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
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets are an essential component of achieving a reasonable goal weight?)
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.
Cognitive dissonance can be hard to handle.
The best part is 'woo'ing a picture of a Mars bar. Who can 'woo' a Mars bar? I mean, that's almost like 'woo'ing bacon.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets are an essential component of achieving a reasonable goal weight?)
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.24 -
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable scientific fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
13 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets are an essential component of achieving a reasonable goal weight?)
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.
sorry - Dr's in general have less than 4hrs of nutrition training during their medical careers, the vast majority of them provide horribly bad nutrition advice. I prefer to listen to a PhD who studies metabolic disorders and the interaction with nutrition on a daily basis who can provide up to date/relevant research8 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets are an essential component of achieving a reasonable goal weight?)
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.
Your endocrinologist can provide objective evidence of this?
There is one reality. If you have to frame this on an individual level, then it's fantasy.13 -
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.
That still isn't CICO, that is calorie counting and exercise. CICO is the principle that the change in energy in a system is equal to the input of energy subtracted by the expenditure of energy. It is a law of thermodynamics.
If you lose weight by tracking calories and exercising the weight lost is due to CICO.
If you don't lose weight by tracking calories and exercising then that lack of weight lost is due to CICO
If you lose weight by a different method, say you decide to only eat vegetables and chicken breasts and not bother with calorie counting and exercise then the weight lost is due to CICO.
Calorie counting and exercise are strategies for health or weight loss. CICO isn't a strategy, it isn't a method, it isn't a plan....it is a law of nature.11 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets are an essential component of achieving a reasonable goal weight?)
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.
I'm not going to dignify this ridiculous snide response with a response, so I'll just leave this here.
11 -
I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.8 -
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.
In terms of weight loss yes, all that matters is the energy balance between the calories you take in and the calories you expend or CICO. That said CICO says nothing about what strategies might work for you in order to lose weight or what methods are going to be accurate for you in terms of estimating CI or CO.4 -
I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
If you don't understand that ALL weight management comes down to it, then you deny CICO - at least on some level.12 -
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
23 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »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.
Exactly. That is the disconnect. When some people hear "calorie" they read it as "food" when that isn't what that is or means.5 -
I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
Again, CICO <> calorie counting.
No one disputes that online calculators are estimate to be taken as a baseline and adjusted to as needed if you plan to lose weight BY CALORIE COUNTING. But this has very little to do with CICO.9 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
Personally I would question your tracking methods and accuracy before I would believe this...18 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
Personally I would question your tracking methods and accuracy before I would believe this...
Honestly, they don't want to read the thread, they don't want to understand what is being written so I'm not sure why we need to bother......11 -
I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
There's a large degree of error in calorie estimation - a 20% degree margin of error. Your body may only use say 60 kcals out of an 80 kcal apple, but it isn't using more than 80. So while there is error in the system, it still does not explain weight gain.
Metabolism is remarkably constant and rather fixed - it's a series of biochemical reactions and honestly if it varied as much as the diet industry would like you to believe - life would not exist.
Hormones impact your metabolism by ~5% from clinical observation. Speaking as someone sans thyroid.
Weight is an output of behavior. You can deny this and still be wrong or accept this and implement strategies to accomplish your goals.9 -
If there's no debate, and the people arguing with me are 100% correct, then why does this thread even exist, and why does it cause so much controversy?14
-
nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/...But that doesn’t change the fundamental rules of thermodynamics which apply to everybody and everything. Given 100 calories, the most you can store is 100 calories. Sure, one person may only store 75, while another stores all 100, but 100 is still the maximum. It’s a physiological impossibility to store more than you actually ate because you can’t make something out of nothing. There’s lots of things like this, that you simply can’t do. You can’t make gold out of lead, you can’t find an honest politician, and you can’t store 500 calories if you only ate 300...10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.
And some are low carb because they have diabetes or pre-diabetes, yet get woo'ed just the same.
Just shows that people don't read. Or at least don't try to understand what they've just read.11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
First a faux triggering followed by a real one, that is some next level forum-ing
1) nothing shared regarding CICO in this thread has expanded my knowledge of CICO. I completely, wholly, thoroughly understand CICO.
2) reread 1 and bet the farm in it.
3) understanding that I understand (which I really really really hope you do
) the rest of your responses above make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are so off the point of what I posted (especially the part about patiently explaining something, when did that happen, lol). that I presume you have me mixed up with someone else 16 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets are an essential component of achieving a reasonable goal weight?)
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.
I have quite a few autoimmune conditions. Four of them, in fact. I'm glad I see better doctors than you apparently do.
Please tell me by what measure you know you have "inflammation". CRP? ESR?
Also, my questions weren't snide. They were intended to ascertain how accurate you calorie counting was because most people who claim not to be able to lose weight while tracking are making basic logging errors.
It appears you've confirmed my suspicions.11 -
I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
I am a 50 something woman with a bum thyroid and autoimmune problems. And you know what I read constantly on here?
ADJUST ACCORDING TO RESULTS.
I have never understood trying to work forwards from experience and adjusting "facts" to suit what happens to oneself rather than trying to reconcile one's experience with objective scientific fact. If you know something to be true, and your experience doesn't bear it out, the truth isn't wrong, something is off with your data. Reassess, learn more, and move on.
There's no BUT, in other words.
So no to BUT try being 50.
BTW, I lost 90 pounds adjusting expectations to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to expectations. Life is more productive that way.22 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »BTW, I lost 90 pounds adjusting expectations to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to expectations...
WHAT WIZARDRY IS THIS???!?!?11 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
The fact that you wouldn't answer any of my previous questions with anything but saying that you under and overestimated calls this statement into serious question.
Every person who makes claims like you do is really, really bad at counting calories.
How much weight do you have to lose and how long have you been low carbing?10 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
First a faux triggering followed by a real one, that is some next level forum-ing
1) nothing shared regarding CICO in this thread has expanded my knowledge of CICO. I completely, wholly, thoroughly understand CICO.
2) reread 1 and bet the farm in it.
3) understanding that I understand (which I really really really hope you do ) the rest of your responses above make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are so off the point of what I posted (especially the part about patiently explaining something, when did that happen, lol). that I presume you have me mixed up with someone else
Dude, you're trying to both sides about terminology. One of the basics of debate is agreed upon terminology. Words mean things. And you said something in error and need to be corrected on it.
To whit:CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories.
CICO is something your body does independent of your mind conscientiously deciding to do it. It's the body balancing the energy you put into it and the energy it expends. FULL STOP.
CICO is NOT literally you tracking calories. That is called calorie counting. That is a conscientious choice. You can do it or not.
Fun fact: Dogs? Their weight is regulated by CICO. Cats? Them too! Infants? The same! Do any of them count calories? Nope.
Why is this important, because terms mean things.
15 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
I am a 50 something woman with a bum thyroid and autoimmune problems. And you know what I read constantly on here?
ADJUST ACCORDING TO RESULTS.
I have never understood trying to work forwards from experience and adjusting "facts" to suit what happens to oneself rather than trying to reconcile one's experience with objective scientific fact. If you know something to be true, and your experience doesn't bear it out, the truth isn't wrong, something is off with your data. Reassess, learn more, and move on.
There's no BUT, in other words.
So no to BUT try being 50.
BTW, I lost 90 pounds adjusting expectations to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to expectations. Life is more productive that way.
Exactly right. You have to adjust to what is actually happening in your body.
I am just saying that this is one reason some people deny CICO.
Also, when your BMR tanks and your calorie goal is super low, it is difficult to create a deficit. I just set my goal for 1080 plus exercise, because 1200 plus exercise was not creating a deficit. If I see no results I will lower again.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
I am a 50 something woman with a bum thyroid and autoimmune problems. And you know what I read constantly on here?
