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
-
8 -
-
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
18 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
Also, even if CICO *was* a step, it's perfectly okay never to "move along." Lots of people find that they meet their nutritional needs, achieve their fitness goals, and maintain good health without paying particular attention to their macros.
It's like how one can maintain a healthy weight without ever counting a single calorie. Some people find the tool of calorie counting useful, others find they do great without it. It's the same with paying close attention to macros. It's not something that everyone needs and that's okay.
Just like calories, your body is processing and benefiting from macros whether you're tracking to hit a specific goal or not. And even if you pay no attention to nutritional quality, your body is still getting all the nutrients from your food.7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.
I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.
I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.
15 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.
I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.
I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.
I think the disconnect is that you're using "CICO" as a way to say "counting calories." They're different -- CICO is happening whether one is counting calories or not. We all adhere to CICO, we have no choice. It's just how our bodies operate. Within that context, some of us count calories and others don't.14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.
I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.
I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.
I think the disconnect is that you're using "CICO" as a way to say "counting calories." They're different -- CICO is happening whether one is counting calories or not. We all adhere to CICO, we have no choice. It's just how our bodies operate. Within that context, some of us count calories and others don't.
Got it- I've always used CICO and "counting calories" interchangeably, which apparently is confusing others
10 -
48 pages later and we are still trying to clear up confusion which was clarified on page 1.18
-
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.
I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.
I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.
I think the disconnect is that you're using "CICO" as a way to say "counting calories." They're different -- CICO is happening whether one is counting calories or not. We all adhere to CICO, we have no choice. It's just how our bodies operate. Within that context, some of us count calories and others don't.
Got it- I've always used CICO and "counting calories" interchangeably, which apparently is confusing others
It's not "others" who are confused.17 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Now I'm just wondering how I lost 40 Lbs and have managed to keep it off (except for winter weight) for 5 years. I'm also wondering how the hell I've lost 4 of my 10 Lbs of winter weight in the last month.
I see that you and I are now worried about the same thing.
@jofjltncb6 I am extremely concerned...
Good to see you around...1 -
In my case, because it's not that simple. I have many autoimmune diseases, including a thyroid one, I have no thyroid. It's just not as simple as CICO for me and people with these issues. However, anyone can lose weight. I've lost 70ish lbs so far.16
-
xFreudianSlip wrote: »In my case, because it's not that simple. I have many autoimmune diseases, including a thyroid one, I have no thyroid. It's just not as simple as CICO for me and people with these issues. However, anyone can lose weight. I've lost 70ish lbs so far.
You've lost weight by consuming less calories than you expend. Which is CICO in action.17 -
xFreudianSlip wrote: »In my case, because it's not that simple. I have many autoimmune diseases, including a thyroid one, I have no thyroid. It's just not as simple as CICO for me and people with these issues. However, anyone can lose weight. I've lost 70ish lbs so far.
As others pointed out, CICO does not mean "counting calories."
You did lose due to CICO. Likely, you also realized that your medical issues (esp the thyroid issue) were affecting CO, and so took steps (such as medical treatment) to address that.
One reason people are being nitpicky here is that saying the true statement "CICO determines weight loss" does NOT mean that the person saying it ONLY paid attention to CICO (or ate a nutrient-free diet, as some seem to think), and it also does not mean that they found it easy to just cut calories/increase TDEE. Some do, some find it helpful to make other changes, some find controlling eating times or what they eat or macros or whatever to help a lot in achieving the desired CO>CI. But in all cases they were losing due to CICO.
I find it a little frustrating that there seems to be this idea that people who say CICO is what determines weight loss are saying "nothing else matters for any reason, and I personally ignore every other thing but calories and think others should too." (I don't think you were saying that, but I think the post reflects a similar kind of idea.)6 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.
I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.
I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.
I think the disconnect is that you're using "CICO" as a way to say "counting calories." They're different -- CICO is happening whether one is counting calories or not. We all adhere to CICO, we have no choice. It's just how our bodies operate. Within that context, some of us count calories and others don't.
Got it- I've always used CICO and "counting calories" interchangeably, which apparently is confusing others
CICO is just shorthand for the first law of thermodynamics which states that the change in energy in a system is equal to the input of energy minus the energy exported by the system into the enviornment.
Calorie counting is just a strategy some people employ to track weight loss/gain/maintenance.
They aren't the same thing. You can say that the strategy of calorie counting for weightloss relies on CICO....but in the same way you could say that the strategy of weightlifting for strength gains relies on gravity.
Stating that CICO is just a step or one option for weightloss would be like stating that gravity is just a step or one option for strength gains...it just a weird and rather inaccurate way of saying it.
Totally understand why this happens though, a lot of people on the internet use the term to mean calorie counting even though it literally just stands for calories in calories out (account for total change in calories in a system).12 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Dude. Why?10 -
xFreudianSlip wrote: »In my case, because it's not that simple. I have many autoimmune diseases, including a thyroid one, I have no thyroid. It's just not as simple as CICO for me and people with these issues. However, anyone can lose weight. I've lost 70ish lbs so far.
Yes it is. There are other people on these boards with no thyroid. It's still CICO.
BTW, I also have many autoimmune issues, including a bad thyroid. I've lost 90 pounds, and it was governed by creating a calorie deficit. That is what CICO is (well, for losing weight... you gain or maintain weight by CICO too).
I don't know what you think it is.9 -
4
-
xFreudianSlip wrote: »It's just not as simple as CICO for me and people with these issues.
CICO is not a step, a diet, a method etc. It is an "explanation" so to speak as to what is going on in the body.
If you are losing weight... CI<CO
If you are gaining weight... CI>CO
If your weight remains the same... CI=CO7 -
CICO is not a "step" for anyone...Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.
Fixed...Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.
You are clearly confusing CICO with counting calories...Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?
I would say, based on what I've read in various threads over the past few years, that virtually every long-term poster considers *something* in their food choices other than just calories. Exactly what is focused on varies from person to person, but I think everyone is focusing on something. Nobody is just daily eating whatever pops into their head at a given moment and then stopping for the day when their calorie goal is reached.
(Because the world is big and contains all kinds of people, I'm prepared for someone to come in and say this is exactly how they eat, but I'm still thinking that type of eating pattern would be an exception for someone who is maintaining long-term or focusing on achieving specific fitness goals).
CICO isn't "enough" for anybody because CICO isn't, and was never meant to be, a complete diet plan or description of how someone eats.
This is a great way to frame things. CICO is a good first step, but once you master that, move along to IIFYM. IIFYM is great, but the next step is focusing on increasing the quality of your food. There is so much to nutrition that it is useful to keep looking at the next way that you can refine and improve upon your program.
Sigh. The point, I think you may have missed it.
CICO isn’t a step. It is the overarching energy balance equation. You don’t move from it to IIFYM, because even when following IIFYM, CICO still governs whether you lose, maintain or gain. Same with focusing on nutritional quality. Again - CICO and focus on nutrition are not mutually exclusive.
Before you sigh and conclude that I missed the point, understand that CICO *alone* was a step for me.
I began with CICO and prioritizing limiting my net calories per day with little regard to anything else. Then I progressed to IIFYM, which is CICO plus balancing macro nutrients. Once IIFYM was routine, I tracked micros closer and refined my diet with higher quality food.
I never stated that CICO and a focus on nutritional excellence were mutually exclusive, but you don't need to do anything with the latter in order to adhere to the former.
I think the disconnect is that you're using "CICO" as a way to say "counting calories." They're different -- CICO is happening whether one is counting calories or not. We all adhere to CICO, we have no choice. It's just how our bodies operate. Within that context, some of us count calories and others don't.
Got it- I've always used CICO and "counting calories" interchangeably, which apparently is confusing others
CICO is just shorthand for the first law of thermodynamics which states that the change in energy in a system is equal to the input of energy minus the energy exported by the system into the environment.
Calorie counting is just a strategy some people employ to track weight loss/gain/maintenance.
They aren't the same thing. You can say that the strategy of calorie counting for weightloss relies on CICO....but in the same way you could say that the strategy of weightlifting for strength gains relies on gravity.
Stating that CICO is just a step or one option for weightloss would be like stating that gravity is just a step or one option for strength gains...it just a weird and rather inaccurate way of saying it.
Totally understand why this happens though, a lot of people on the internet use the term to mean calorie counting even though it literally just stands for calories in calories out (account for total change in calories in a system).
The bolded statements are just so... gorgeous!10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions