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
-
I also liked your analysis where you analyzed projected weight loss vs actual.
Its too far buried for me to find though...3 -
annaskiski wrote: »I also liked your analysis where you analyzed projected weight loss vs actual.
Its too far buried for me to find though...
Thanks! As far as the projected vs actual fat loss based on my deficit. I put one example in the OP.
"Example of the accuracy of CICO:
As of Day 126
Total deficit 113033= 32.29
Deficit would put me at 183.71 lbs.
Todays morning weight 183 lbs."
It may not be as accurate for others, but for me, that website I use seems to be on point.8 -
I remember back in 2010 when someone came to me with this CICO blasphemy. I was all up in arms "but the spiking of the insulinssss!" Then I read the irrefutable science and then tried it for myself. I will again shamelessly promote my thread(it's a thread in this very debate forum) where I ate junk for most of my meals(for science) for 10 months and got into the best shape of my life. It's all about CICO with even better results if you try to get extra protein in and incorporate resistance training. Then slowly eat more nutrient-dense foods for long-term health. This is good news, people. It changed my life tbf.
Are you by any chance friends with the guy from Legion who uses some friend of his as an example all the time about how he ate junk and lost a bunch of weight?1 -
lakinapook wrote: »I remember back in 2010 when someone came to me with this CICO blasphemy. I was all up in arms "but the spiking of the insulinssss!" Then I read the irrefutable science and then tried it for myself. I will again shamelessly promote my thread(it's a thread in this very debate forum) where I ate junk for most of my meals(for science) for 10 months and got into the best shape of my life. It's all about CICO with even better results if you try to get extra protein in and incorporate resistance training. Then slowly eat more nutrient-dense foods for long-term health. This is good news, people. It changed my life tbf.
Are you by any chance friends with the guy from Legion who uses some friend of his as an example all the time about how he ate junk and lost a bunch of weight?
Idk, I don't remember anyone named Legion.3 -
My favorite is people that claim they eat 1200 calories but still aren’t losing weight. Here’s the kicker- they don’t own a food scale because that’s just “crazy.” I just stopped talking after that nonsense.
Not all, go in the keto community for example, many will claim carbs are bad and evil, then you have other groups who blame sugar and when I listen to the nonsense being thrown by my coworkers about nutrition....I get the impression the majority of the people have no clue how weight loss really works. My mom for example thinks she eats 1200 calories, but she doesn't weigh anything and visually I can tell she eats more calories than that, but she denies it.terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
Very well said. Our bodies are not simple. There is so much people don't understand about how hormones control metabolism, cravings, hunger, fat storage, muscle development, etc. CICO works, but for some it is much harder to master, and not because they are lazy or not trying.
Unless they are 4' tall, and are underweight to begin with, possible also bed ridden... Yeah "I only eat 1000 calories a day, and I'm still obese...". Nope, nope, nope.6 -
denial. they wanna eat more "good" food or something. i lose the most weight on liquid/soft diets bc it helps me keep track of calories more. also i feel lighter.6
-
ghost_of_an_android wrote: »denial. they wanna eat more "good" food or something. i lose the most weight on liquid/soft diets bc it helps me keep track of calories more. also i feel lighter.
I'm going out on a limb to say you didn't read all 65 pages of this buried thread before you posted and resurrected it...11 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »garystrickland357 wrote: »@nutmegoreo
You just have to watch your macros closely. Think of gasoline as more analogous to carbs and diesel being more like fat. If you're looking for something meatier, use straight unrefined crude. Yeah, dead batteries are a bit like that cheese that stayed in the drawer too long...
As far as the Uranium - it tastes a little sweeter than Plutonium, with a hint of mercury.
:laugh: I hadn't considered the macros on it. Great point. Nutrition is important (for health purposes and satiety, not weight loss), just to tie it all back into the theme of the thread.
See, you're confusing the two topics. From a CICO perspective, it's irrelevant if you drink diesel/gasonline/unrefined crude. CICO <> BTU counting.
Hey, I'm creating whole new diet plan. Don't be telling me I'm doing it wrong. I have blogs to prove it!
I mean, as long as you have some blogs to back you up and a lot of CAPS LOCK in your posts, who could possibly argue with that?
Just make sure to be smug about how enlightened you are and how everybody else is mired in "old science" and has their heads stuck in the mud and refuses to see the genius of your plan. Disregard any and all peer-reviewed research. Then and only then you can supersede all the laws of physics and leave reality behind. How awesome will it be to lose weight while eating a massive surplus, defy gravity and be immortal, all at the same time??? :drinker:
THANKS FOR THE TIPS. I do believe that my new SUPERFUEL diet will certainly HELP ME DEFY GRAVITY. Particularly when someone lights a match near me. Hmmmm... There may be one small flaw in my plan
But your new (?) avi (which I love) suggests that you can hide that flaw from the public as long as no one opens the box.
So your new diet plan will make you rich after all.
If you still exist.
Nahh, multiple states at the same time until measured is a quantum problem and gravity remains elusively macroscopic.0 -
CITO is rubbish. It doesn't work. Every time I eat a bag of crisps I'm lighter the next morning than the previous one. Thus yeah, here's the proof that CITO doesn't work, right?
Wrong. whenever I have a bag of crisps I'm less hungry from this very low volume food and have an extra large poop. Less stuff in intestines -> less weight on the scale. Temporarily. If I overeat regularly the general weight trend will still be up even though single days might be lower than the previous one.1 -
What is CITO?CITO is rubbish. It doesn't work. Every time I eat a bag of crisps I'm lighter the next morning than the previous one. Thus yeah, here's the proof that CITO doesn't work, right?
Wrong. whenever I have a bag of crisps I'm less hungry from this very low volume food and have an extra large poop. Less stuff in intestines -> less weight on the scale. Temporarily. If I overeat regularly the general weight trend will still be up even though single days might be lower than the previous one.
What is CITO?0 -
Probably a typo.1
-
paperpudding wrote: »Probably a typo.
Totally a typo. Oops.0 -
I have to say that it has just occurred to me that CICO is simple and true. I've resolved in my brain that I CAN do this. I need to just stay the course.
In the past, I've been knocked off course because lack of time for meal prep, life family blah blah blah. CICO is simple science and I can do it. I don't need this pill,, or that product or money for x. I just need to keep at it. It will work. I doubted before that I could reach me weight loss goals, but now I know I can.7 -
CICO is definitely real. Doesnt mean you are healthy if all you care about is calorie in calorie out. It just means if you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight. You can still be a hot mess of bad health while still losing weight. You could go from being a large pear shape to being a small pear shape too by just being in a caloric deficit without caring mich about anything else that may go into your health and fitness plan. Bottomline is, yes, without a doubt if you take in less calories than you burn you will lose weight. It means nothing more than that.4
-
I've actually never met anyone that didn't know they had to eat less to lose weight. Cheers.1
-
neanderthin wrote: »I've actually never met anyone that didn't know they had to eat less to lose weight. Cheers.
There are people who think diet strategies like keto and intermittent fasting magically melt away weight, when in reality, people just tend to eat less calories with restrictive diets and during smaller feeding windows.0 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I've actually never met anyone that didn't know they had to eat less to lose weight. Cheers.
There are people who think diet strategies like keto and intermittent fasting magically melt away weight, when in reality, people just tend to eat less calories with restrictive diets and during smaller feeding windows.
I agree that lower carb and IF tend to facilitate a calorie deficit fairly easily and why they've been popular, no doubt about it. I still believe most people that are overweight and obese and otherwise understood pretty much from a young age that they needed to eat less to lose weight, is basically what I mean and meant. Cheers2 -
I think some people are more complicated than "everyone knows that they need to eat less to lose weight", and that that's part of why some people are so-called CICO deniers.
A recent case in point:
I was speaking with an acquaintance at an event. She's an intelligent woman, and a retired very well respected high school science teacher. She's also quite an athlete, by history and currently (former NCAA div I basketball player, has put down rowing machine race times in recent years that would place and possibly win in her age group at CRASH-B, the big international machine rowing competition). Intelligent, accomplished.
She's gained some weight in recent years, and is unhappy about it. We got into a chat about that, and she asked about how I went from obese to slim and have stayed there for years now. (She's known me the whole time, and we see each other semi-frequently, just aren't close friends.)
So, I told her that I calorie count. She asserted that calorie counting doesn't work. It wasn't denial of laws of physics, but she'd bought into the ideas one sees so often in the blogosphere that calorie counting doesn't work.
In her view, calorie counting doesn't work because: Your body will down-regulate calorie needs (maybe permanently). Your body will use your hunger hormones to defeat your efforts. She believes the "type of calories" matters when it comes to weight loss (physiologically, in absorption/metabolization, not just satiation and nutrition). Her high exercise levels make the gain (and failure to lose) puzzling (she regularly does stuff like 100-mile bike rides, so we're not talking tiny exercise expenditures, BTW). She doesn't perceive that anything has changed in her life, but she gained weight and hasn't been able to lose it. She believes it's age-inevitable (or maybe because of menopause). (She's my age, or a couple of years younger, BTW.) She sort of presents as having "tried everything", and I didn't dig into that, but I'm betting it's the usual blogosphere-trumpeted stuff, and pretty sure it doesn't include disciplined calorie counting for long enough to figure it out.
So, yeah, she understands that energy content of food matters, and that physics is real. In one sense, she understands that people have to eat less to lose weight. But she thinks that bodies are so complicated and dynamic that calorie counting doesn't work in practice . . . pretty much can't work in practice, so CICO isn't a useful guide.
That's a CICO denier.
8 -
Yeah, metabolic processes can influence our metabolism and that influence is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics which interacts with the surroundings as do humans. She understands CICO but also understands there are influences that will effect how and where that heat is utilized, though slightly I'd imagine. At least that's how some people read the situation, beliefs differ, and right or wrong that's how the human race moves forward by questioning everything. Cheers2
-
neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, metabolic processes can influence our metabolism and that influence is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics which interacts with the surroundings as do humans. She understands CICO but also understands there are influences that will effect how and where that heat is utilized, though slightly I'd imagine. At least that's how some people read the situation, beliefs differ, and right or wrong that's how the human race moves forward by questioning everything. Cheers
Nope, not her. She will literally say that calorie intake doesn't determine (cause) weight loss. If I believe what she says, she's a CICO denier. In effect, she's over-estimating the effect of those minor factors, IMO, sure.
People are complicated. One of the reasons (I think) that she and I aren't closer friends, though we like each other well enough socially to be friendly is that she's a very black and white thinker, and I'm all exception-y, nuance-y, overcomplicate everything with details. Neither of those ways of being are IMO necessarily inherently good or bad, both have pros and cons, but our cognitive styles are very different.0 -
Yeah, can't agree with you more. The equalizer for CICO is the margin of error and CICO will always win because it's an easy fix, just eat less, which your friend seems to not understand at all, and confirmation bias appears to have occupy her frontal cortex. Hopefully on that journey she looks at conflicting evidence and looks at the totality of evidence, she seems like a smart person, so I hope she does. cheers0
-
CICO "doesn't work" if you're not willing to implement it! Also, if you stop tracking your calories as soon as you achieve your weight goal, you will likely gain the weight back. In a nutshell, counting calories is a lot of effort!
@annpt77 : You acted just as anyone should. Your friend asked you and you answered. The hard part is to walk away and let people do what they will with your advice. (Maybe it's not that hard for you!)
So far, I've never convinced anyone to adopt my approach of counting every stinking calorie, logging it, and trying to stay within a program. I also have used fitness watches to estimate my calorie burn for the past many years. My failed apprentices include my wife and her sister, neither of whom can stand the practice. It makes them miserable! My wife has lost weight at times using a rules-based approach, but never by calorie counting.0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »CICO "doesn't work" if you're not willing to implement it! Also, if you stop tracking your calories as soon as you achieve your weight goal, you will likely gain the weight back. In a nutshell, counting calories is a lot of effort!
@annpt77 : You acted just as anyone should. Your friend asked you and you answered. The hard part is to walk away and let people do what they will with your advice. (Maybe it's not that hard for you!)
IME, going head to head, arguing with someone who's a more black and white thinker (or maybe arguing with anyone
) is not a good way to win them over, if it's even possible. IME, kind of wearing them down over time, gradually, with demonstrated example and occasional minor neutral-seeming factual comments . . . that's more likely to work.
IOW, maybe I can wear her down with a dribble of science and practice, get her to try it. Dunno.So far, I've never convinced anyone to adopt my approach of counting every stinking calorie, logging it, and trying to stay within a program. I also have used fitness watches to estimate my calorie burn for the past many years. My failed apprentices include my wife and her sister, neither of whom can stand the practice. It makes them miserable! My wife has lost weight at times using a rules-based approach, but never by calorie counting.
I was able to convince one friend to try it long enough to lose a meaningful amount of weight . . . I think it was around 20 pounds. She was pretty excited about it . . . for a while. She's a bit of a flitter-flutterer by nature (diagnosed with adult ADHD) which is part of her charm . . . but it bodes ill for long term commitment to anything dull.
I do have a couple of friends who lost a bunch of weight on Weight Watchers (earlier versions, not the current). One has stayed very slim, the other has had some regain but far from all the way back to her original weight.
Many approaches can work for a subset of people. Pretty much nothing works for everyone, when we're talking methods. (Obviously, under the covers it's about calorie balance; but counting the calories isn't the only method that can work.) Realistically, no matter what weight loss approach people choose, most of us will regain some or all of it . . . maybe regain more than we lost.
1 -
Important to differentiate between CICO and calorie counting.
I agree calorie counting doesnt work for everyone - it is a method that doesnt suit everyone
CICO works for everyone and calorie deficit is universally neccesary to lose weight
but calorie counting is not.5 -
paperpudding wrote: »Important to differentiate between CICO and calorie counting.
I agree calorie counting doesnt work for everyone - it is a method that doesnt suit everyone
CICO works for everyone and calorie deficit is universally neccesary to lose weight
but calorie counting is not.
Well put. cheers0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Important to differentiate between CICO and calorie counting.
I agree calorie counting doesnt work for everyone - it is a method that doesnt suit everyone
CICO works for everyone and calorie deficit is universally neccesary to lose weight
but calorie counting is not.
An honest question - if you aren't counting the calories in, how are you accomplishing your goals in CICO?0 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Important to differentiate between CICO and calorie counting.
I agree calorie counting doesnt work for everyone - it is a method that doesnt suit everyone
CICO works for everyone and calorie deficit is universally neccesary to lose weight
but calorie counting is not.
An honest question - if you aren't counting the calories in, how are you accomplishing your goals in CICO?
For me personally it's the low carb diet I've been on for just over a dozen years and have fundamentally maintained my weight during this time as well. Some find the diet more satiating or basically the desire to overeat is mitigated and I suspect a lot of that is hormonal. A low carb diet does increase glucagon which is basically a signaling hormone that controls appetite and I suspect it works similarly as do GLP-1 but my appetite for sugar and sugary carbs is basically gone, even when my partner brings home Cinnabon's, which always amazes me and I suspect that is more in the brain, where Glucagon's action is in digestion. Of course not everyone will have the same results on low carb and it does eliminate starch and is basically a whole food diet, which most find the sustainably aspect challenging, because Cinnabon's lol.
Saying that, right now I am counting calories to help with my goal of increasing muscle and I find counting to be essential to my success which is to make sure I'm within the parameters I've set out. Cheers2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Important to differentiate between CICO and calorie counting.
You are totally right that CICO has to work-- it's just an energy balance statement. The complications are 1) there is no easy way to know accurately what your "calories out" are for any given day (despite advances in fitness watches, etc.) and 2) measuring your "calories in" requires significant effort.
So, while CICO is always the case, applying CICO (e.g., counting calories) doesn't work for a lot of people.
Although, it works for me, every time I adhere to it.
And, predictably, it stops working when I don't! 
0 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »An honest question - if you aren't counting the calories in, how are you accomplishing your goals in CICO?
My wife's approach has always been to adopt dietary rules that help limit intake. Simple things like no sweets, no alcohol, no bread, limited carbs with meals (e.g., a potato at dinner), drinking 24oz of lemon water before every meal, no snacks after dinner. When she follows the rules, she loses weight.
The main reason I can't just do that is that I do 500+ kcals of exercise on many days and I need to eat at least some of it back as carb. I can't get it right without accounting.1
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
- 426 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