the nutritional content of the item containing the calories. We can pour a glass of gasoline with 250 Calories - I think we all know it would be unwise to consume it.
Sometimes well known ideas are the most misunderstood. For example, Newton's Laws are something some of my students struggle with. Why? Because they have a deeply ingrained mental model that is WRONG - they just think they understand. Getting them to unlearn - and reconstruct a new mental model is challenging for many. Some are just unwilling to admit they misunderstand - they would rather not commit the effort to change their thinking. I see the same thing going on here.
Kudos to those here that patiently try to help folks understand.36 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Congratulations. You're the 1000th contestant who doesn't know what CICO actually means.13 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Idiotic reporting at it's finest.9 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »...Why? Because they have a deeply ingrained mental model that is WRONG - they just think they understand. Getting them to unlearn - and reconstruct a new mental model is challenging for many. Some are just unwilling to admit they misunderstand - they would rather not commit the effort to change their thinking...
You just summed up this entire thread (and every other one like it) perfectly.13 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »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.
This is a debate thread. More than on the other forums here, these threads are pretty analytical and very difficult to jump into mid-stream. Your points have been debated numerous times in this very thread by those who have read and participated in the 51 pages.
The whole CICO <> calorie counting has, also, been discussed several times in this very thread.
Hence the head-banging gifs.
Check out the more general forum areas and you will get a somewhat warmer reception.
I note it only took one post for the thread to get back to conflating the two.
No *kitten*.5
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