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
-
CICO is not a diet. It is an explanation. I love this and for me it made all the difference in the world. For whatever reason I was able to take knowing CICO and make weight loss something I could do. But I know from experience that is not the case with everyone. But I also think when people can't/won't accept that explanation they readily want to say BS and then throw all rational thinking away.0
-
CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?0
-
antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Whether and to what extent a metabolism is "tunable" is a separate issue from either CICO (the calorie balance equation/concept) works or calorie counting (the weight loss method) works.
I'd look at it this way: Let's say I'm severely hypothyroid (I am) and untreated (I'm not). That's a metabolic condition.
In those circumstances (untreated), I could require slightly fewer calories than an otherwise similar non-hypothyroid person.
It's still the case that there's an average calorie level at which I personally would maintain current weight. If I eat materially less than that calorie level, I'll lose weight; if I eat over it, I'll gain. Calorie counting will work.
If I then get my hypothyroidism treated, my calorie needs could change. CICO still applies, calorie counting still works, just my calorie goal changes.
*If* you can "tune up" your metabolism, you'd simply be changing the calorie level at which you'd maintain, lose or gain weight. CICO still applies, calorie counting still works.
I do believe we can change in ways that affect our calorie needs: Gain muscle mass, induce or reverse adaptive thermogenesis, etc. Do some of those ways amount to "metabolic tuning"?
Maybe, but I don't really know or care. That they could happen matters more than what they're called, IMO.
Seemingly similar people can have materially different calorie needs. That doesn't "violate CICO" or break calorie counting as a method.
As an aside, I think there are a few things that can render calorie counting difficult or unreliable as a method, but they still don't violate CICO.2 -
antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
To add on to what Ann said, you may want to look into reverse dieting, that's perhaps what your trainer is trying to do.
I have seen anecdotal evidence of reverse dieting working for some people.1 -
antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
"Well Tuned" sounds sexy but he's just putting you through some extra paces which allows for an increase in calories and I personally wouldn't be doing HIIT or advice anyone before weight training. And increasing protein, well sure most people that populate a gym are doing and have been doing that for decades. Anyway, it's always good to experiment with different solution for improvement. CICO is as contextual as breathing, neither require any special powers. Cheers.0 -
antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.1 -
CICO is not the only factor in weight loss, but it is the first-order factor For instance, yes I can gain weight by burning more calories than I eat. The blanket statement that if you burn more than you eat you /will/ lose weight is not true in all cases. If someone eats foods with lots of electrolytes, they will retain more water. Water is zero calories but 4kg per gallon (yes mixing unit systems just to be cantankerous). Short-term, they will gain weight while on negative net calories. That's why CICO is the first-order factor, when small either in magnitude (burn 1100 and eat 1050) or time (a day or two) the factors that are much smaller can overcome the effects of the first-order factor. It isn't as simple as it looks, but given enough time it does settle down and the CICO becomes the driver of the outcome.0
-
CICO works. But there are 2 main approaches. One I totally believe is more effective than the other.
You could diet and just reduce 500 calories a day from your maintenance calories and lose weight.
The other is to workout and burn off 500 calories from your maintenance diet. Of course the benefit of doing it this way is you improve your fitness and physique.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
CICO is not the only factor in weight loss, but it is the first-order factor For instance, yes I can gain weight by burning more calories than I eat. The blanket statement that if you burn more than you eat you /will/ lose weight is not true in all cases. If someone eats foods with lots of electrolytes, they will retain more water. Water is zero calories but 4kg per gallon (yes mixing unit systems just to be cantankerous). Short-term, they will gain weight while on negative net calories. That's why CICO is the first-order factor, when small either in magnitude (burn 1100 and eat 1050) or time (a day or two) the factors that are much smaller can overcome the effects of the first-order factor. It isn't as simple as it looks, but given enough time it does settle down and the CICO becomes the driver of the outcome.
By weight loss most of us mean fat loss.
Of course one can have temporary water weight loss/ gain but that isnt really what anyone is discussing re CICO.3 -
CICO works. But there are 2 main approaches. One I totally believe is more effective than the other.
You could diet and just reduce 500 calories a day from your maintenance calories and lose weight.
The other is to workout and burn off 500 calories from your maintenance diet. Of course the benefit of doing it this way is you improve your fitness and physique.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree. I mentioned in another post that nutrition really doesn't have much upside if your healthy, we're not going to live to 150 yrs old. Getting nutrition wrong the downside is well, huge and quite evident just looking at the US population tells us that. Exercise on the other hand has a huge downside if your not exercising or not exercising enough but unlike nutrition it has a huge upside that translates into living a longer and healthier life when we get exercise right. Basically exercise is prerequisite to a healthy lifestyle, period, and we will reap those rewards especially when they really count, when we're old. imo. Cheers2 -
rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »CICO works. But there are 2 main approaches. One I totally believe is more effective than the other.
You could diet and just reduce 500 calories a day from your maintenance calories and lose weight.
The other is to workout and burn off 500 calories from your maintenance diet. Of course the benefit of doing it this way is you improve your fitness and physique.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree. I mentioned in another post that nutrition really doesn't have much upside if your healthy, we're not going to live to 150 yrs old. Getting nutrition wrong the downside is well, huge and quite evident just looking at the US population tells us that. Exercise on the other hand has a huge downside if your not exercising or not exercising enough but unlike nutrition it has a huge upside that translates into living a longer and healthier life when we get exercise right. Basically exercise is prerequisite to a healthy lifestyle, period, and we will reap those rewards especially when they really count, when we're old. imo. Cheers
Yep. Exactly this.0 -
CICO is not the only factor in weight loss, but it is the first-order factor For instance, yes I can gain weight by burning more calories than I eat. The blanket statement that if you burn more than you eat you /will/ lose weight is not true in all cases. If someone eats foods with lots of electrolytes, they will retain more water. Water is zero calories but 4kg per gallon (yes mixing unit systems just to be cantankerous). Short-term, they will gain weight while on negative net calories. That's why CICO is the first-order factor, when small either in magnitude (burn 1100 and eat 1050) or time (a day or two) the factors that are much smaller can overcome the effects of the first-order factor. It isn't as simple as it looks, but given enough time it does settle down and the CICO becomes the driver of the outcome.
One reason it is suggested to get on the scale at the same time each day under as similar conditions as possible is to eliminate those kind of fluctuations. The best time is right after you awake after you eliminate any waste in your system. You shouldn't be drinking a lot of water overnight. It's true that if I weigh first thing in the morning and then go drink two pints of water and weigh again, the scale should show me two pounds heavier. A number of things can create relatively short-term changes in water retention in tissues. Over time, that is eliminated. It's also true that if I put on a heavy coat and boots, the scale will also go up. I don't think that's what people are focusing on when they think about calories in and out and the energy balance they represent.
This is also a reason that looking at weight trends are more important than one-time measurements. Looking at data through time gives a better indication of actual weight. What shows on the scale is you plus anything traveling through you at the time (e.g., food and water).
Those fluctuations always happen, and even in maintenance, my weight goes up and down daily, sometimes even by five pounds. What people are focusing on is fat loss specifically, and the best estimate for that is the scale unless you get a body scan.
3 -
neanderthin wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers
I disagree. I think it is an important distinction.
CICO is not calorie counting so important that we clarify what people are saying.
2 -
It's an acronym for "calories in calories out" and is a concept that by creating a calorie deficit consuming fewer calories than we burn on a daily basis, weight is lost and of course visa versa.paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers
I disagree. I think it is an important distinction.
CICO is not calorie counting so important that we clarify what people are saying.
Yes we could lose weight without counting calories but this is a calorie counting website and really the crux of my nit picking. The first few pages I've read of this thread is full of people talking about CICO deniers and that recording and counting calories works or they counted wrong, it's been this simple problem from the beginning of this thread. I still think it pretty damn funny when I see people correcting people and I may be alone in that thinking, but I can live with that. Who knows it might be the simple fact that neither CICO or counting calories actually addresses nutrition or health in any way and I just lump them together. Cheers1 -
neanderthin wrote: »
It's an acronym for "calories in calories out" and is a concept that by creating a calorie deficit consuming fewer calories than we burn on a daily basis, weight is lost and of course visa versa.paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers
I disagree. I think it is an important distinction.
CICO is not calorie counting so important that we clarify what people are saying.
Yes we could lose weight without counting calories but this is a calorie counting website and really the crux of my nit picking. The first few pages I've read of this thread is full of people talking about CICO deniers and that recording and counting calories works or they counted wrong, it's been this simple problem from the beginning of this thread. I still think it pretty damn funny when I see people correcting people and I may be alone in that thinking, but I can live with that. Who knows it might be the simple fact that neither CICO or counting calories actually addresses nutrition or health in any way and I just lump them together. Cheers
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Personally, I think one if the big reasons there are so many CICO deniers is they misunderstand the "calories out" part. They seem to think it will be the same for everyone, that every body will use calories at the same rate. But they don't. Size, activity level, fidgeting, stress, hormones.... they all affect how efficiently our body uses the calories we put into it.2 -
I think it's just Human Nature to deny that anything anywhere at any time that goes wrong could possibly be my fault.
Therefore, it must be some Great Mystery that has yet to be deciphered by science and it cannot possibly be that I'm merely in need of cutting back how many Calories In.
They try calorie restriction, they hit one of the hundreds of snags that happen with weight loss and they throw their hands up in defeat.
Never be defeated.
Never back down.
Take another stab at it.
Eat a little less, move a little more and the kicker? You have to do it every damn day. Forever.
Not an easy assignment for anyone who has let themselves get to obese.2 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
It's an acronym for "calories in calories out" and is a concept that by creating a calorie deficit consuming fewer calories than we burn on a daily basis, weight is lost and of course visa versa.paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers
I disagree. I think it is an important distinction.
CICO is not calorie counting so important that we clarify what people are saying.
Yes we could lose weight without counting calories but this is a calorie counting website and really the crux of my nit picking. The first few pages I've read of this thread is full of people talking about CICO deniers and that recording and counting calories works or they counted wrong, it's been this simple problem from the beginning of this thread. I still think it pretty damn funny when I see people correcting people and I may be alone in that thinking, but I can live with that. Who knows it might be the simple fact that neither CICO or counting calories actually addresses nutrition or health in any way and I just lump them together. Cheers
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Personally, I think one if the big reasons there are so many CICO deniers is they misunderstand the "calories out" part. They seem to think it will be the same for everyone, that every body will use calories at the same rate. But they don't. Size, activity level, fidgeting, stress, hormones.... they all affect how efficiently our body uses the calories we put into it.
That wasn't my point exactly, but yeah, calorie counting is full of confounders that make it a metric that I personally
believe isn't very effective for improving health and wellbeing and the reason I don't put much emphasis on it. imo. Cheers.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
It's an acronym for "calories in calories out" and is a concept that by creating a calorie deficit consuming fewer calories than we burn on a daily basis, weight is lost and of course visa versa.paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers
I disagree. I think it is an important distinction.
CICO is not calorie counting so important that we clarify what people are saying.
Yes we could lose weight without counting calories but this is a calorie counting website and really the crux of my nit picking. The first few pages I've read of this thread is full of people talking about CICO deniers and that recording and counting calories works or they counted wrong, it's been this simple problem from the beginning of this thread. I still think it pretty damn funny when I see people correcting people and I may be alone in that thinking, but I can live with that. Who knows it might be the simple fact that neither CICO or counting calories actually addresses nutrition or health in any way and I just lump them together. Cheers
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Personally, I think one if the big reasons there are so many CICO deniers is they misunderstand the "calories out" part. They seem to think it will be the same for everyone, that every body will use calories at the same rate. But they don't. Size, activity level, fidgeting, stress, hormones.... they all affect how efficiently our body uses the calories we put into it.
That wasn't my point exactly, but yeah, calorie counting is full of confounders that make it a metric that I personally
believe isn't very effective for improving health and wellbeing and the reason I don't put much emphasis on it. imo. Cheers.
I know, I was adding that on as my own added personal opinion. Your point still stands.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
It's an acronym for "calories in calories out" and is a concept that by creating a calorie deficit consuming fewer calories than we burn on a daily basis, weight is lost and of course visa versa.paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers
I disagree. I think it is an important distinction.
CICO is not calorie counting so important that we clarify what people are saying.
Yes we could lose weight without counting calories but this is a calorie counting website and really the crux of my nit picking. The first few pages I've read of this thread is full of people talking about CICO deniers and that recording and counting calories works or they counted wrong, it's been this simple problem from the beginning of this thread. I still think it pretty damn funny when I see people correcting people and I may be alone in that thinking, but I can live with that. Who knows it might be the simple fact that neither CICO or counting calories actually addresses nutrition or health in any way and I just lump them together. Cheers
Er, yes, after 10 years here, I understand what it is an acronym for.
CICO is not calorie counting and i think it is important to differentiate the 2, not lump them together
And of course neither have anything to do with nutrition but that isnt a reason to lump them together.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
It's an acronym for "calories in calories out" and is a concept that by creating a calorie deficit consuming fewer calories than we burn on a daily basis, weight is lost and of course visa versa.paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »antonymoess296 wrote: »CICO makes sense to me and has always worked for me. But I recently started with a trainer who is making me think. He has me on a treadmill, 30min/day HR 115-130, a fast walk, now moving to HIIT, go hard for 4min then recover. He’s also increasing my protein to 30% and increasing my calories (1900 to 2100 so far and will go higher) and I’m losing weight. His point is he’s trying to get my metabolism well tuned before losing weight and before doing any strength work. Thoughts?
Again, CICO is a description of how the metabolic process of weight loss occurs. It is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is only one method of entering a state where your CI is less than your CO.
This is just an observation because it's not part of my daily life but when most (many) people say CICO they're including calorie counting in the metric for weight lose. CICO is referencing energy balance and this is a calorie counting website. I find the whole argument separating them kinda funny in that context. imo. Cheers
I disagree. I think it is an important distinction.
CICO is not calorie counting so important that we clarify what people are saying.
Yes we could lose weight without counting calories but this is a calorie counting website and really the crux of my nit picking. The first few pages I've read of this thread is full of people talking about CICO deniers and that recording and counting calories works or they counted wrong, it's been this simple problem from the beginning of this thread. I still think it pretty damn funny when I see people correcting people and I may be alone in that thinking, but I can live with that. Who knows it might be the simple fact that neither CICO or counting calories actually addresses nutrition or health in any way and I just lump them together. Cheers
Er, yes, after 10 years here, I understand what it is an acronym for.
CICO is not calorie counting and i think it is important to differentiate the 2, not lump them together
And of course neither have anything to do with nutrition but that isnt a reason to lump them together.
Agreed. Both work together, but they're different things. I could understand how CICO works, and even use the concept to lose weight, but never count a single calorie. Alternatively, if I don't understand CICO, I could count my calories all day long and never lose weight.2 -
Most Children know they need to eat less food in order to be less fat. If an adult doesn't understand that and got fat because they didn't understand CICO, that would make a good SNL skit lol. Cheers0
-
neanderthin wrote: »Most Children know they need to eat less food in order to be less fat. If an adult doesn't understand that and got fat because they didn't understand CICO, that would make a good SNL skit lol. Cheers
Given a lot of the stuff I see the threads... well.... I'll just leave it at that.1 -
Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)4
-
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Children know they need to eat less food in order to be less fat. If an adult doesn't understand that and got fat because they didn't understand CICO, that would make a good SNL skit lol. Cheers
Given a lot of the stuff I see the threads... well.... I'll just leave it at that.
Which implies there are enough people that don't understand that consuming too much food causes weight gain and that CICO is totally a foreign concept to them that needs to be explained ad nauseum so they do understand. Interesting.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Children know they need to eat less food in order to be less fat. If an adult doesn't understand that and got fat because they didn't understand CICO, that would make a good SNL skit lol. Cheers
Given a lot of the stuff I see the threads... well.... I'll just leave it at that.
Which implies there are enough people that don't understand that consuming too much food causes weight gain and that CICO is totally a foreign concept to them that needs to be repeated ad nauseum so they do understand. Interesting.
Nah, I've said it before and I'll say it again... you can't tell nobody nothing. Most of them want to blame anyone and anything else and aren't ready to hear it.0 -
Fair enough. Cheers.0
-
Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂2 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Children know they need to eat less food in order to be less fat. If an adult doesn't understand that and got fat because they didn't understand CICO, that would make a good SNL skit lol. Cheers
Given a lot of the stuff I see the threads... well.... I'll just leave it at that.
Which implies there are enough people that don't understand that consuming too much food causes weight gain and that CICO is totally a foreign concept to them that needs to be explained ad nauseum so they do understand. Interesting.
Interesting, but pretty much true, IMO. Maybe it's just my bias talking, but I don't see too many threads here where completely out of the blue someone starts hectoring about CICO. IME, it happens primarily on a thread where someone's buying into some tangential thing as the key - hormones or macros or picking the exact right exercise or whatever. (I'm not saying those thing have zero importance in the big picture, BTW.)
There's a segment of the irresponsible blogosphere (and beyond) that goes out of its way to convince people that consuming too much food isn't the root cause. I get that weight loss (by calorie counting or any other method) has its challenges and complications, but if the general population understands and buys into the idea that it's a thing they can do on their own, some of those marketers are SOL.
I know smart people who think calories aren't the basis for fat gain/loss. I don't try to sell them that that's the only practical issue, but the propaganda that calories aren't a key issue . . . that has a surprisingly far reach.1
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
- 232.5K 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