ADJUST ACCORDING TO RESULTS.
I have never understood trying to work forwards from experience and adjusting "facts" to suit what happens to oneself rather than trying to reconcile one's experience with objective scientific fact. If you know something to be true, and your experience doesn't bear it out, the truth isn't wrong, something is off with your data. Reassess, learn more, and move on.
There's no BUT, in other words.
So no to BUT try being 50.
BTW, I lost 90 pounds adjusting expectations to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to expectations. Life is more productive that way.
Exactly right. You have to adjust to what is actually happening in your body.
I am just saying that this is one reason some people deny CICO.
Also, when your BMR tanks and your calorie goal is super low, it is difficult to create a deficit. I just set my goal for 1080 plus exercise, because 1200 plus exercise was not creating a deficit. If I see no results I will lower again.
Small older women don't have high BMR's, but BMR's aren't the be all and end all of anything. TDEE is where it's at. Try increasing your NEAT to get more calories to play with.
6 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
Do you know the concept of "Water weight"?15 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
I am a 50 something woman with a bum thyroid and autoimmune problems. And you know what I read constantly on here?
ADJUST ACCORDING TO RESULTS.
I have never understood trying to work forwards from experience and adjusting "facts" to suit what happens to oneself rather than trying to reconcile one's experience with objective scientific fact. If you know something to be true, and your experience doesn't bear it out, the truth isn't wrong, something is off with your data. Reassess, learn more, and move on.
There's no BUT, in other words.
So no to BUT try being 50.
BTW, I lost 90 pounds adjusting expectations to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to expectations. Life is more productive that way.
Exactly, I'm 50+, cancer survivor, apparently diabetic or close to it.
Yet by watching what I eat, I was already exercising, you just can't outrun your fork, I've lost 27-28# in the past 90 days, or just over 10% of my body mass.
When I was on chemotherapy 20+ years ago, I lost weight eating starlight mints and drinking cola. Why? Because I wasn't eating or drinking as much as I was burning. It wasn't some voodoo like pounds of cancer cells going away. It was I was a 220-230# man getting less than 1000 calories/day because I couldn't stand to eat food while on the chemo.
Most effective weight loss "plan" I've ever been on. The pounds fell off of me until I got down to 190# By then, I was done with 18 weeks of chemo.
But not healthy and certainly not sustainable. But it was CI<<CO, and 100% carbs.
CICO is like looking at the thermometer. It's going to tell you how things are. If CI<CO you are going to lose weight. If the temperature is below 0, you probably need a coat. But the thermometer isn't the temp, just a measurement of it. Much as the speedometer in your car isn't speed, but a measurement of it. CI and CO are nothing more than measures of their respective values, Calories In and Calories Out. It describes what is going on as long as the numbers are accurate.
If you think CI < CO and you are not losing weight, you are measuring one of the values incorrectly.
And it's been said here before, if you have metabolic or other issues, then perhaps your CO is lower than you think. Simple solution, reduce CI. You will lose weight. Increase CO, and remeasure. Eventually you will find where CI is less than CO by either raising CO, lowering CI or both.
That works if you are 9 months or 90+ years old.
It even works for chemotherapy patients, who don't have a lot of energy for CO activities because their RBC counts are too low to even climb stairs.
10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
I am a 50 something woman with a bum thyroid and autoimmune problems. And you know what I read constantly on here?
ADJUST ACCORDING TO RESULTS.
I have never understood trying to work forwards from experience and adjusting "facts" to suit what happens to oneself rather than trying to reconcile one's experience with objective scientific fact. If you know something to be true, and your experience doesn't bear it out, the truth isn't wrong, something is off with your data. Reassess, learn more, and move on.
There's no BUT, in other words.
So no to BUT try being 50.
BTW, I lost 90 pounds adjusting expectations to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to expectations. Life is more productive that way.
So much yup to this.
Signed,
62 and hypothyroid, lost 50+7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K 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