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 ?
Options
Replies
-
snowflake954 wrote: »I count calories yes and I need that number to know I am eating less or more overall. I have a GI and Thyroid chronic disease and chronic lack of sleep due to caring for a son with special needs. I read the first page of comments and those first few comments were pretty supportive of CICO as a clear and absolute way of losing weight.
It has not worked for me that way. At least not in the way that all sort of online calculators, charts, databases, and HRM's would have led me to believe.
I have lost about 45lbs this time around by counting calories, most days I eat 1200 - 1700 calories. My "CICO calculations" say that after I add the burned calories I should be losing about 3lbs a week. I am a very careful and diligent logger. When the same food shows up with multiple results on the database I choose the higher calorie calculation. I walk at least 30 mins most days which I dont add as part of my burned calories and yet I am only losing about 1.7 lbs a week. If I eat more my weight loss rate is less so for me calorie counting is beneficial but CICO remains an illusion given the complexities others have mentioned and more specifically my own situation. Someone else also mentioned that the reason for counting calories is to find balance and I'll use this expression to help others understand why CICO is not working for them but why they should still log.
My way to long term success has been fasting (OMAD more specifically), calories counting and incorporating exercise. Eating better foods has been a game changer for me. I totally avoid refined sugars either in drinks or snacks and I have documented well the physical, emotional and mental changes and toll of eating junk even if within one's CICO calculations.
If you can eat junk all the time and make it work with CICO, then *thumbs up* to you, however there are plenty of people who could benefit from knowing that CICO is not the panacea some try to sell it as.
Even if we were to assume that CICO is an exact, simple and easy science for those in three normal distributions of all the people in the US, not to mention the world, that still leaves almost (1,000,000) one million people for who CICO doensn't work. I have no idea what the case may be I'm just presenting an scenario in which statistically something may be true for almost everyone (99.7%), even a minuscule percentage is a large number if the sample size is huge too (as in the entirety of the US population). But here we often find ourselves trying to model our long term goals and criticizing others for not following our way 'cause one guy did it once or for a short period of time.
I know that most people have their minds set on what they already know, just posting here for those who may need context as to why CICO calculations haven't worked for them and hopefully they feel less frustrated and less of an idiot for not being able to crack the right way of doing CICO. For some of us there's no right way. The calculations will just not work and that's OK, calorie counting is still a good tool in this journey.
Well CICO is NOT a diet. Whenever you eat or drink something it's CI. Whenever it leaves your body it's CO. Everybody living does it everyday.
You are recounting your experience (1) and say a great many people have your problem, whereas telling about a guy who ate whatever and lost weight is just (1) person. I would like to suggest that there are many people like him. You don't hear about it because they are successful and don't complain. The people that are frustrated post and seem like many more.
Everyone can lose weight. They just have to find the way (there are many).
Good luck reaching your goals.
Neither is counting calories, which is a mathematic description that determines a quantity. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I count calories yes and I need that number to know I am eating less or more overall. I have a GI and Thyroid chronic disease and chronic lack of sleep due to caring for a son with special needs. I read the first page of comments and those first few comments were pretty supportive of CICO as a clear and absolute way of losing weight.
It has not worked for me that way. At least not in the way that all sort of online calculators, charts, databases, and HRM's would have led me to believe.
I have lost about 45lbs this time around by counting calories, most days I eat 1200 - 1700 calories. My "CICO calculations" say that after I add the burned calories I should be losing about 3lbs a week. I am a very careful and diligent logger. When the same food shows up with multiple results on the database I choose the higher calorie calculation. I walk at least 30 mins most days which I dont add as part of my burned calories and yet I am only losing about 1.7 lbs a week. If I eat more my weight loss rate is less so for me calorie counting is beneficial but CICO remains an illusion given the complexities others have mentioned and more specifically my own situation. Someone else also mentioned that the reason for counting calories is to find balance and I'll use this expression to help others understand why CICO is not working for them but why they should still log.
My way to long term success has been fasting (OMAD more specifically), calories counting and incorporating exercise. Eating better foods has been a game changer for me. I totally avoid refined sugars either in drinks or snacks and I have documented well the physical, emotional and mental changes and toll of eating junk even if within one's CICO calculations.
If you can eat junk all the time and make it work with CICO, then *thumbs up* to you, however there are plenty of people who could benefit from knowing that CICO is not the panacea some try to sell it as.
Even if we were to assume that CICO is an exact, simple and easy science for those in three normal distributions of all the people in the US, not to mention the world, that still leaves almost (1,000,000) one million people for who CICO doensn't work. I have no idea what the case may be I'm just presenting an scenario in which statistically something may be true for almost everyone (99.7%), even a minuscule percentage is a large number if the sample size is huge too (as in the entirety of the US population). But here we often find ourselves trying to model our long term goals and criticizing others for not following our way 'cause one guy did it once or for a short period of time.
I know that most people have their minds set on what they already know, just posting here for those who may need context as to why CICO calculations haven't worked for them and hopefully they feel less frustrated and less of an idiot for not being able to crack the right way of doing CICO. For some of us there's no right way. The calculations will just not work and that's OK, calorie counting is still a good tool in this journey.
Well CICO is NOT a diet. Whenever you eat or drink something it's CI. Whenever it leaves your body it's CO. Everybody living does it everyday.
You are recounting your experience (1) and say a great many people have your problem, whereas telling about a guy who ate whatever and lost weight is just (1) person. I would like to suggest that there are many people like him. You don't hear about it because they are successful and don't complain. The people that are frustrated post and seem like many more.
Everyone can lose weight. They just have to find the way (there are many).
Good luck reaching your goals.
Neither is counting calories, which is a mathematic description that determines a quantity. Cheers
Didn't say it was.
Cheers
PS: For those following along, calorie counting is a tool for losing, maintaining, or gaining weight.4 -
CICO definitely has its place in weight loss but the digestive system is so much more complicated. The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung is a great resource for learning about how insulin effects weight gain and loss and the hunger hormones in your body. There is a lot of great and new information being discovered all the time. It's good to have an open mind. It is not necessary to take everything as gospel but if it resonates with you and your body responds positively than that's great. Everyone's journey is personal as everybody responds differently so I think there can be many different approaches that can be embraced. So glad CICO works for you.2
-
CICO definitely has its place in weight loss but the digestive system is so much more complicated. The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung is a great resource for learning about how insulin effects weight gain and loss and the hunger hormones in your body. There is a lot of great and new information being discovered all the time. It's good to have an open mind. It is not necessary to take everything as gospel but if it resonates with you and your body responds positively than that's great. Everyone's journey is personal as everybody responds differently so I think there can be many different approaches that can be embraced. So glad CICO works for you.
I have watched a few Dr. Jason Fung videos, and have gleaned some extremely helpful things from then that I have put into action.
However, I find it frustrating that even while he will say things like, "The body doesn't look at calories.", he will then give an example of how when you eat the right way nutritionally and thus have proper hormone response you will feel full to the point of stopping eating. Notice something here? In stating that he is saying that when your hormone response is functioning properly it will cause you to self-regulate what you eat. That is, you will reduce calories. CICO is simply describing energy balance, and it is still true even with what Dr. Jason Fung calls for, just his approach is one that doesn't involve calorie counting. Even while he denies calories are important, he says they are. I think you like him and may others are confusing calorie counting with CICO. If one is losing weight and fat it will be because their CI is less than their CO, either by self regulation or by counting or by cutting out food group. That is an unbreakable fact of human physiology.
To finish, I have implemented several things he advocates for (some I did before others were changes in my eating) and while doing so I continued to count my calories. Doing what he suggest, guess what, my calories were lower because I could not eat as much as I can eating carb-heavy meals. So basically CICO works. The difficulty is that the CI and the CO can have confounding issues that make their numbers less apparent, especially in terms of CO.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »I read the first page of comments and those first few comments were pretty supportive of CICO as a clear and absolute way of losing weight.
CICO is not a way of losing weight- it is a scientific reality.
Counting calories is a way of losing weight - a method that some people use - probably most people on MFP since it is a calorie counting based site.
as I said before, important to differentiate between CICO and calorie counting.
In terms of the "scientific reality". I am not questioning whether 1 calorie = 4.19 joules or that calculating the energy contents of food in a bomb calorimeter is not an scientific measurement. I am saying that for practical purposes, if you rely on databases, HRM, nutrition labels and humans to make the calculations, measurements and logging, then the results may not pan out and that can lead to lots of frustrations even to the point of people giving up on their efforts.
Another scientific fact not figured in calorie estimates of food is dietary induced thermogenesis, CICO sounds like a simple scientific fact until it isn't and I'm not discounting the merits of calories counting for weight loss or gain efforts. I'm just saying let's chill out with the dogmatic tone and let's help that person for which the estimates and calculators are not accurate for them to the point where they dont see the projected results.
If you read my post again you'll see that I encourage anyone reading it to still do calorie counting as a way to find for themselves what number of "in" calories vs "out" calories work for them. Finding balance is the key even if it is, as it is in my case or @AnnPT77 's case off by a lot from what calculations say it should be.
Also talking about scientific stuff would you be surprised to know that your food labels have a tolerance of 20%? yes even calories. Read more here. I can only infer that by your use of the word 'scientific' you imply it is also accurate, pardon me if this is not implied in your use of the word. 20% tolerance can hardly be considered accurate enough in most aspects of life. It's yet another point to consider.
If calorie counting and CICO 'estimates' using the databases, calculators, food labels, etc. are giving you (the reader) the long term results you seek Great! For those of use that don't, here's some context in my posts, there's no need to give up on calorie counting, the numbers in which you find balance in your particular case may be off, you just need to find them.3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I count calories yes and I need that number to know I am eating less or more overall. I have a GI and Thyroid chronic disease and chronic lack of sleep due to caring for a son with special needs. I read the first page of comments and those first few comments were pretty supportive of CICO as a clear and absolute way of losing weight.
It has not worked for me that way. At least not in the way that all sort of online calculators, charts, databases, and HRM's would have led me to believe.
I have lost about 45lbs this time around by counting calories, most days I eat 1200 - 1700 calories. My "CICO calculations" say that after I add the burned calories I should be losing about 3lbs a week. I am a very careful and diligent logger. When the same food shows up with multiple results on the database I choose the higher calorie calculation. I walk at least 30 mins most days which I dont add as part of my burned calories and yet I am only losing about 1.7 lbs a week. If I eat more my weight loss rate is less so for me calorie counting is beneficial but CICO remains an illusion given the complexities others have mentioned and more specifically my own situation. Someone else also mentioned that the reason for counting calories is to find balance and I'll use this expression to help others understand why CICO is not working for them but why they should still log.
My way to long term success has been fasting (OMAD more specifically), calories counting and incorporating exercise. Eating better foods has been a game changer for me. I totally avoid refined sugars either in drinks or snacks and I have documented well the physical, emotional and mental changes and toll of eating junk even if within one's CICO calculations.
If you can eat junk all the time and make it work with CICO, then *thumbs up* to you, however there are plenty of people who could benefit from knowing that CICO is not the panacea some try to sell it as.
Even if we were to assume that CICO is an exact, simple and easy science for those in three normal distributions of all the people in the US, not to mention the world, that still leaves almost (1,000,000) one million people for who CICO doensn't work. I have no idea what the case may be I'm just presenting an scenario in which statistically something may be true for almost everyone (99.7%), even a minuscule percentage is a large number if the sample size is huge too (as in the entirety of the US population). But here we often find ourselves trying to model our long term goals and criticizing others for not following our way 'cause one guy did it once or for a short period of time.
I know that most people have their minds set on what they already know, just posting here for those who may need context as to why CICO calculations haven't worked for them and hopefully they feel less frustrated and less of an idiot for not being able to crack the right way of doing CICO. For some of us there's no right way. The calculations will just not work and that's OK, calorie counting is still a good tool in this journey.
Well CICO is NOT a diet. Whenever you eat or drink something it's CI. Whenever it leaves your body it's CO. Everybody living does it everyday.
You are recounting your experience (1) and say a great many people have your problem, whereas telling about a guy who ate whatever and lost weight is just (1) person. I would like to suggest that there are many people like him. You don't hear about it because they are successful and don't complain. The people that are frustrated post and seem like many more.
Everyone can lose weight. They just have to find the way (there are many).
Good luck reaching your goals.
Thanks for the explanation of CICO. I think I got it now.
Pardon me if you read my post as me postulating a dichotomy. I didnt. I also didnt suggest for people to ditch the efforts that are working long term for them even following the twinkie diet, emphasis on long term. My post is targeted to those individuals not seeing the projected results based on CICO calculations/estimates.
We can find common ground on this "They just have to find the way (there are many)" exactly! this is what my post was all about. 👍1 -
If calorie counting and CICO 'estimates' using the databases, calculators, food labels, etc. are giving you (the reader) the long term results you seek Great! For those of use that don't, here's some context in my posts, there's no need to give up on calorie counting, the numbers in which you find balance in your particular case may be off, you just need to find them.
The fact that individuals calorie needs may be different to calculators or generalised data bases and that food labels may not be accurate, in no way changes CICO.
Those things are challenges for calorie counting. Nobody has disputed that though.
But calorie counting is not CICO.6 -
CICO is not a diet, it’s an explanation…3
-
so, all the technical stuff in research about our bodies makes my eyeballs spin and roll back into my head... there are some things, common sense wise and observationally that I would agree with....
eat too little, especially over a long time, you will lose weight. (CICO is the mathematical formula that explains this.)
our dog had a litter of pups - 1 was thin and slight in stature - self-regulated eating, just stopped eating when full, so we could leave excess food out in the dish and her weight remained stable... Otoh, her sister had a different body structure and would eat as much as she could get ahold of and would persistently gain weight... we had to regulate for her.
why? what was the difference in their bodies driving appetite? Same mom & pop, same environment, same foods offered to them.
does the why matter? upshot, we all need to figure out how much is enough, stop at enough - and if we need to change our weight, then eat less (or more) over time... The way we regulate/choose how much to eat is as endless as the miles and piles of books, plans, podcasts and ideas.
personally, i find CICO & calorie counting understandable - and the most flexible... CICO helps me understand how much is enough (via the MFP calculators which work for me when tracking) and calorie counting is the most flexible as it allows me to choose whatever foods I desire/find helpful.
Beyond that - i get a voracious physical appetite - a 'lower carb' eating approach helps to break that voracious appetite - describing that 'phenomenon' ~ this is where I would say that different foods do impact my body in different ways - and paying attention to carbs is 1 part of nourishing our body - we choose many different foods to help nourish our body in many different ways - carb management is part of that process - for me, it helps regulate/with appetite.5 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »Because they want to believe it's not that simple.
I agree. It’s the “It can’t be that simple, because otherwise I’d we able to lose weight” mentality.
0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions