Welcome to the new Community design. We know there are some big changes to get used to as well some challenges and bugs. Please check out our post about New Updates To The Community as well as Outstanding Bugs. We will continue to collect feedback and bug issues and will work to make improvements.
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 ?



  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,601 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?

    the only people I know who mix up CICO and calorie counting are those that say if you follow IIFYM you eat only twinkies (hyperbole, but you get the point)

    People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.

    I know exactly what it means. It means you go to IIFYM.com and stick to their exact numbers, including their ridiculous protein goal, and don't adjust anything and then eat pop tarts.

    Did I get it right? Do I win a Mars bar?

    no MARS bar for you! but I do have a snickers instead.
  • RivenV
    RivenV Posts: 1,667 Member
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    RivenV wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.

    I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?

    Can you tell us specifically the genetics differences and specific medical conditions you have that defy the principles of energy balance and the mechanism by which they do so?

    Can you name the chemical additives the food industry puts in food to generate greater profit margins and what they have to do with your argument?

    What eating plan have you been following? How did you track calories before? Did you use a food scale? Did you use a website like MFP and verify that you were using correct calorie data for the foods you were eating? How did you calculate how many calories you should be eating to create a calorie deficit at that point?

    Lastly, just what do you think CICO is?

    Also, assuming consistent tracking, adherence, and confirmed good data, when weight loss didn't occur as predicted after a reasonable period of time, did you adjust your target downward by a reasonable amount and resumed consistent tracking and adherence...and continued this refining process until satisfactory progress?

    Because no website can determine an individual's TDEE and also guess correctly their inevitable error biases in tracking.

    (I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets based on progress (or lack thereof) are an essential component of achieving their goal weight?)

    It can't be that baffling why it was "woo'd," can it?


    C'mon, Jof, you're not exactly new around here.

    Are you questioning the sincerity of my incredulity?!?

    How dare you!!



    Honestly, this is a way better fight than the other one that's going on.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,121 Member
    TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:

    For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.

    once again that is NOT CICO - that is calorie counting or macro make-up!

    The concept of CICO implies that all that matters is calories in, calories out, and all calories are the same and calories are all that matters. Or am I reading the meaning of this thread wrong? Please explain to me. I'm receptive.

    In terms of weight loss yes, all that matters is the energy balance between the calories you take in and the calories you expend or CICO. That said CICO says nothing about what strategies might work for you in order to lose weight or what methods are going to be accurate for you in terms of estimating CI or CO.