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.
Calorie in calorie out method is outdated
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because we'd rather not have newbies read just that thread and get the wrong idea. It leads them in the wrong direction, we want to help them go in the right direction.27 -
At the end of the day calories are all that matter. Yes, some bodies are more efficient. Some foods may or may not metabolize faster but the difference is negligible. Calorie counting isn't perfect - but it's the best we've got and it works.13
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.26 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...
This comment above doesn't suggets this.
But it reply to you, that is great. I just never understood the need to mock people who maybe slightly ignorant on a subject.
17 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
There are many veterans here who have spent countless hours in countless threads actually trying to dispel woo and pseudoscience and help confused members be successful. That sometimes people lose patience, and make snippy tongue in cheek comments doesn't diminish the value of the overall message and culture of trying to promote science, logic, vetting sources that many people cultivate on these boards.
You admit that you are a new member to these forums, and your post count backs that up. Maybe before you come in and start admonishing the people who are trying to give advice or let people know they are treading near a divisive topic, you should spend some time getting to know the community and the general tone here.
28 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...
This comment above doesn't suggets this.
But it reply to you, that is great. I just never understood the need to mock people who maybe slightly ignorant on a subject.
I'm not familiar with the poster who posted that, so I'm not sure what she expected.
In general, someone who posts a question like this will start out getting mostly polite and informative posts, along with a couple of snarky-pants responses. It's when someone (usually not the OP) comes in and starts making definitive but not provable statements and/or only focusing on the one or two less helpful replies, rather than the 2 pages of useful replies, that things tend to escalate.
And I'd note that the OP here seems fine with the responses she got, so it seems the warning was unnecessary :drinker:
We're really passionate about the science of calories here
14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
There are many veterans here who have spent countless hours in countless threads actually trying to dispel woo and pseudoscience and help confused members be successful. That sometimes people lose patience, and make snippy tongue in cheek comments doesn't diminish the value of the overall message and culture of trying to promote science, logic, vetting sources that many people cultivate on these boards.
You admit that you are a new member to these forums, and your post count backs that up. Maybe before you come in and start admonishing the people who are trying to give advice or let people know they are treading near a divisive topic, you should spend some time getting to know the community and the general tone here.
No. If people are allowed to make "tongue and cheek" comments about what others have written on a public forum then by logical extension, I am allowed to make comments about those comments.
However, I do agree that it is very helpful for people to share information, articles and studies and have others comment on validity and share more relevant, current and factual information.
15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...
This comment above doesn't suggets this.
But it reply to you, that is great. I just never understood the need to mock people who maybe slightly ignorant on a subject.
I'm not familiar with the poster who posted that, so I'm not sure what she expected.
In general, someone who posts a question like this will start out getting mostly polite and informative posts, along with a couple of snarky-pants responses. It's when someone (usually not the OP) comes in and starts making definitive but not provable statements and/or only focusing on the one or two less helpful replies, rather than the 2 pages of useful replies, that things tend to escalate.
And I'd note that the OP here seems fine with the responses she got, so it seems the warning was unnecessary :drinker:
We're really passionate about the science of calories here
Ha! Yes I can I see that. Very passionate!
I have found some great websites from people posting links on here, such as bodyrecomp.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...
This comment above doesn't suggets this.
But it reply to you, that is great. I just never understood the need to mock people who maybe slightly ignorant on a subject.
I'm not familiar with the poster who posted that, so I'm not sure what she expected.
In general, someone who posts a question like this will start out getting mostly polite and informative posts, along with a couple of snarky-pants responses. It's when someone (usually not the OP) comes in and starts making definitive but not provable statements and/or only focusing on the one or two less helpful replies, rather than the 2 pages of useful replies, that things tend to escalate.
And I'd note that the OP here seems fine with the responses she got, so it seems the warning was unnecessary :drinker:
We're really passionate about the science of calories here
Ha! Yes I can I see that. Very passionate!
I have found some great websites from people posting links on here, such as bodyrecomp.
Yep, I have learned so much myself from the sources routinely cited here by the long-timers. Literally changed my life. Welcome!7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...
This comment above doesn't suggets this.
But it reply to you, that is great. I just never understood the need to mock people who maybe slightly ignorant on a subject.
If you want to know what that poster meant, I recommend asking that poster.
I don't read the quoted comment (at least without more context) to be mocking the person who does not understand CICO. I read it to be mocking threads like this more generally or even those of us who respond to correct misinformation. Or not mocking anyone, but warning the OP that threads like this tend to get long.
I am curious why you read it as a mockery of the poster who is ignorant.
Not knowing the person who posted it, I don't have any sense of what the intent might be, or even what that poster thinks about CICO threads/CICO.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.
"BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause."
I would say that this is exactly wrong (the claim, not your post).
That weight gain is caused by excess calories is important to understand, that IS the cause.
The next question is how come you were eating excess calories and how to stop, and OF COURSE everyone should do that too, it's necessary to do it to create a calorie deficit. For some it might mean planning meals and logging, for others it might mean cutting out trigger foods or changing the macros or just not snacking (or even just cutting out sugary pop). For others it is looking honestly at your diet and seeing where the excess calories were from.
But the basic understanding behind all these is that you were eating too much, and IMO any rational human should be able to take the step from that to figuring out how to stop. (It may involve some emotional or coping issues that therapy helps with or experiment and error or ways to keep mindful, of course, NOT saying it's always easy, but the understanding of why the excess calories isn't hard if you look at the diet.)
IMO pretending there's more to it is just a scam to tell you you need help from someone else, usually.
And I also think that's why there's this desire to pretend like CICO is not just energy balance, but a special diet that is just one of a million. Don't realize you can and should figure it out yourself, rely on special diet I'm selling or me, the diet guru or even think you need some nutritionist to tell you how to eat, as if it weren't really a pretty simple basic human skill.
I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
But again, it's important to understand the basic biology of WHY you are gaining weight (eating too many calories for the amount you burn). If you think the medication is causing it, and not the calories, it feels out of control, but understanding it's the calories allows you to then move to step two: why is my calorie balance out of whack and what can I do to stop it (which usually involves thinking through eating patterns and habits).
When I gained it was precipitated by me being depressed and becoming sedentary after years of being active. My CO declined. But CICO was still the cause, of course. Now, before I could deal with it I had to deal with other things, but none of that changes the value of understanding WHY the weight came on (CICO).Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Choice has nothing to do with it. Most people overeat mindlessly, I expect. It's like some think that acknowledging CICO = saying it's your fault (bad you!) and saying it's some other reason means it's not your fault. I think that's all irrelevant (most people do lots of things without thinking about them much, and that certainly goes for lots of eating habits).
Once you realize WHY the weight gain (eating too many calories for the amount you burn) you can figure out how to correct that.Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
It can be addressed with food choices (how much, what you eat, eating habits) for everyone, IMO (although if someone has a medical problem like a thyroid issue affecting it it may be important to fix that first, and sometimes we aren't in the right place to make weight loss a top priority or lack the will to do so, and that's IMO fine too). What particular changes are easiest will depend on the person, but to really figure that out I think it's better and more sensible to acknowledge the weight gain WAS caused by eating more calories than one burned, and that that itself was a result of choices or the absence of choices (which again is not saying they are blameworthy or whatever loaded concept some may add onto this).
I think I understand what you are saying, I just don't completely agree with you.
In your example, you said you gained weight while depressed (a tough situation
) and your CO declined. The depression was the main reason that you gained IMO. Your CO was affected (cause) and then according to physics (CICO) your gained weight.
A very oversimplified example would be to discus gravity. If you are pushed off a cliff you will fall (because of mecahnism of gravity) but the main reason you fall is because you are pushed. The push is the why.
For mindless overeaters, they don't gain weight because of CICO. They gain because they mindlessly overate (CI).
Weight gain always happens when you eat more calories than you burn. I agree completely. But IMO why you ate more calories than you burned is at the root cause of weight gain. That is the "why" that some people need to address.
JMO21 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.
"BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause."
I would say that this is exactly wrong (the claim, not your post).
That weight gain is caused by excess calories is important to understand, that IS the cause.
The next question is how come you were eating excess calories and how to stop, and OF COURSE everyone should do that too, it's necessary to do it to create a calorie deficit. For some it might mean planning meals and logging, for others it might mean cutting out trigger foods or changing the macros or just not snacking (or even just cutting out sugary pop). For others it is looking honestly at your diet and seeing where the excess calories were from.
But the basic understanding behind all these is that you were eating too much, and IMO any rational human should be able to take the step from that to figuring out how to stop. (It may involve some emotional or coping issues that therapy helps with or experiment and error or ways to keep mindful, of course, NOT saying it's always easy, but the understanding of why the excess calories isn't hard if you look at the diet.)
IMO pretending there's more to it is just a scam to tell you you need help from someone else, usually.
And I also think that's why there's this desire to pretend like CICO is not just energy balance, but a special diet that is just one of a million. Don't realize you can and should figure it out yourself, rely on special diet I'm selling or me, the diet guru or even think you need some nutritionist to tell you how to eat, as if it weren't really a pretty simple basic human skill.
I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
But again, it's important to understand the basic biology of WHY you are gaining weight (eating too many calories for the amount you burn). If you think the medication is causing it, and not the calories, it feels out of control, but understanding it's the calories allows you to then move to step two: why is my calorie balance out of whack and what can I do to stop it (which usually involves thinking through eating patterns and habits).
When I gained it was precipitated by me being depressed and becoming sedentary after years of being active. My CO declined. But CICO was still the cause, of course. Now, before I could deal with it I had to deal with other things, but none of that changes the value of understanding WHY the weight came on (CICO).Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Choice has nothing to do with it. Most people overeat mindlessly, I expect. It's like some think that acknowledging CICO = saying it's your fault (bad you!) and saying it's some other reason means it's not your fault. I think that's all irrelevant (most people do lots of things without thinking about them much, and that certainly goes for lots of eating habits).
Once you realize WHY the weight gain (eating too many calories for the amount you burn) you can figure out how to correct that.Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
It can be addressed with food choices (how much, what you eat, eating habits) for everyone, IMO (although if someone has a medical problem like a thyroid issue affecting it it may be important to fix that first, and sometimes we aren't in the right place to make weight loss a top priority or lack the will to do so, and that's IMO fine too). What particular changes are easiest will depend on the person, but to really figure that out I think it's better and more sensible to acknowledge the weight gain WAS caused by eating more calories than one burned, and that that itself was a result of choices or the absence of choices (which again is not saying they are blameworthy or whatever loaded concept some may add onto this).
I think I understand what you are saying, I just don't completely agree with you.
In your example, you said you gained weight while depressed (a tough situation ) and your CO declined. The depression was the main reason that you gained IMO. Your CO was affected (cause) and then according to physics (CICO) your gained weight.
A very oversimplified example would be to discus gravity. If you are pushed off a cliff you will fall (because of mecahnism of gravity) but the main reason you fall is because you are pushed, but you fell because you were pushed. The push is the why.
For mindless overeaters, they don't gain weight because of CICO. They gain because they mindlessly overate (CI).
Weight gain always happens when you eat more calories than you burn. I agree completely. But IMO why you ate more calories than you burned is at the root cause of weight gain. That is the "why" that some people need to address.
JMO
That may be the most semantical argument... the finest splitting of hairs I've seen on MFP.10 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
JMO
This statement seems to me to be confusing the result with the formula - there is a vast difference between the physical mechanism involved in the biological functioning of the energy processes of the body and the mental reasoning behind the actions of the person in question as to why they get the result they do from the formula. The reason WHY someone is eating more calories than their bodies burn is a completely separate concept from the fact that they are intaking too many calories. Weight gain is always because of taking in too many calories - the only place where I might concede is when its actually just water weight gain such as can be caused by some medications. But in those cases, its not really a true fat gain but a mask caused by the water retention and the formula's factors themselves have not changed.
A person may be depressed and gaining weight - usually because either their activity levels have dropped due to their condition, or because the medication they are taking has increased their appetite. Or they are having thyroid issues. Or they have fibermyalgia or severe arthritis or joint problems and they can't move like they did. Or whatever. None of this changes the function of the basic equation; in each of those cases, the balance was still CICO; every single case was a change in one side of the formula or the other. If a person gains weight due to a medical condition, it isn't because CICO isn't at play any more; its because their CI didn't change while their CO decreased, or their CI increased when CO didn't change or decreased and so they are now taking in more calories than their bodies need. And just because they could eat x amount of calories when they were 25 years old or before they developed xyz condition, doesn't mean they can still eat the same amount of calories when they are 35 years old or after they have xyz condition. the body is a very adaptive, dynamic machine!
I get the impression from part of the statement above, that somehow the idea that admitting that weight gain comes from eating too much has to be a conscious choice of the person in question, which I don't think is true at all - its doesn't have to boil down to a blame game but in order to gain control it does require honest evaluation of ones habits, motives, and triggers and may require therapy or additional help in order to overcome them and to win the battle.
I know that one cannot gain weight without CO<CI, I just think that why CI>CO is important to address. There is a reason why people eat too much. Some could choose to do so, some may do it mindlessly, some may do it because foods are hyperpalatable or it causes cravings or appetite gains, or it may come with a diminished CO due to health or hormone reasons... But IMO, those are the actual reasons that people gain weight. Not a law of physics.
If someone falls and gets a head injury, I would not blame gravity. The fall is the fault, or perhaps a lack of helmet or unsafe activities or someone else being careless.
I sometimes see posts along the lines of "I gained weight because CICO" or "I lost weight because CICO". To me, that is the equivalent of saying "concussion because gravity." KWIM?
I'm not denying CICO. I do not believe it is the cause of weight change though. I see it as the mechanism that makes it happen.14 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.
"BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause."
I would say that this is exactly wrong (the claim, not your post).
That weight gain is caused by excess calories is important to understand, that IS the cause.
The next question is how come you were eating excess calories and how to stop, and OF COURSE everyone should do that too, it's necessary to do it to create a calorie deficit. For some it might mean planning meals and logging, for others it might mean cutting out trigger foods or changing the macros or just not snacking (or even just cutting out sugary pop). For others it is looking honestly at your diet and seeing where the excess calories were from.
But the basic understanding behind all these is that you were eating too much, and IMO any rational human should be able to take the step from that to figuring out how to stop. (It may involve some emotional or coping issues that therapy helps with or experiment and error or ways to keep mindful, of course, NOT saying it's always easy, but the understanding of why the excess calories isn't hard if you look at the diet.)
IMO pretending there's more to it is just a scam to tell you you need help from someone else, usually.
And I also think that's why there's this desire to pretend like CICO is not just energy balance, but a special diet that is just one of a million. Don't realize you can and should figure it out yourself, rely on special diet I'm selling or me, the diet guru or even think you need some nutritionist to tell you how to eat, as if it weren't really a pretty simple basic human skill.
I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
JMO
I didn't have any deep down reasons for gaining weight. I gained 40 Lbs over the course of about 8 years which would indicate that on average I had a very tiny surplus and wasn't drastically overeating with some kind of psychological or emotional issue. I was eating like a "normal" person, but I had taken a job as an auditor with an accounting firm so I was a bit less active.
Right. I never said anyone needs a drastic reason for overeating. Small reasons like hormonal fluctuations (like from lack of sleep) or not moving as much will cause weight gain.
It appears you may have moved less and eaten a bit too much.
For me, my thyroid quit, I developed autoimmune diseases and I had to become less active due to arthritis. It was a very slow gain of a pound or less a year. Then I became IR and gained faster. Nothing drastic for me either.7 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
JMO
This statement seems to me to be confusing the result with the formula - there is a vast difference between the physical mechanism involved in the biological functioning of the energy processes of the body and the mental reasoning behind the actions of the person in question as to why they get the result they do from the formula. The reason WHY someone is eating more calories than their bodies burn is a completely separate concept from the fact that they are intaking too many calories. Weight gain is always because of taking in too many calories - the only place where I might concede is when its actually just water weight gain such as can be caused by some medications. But in those cases, its not really a true fat gain but a mask caused by the water retention and the formula's factors themselves have not changed.
A person may be depressed and gaining weight - usually because either their activity levels have dropped due to their condition, or because the medication they are taking has increased their appetite. Or they are having thyroid issues. Or they have fibermyalgia or severe arthritis or joint problems and they can't move like they did. Or whatever. None of this changes the function of the basic equation; in each of those cases, the balance was still CICO; every single case was a change in one side of the formula or the other. If a person gains weight due to a medical condition, it isn't because CICO isn't at play any more; its because their CI didn't change while their CO decreased, or their CI increased when CO didn't change or decreased and so they are now taking in more calories than their bodies need. And just because they could eat x amount of calories when they were 25 years old or before they developed xyz condition, doesn't mean they can still eat the same amount of calories when they are 35 years old or after they have xyz condition. the body is a very adaptive, dynamic machine!
I get the impression from part of the statement above, that somehow the idea that admitting that weight gain comes from eating too much has to be a conscious choice of the person in question, which I don't think is true at all - its doesn't have to boil down to a blame game but in order to gain control it does require honest evaluation of ones habits, motives, and triggers and may require therapy or additional help in order to overcome them and to win the battle.
I know that one cannot gain weight without CO<CI, I just think that why CI>CO is important to address. There is a reason why people eat too much. Some could choose to do so, some may do it mindlessly, some may do it because foods are hyperpalatable or it causes cravings or appetite gains, or it may come with a diminished CO due to health or hormone reasons... But IMO, those are the actual reasons that people gain weight. Not a law of physics.
If someone falls and gets a head injury, I would not blame gravity. The fall is the fault, or perhaps a lack of helmet or unsafe activities or someone else being careless.
I sometimes see posts along the lines of "I gained weight because CICO" or "I lost weight because CICO". To me, that is the equivalent of saying "concussion because gravity." KWIM?
I'm not denying CICO. I do not believe it is the cause of weight change though. I see it as the mechanism that makes it happen.
Not a perfect analogy, since many people get concussions for reasons having nothing to do with gravity, and all people gain weight because of excess calorie intake.
Eating more calories than you expend absolutely is the cause of weight change, in all cases. The reason for eating too many calories or expending too few may vary. Just as the reason for hitting your head may vary. But it wouldn't be very easy to try to prevent concussions in a population which had no understanding of gravity and the basic laws of physics. Which is the situation we have with calories - as is obvious due to threads like this one even existing, many people make it to adulthood without a clear understanding that too many calories equals fat. No, you can't eat the same number of calories but chase it with cider vinegar. No, you can't eat the same number of calories but not after seven pm. No, you can't eat the same number of calories but avoid processed food and only eat farm fresh produce. None of these will lead to weight loss. Only reducing caloric intake or increasing expenditure will lead to weight loss.13 -
CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.10
-
skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
My thought is, again a poster is confusing CICO with calorie counting. I'd agree that calorie counting is riddled with errors, and there may be appropriate alternatives to it that work well for some people trying to lose weight, but this really has nothing to do with CICO.
I like calorie counting and it worked for me. I get that others have found different ways to lose weight (IF, KETO, etc.) and that people can succeed without counting, just as some people fail with counting.
Got sweet piss all to do with CICO though.8 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
JMO
This statement seems to me to be confusing the result with the formula - there is a vast difference between the physical mechanism involved in the biological functioning of the energy processes of the body and the mental reasoning behind the actions of the person in question as to why they get the result they do from the formula. The reason WHY someone is eating more calories than their bodies burn is a completely separate concept from the fact that they are intaking too many calories. Weight gain is always because of taking in too many calories - the only place where I might concede is when its actually just water weight gain such as can be caused by some medications. But in those cases, its not really a true fat gain but a mask caused by the water retention and the formula's factors themselves have not changed.
A person may be depressed and gaining weight - usually because either their activity levels have dropped due to their condition, or because the medication they are taking has increased their appetite. Or they are having thyroid issues. Or they have fibermyalgia or severe arthritis or joint problems and they can't move like they did. Or whatever. None of this changes the function of the basic equation; in each of those cases, the balance was still CICO; every single case was a change in one side of the formula or the other. If a person gains weight due to a medical condition, it isn't because CICO isn't at play any more; its because their CI didn't change while their CO decreased, or their CI increased when CO didn't change or decreased and so they are now taking in more calories than their bodies need. And just because they could eat x amount of calories when they were 25 years old or before they developed xyz condition, doesn't mean they can still eat the same amount of calories when they are 35 years old or after they have xyz condition. the body is a very adaptive, dynamic machine!
I get the impression from part of the statement above, that somehow the idea that admitting that weight gain comes from eating too much has to be a conscious choice of the person in question, which I don't think is true at all - its doesn't have to boil down to a blame game but in order to gain control it does require honest evaluation of ones habits, motives, and triggers and may require therapy or additional help in order to overcome them and to win the battle.
I know that one cannot gain weight without CO<CI, I just think that why CI>CO is important to address. There is a reason why people eat too much. Some could choose to do so, some may do it mindlessly, some may do it because foods are hyperpalatable or it causes cravings or appetite gains, or it may come with a diminished CO due to health or hormone reasons... But IMO, those are the actual reasons that people gain weight. Not a law of physics.
If someone falls and gets a head injury, I would not blame gravity. The fall is the fault, or perhaps a lack of helmet or unsafe activities or someone else being careless.
I sometimes see posts along the lines of "I gained weight because CICO" or "I lost weight because CICO". To me, that is the equivalent of saying "concussion because gravity." KWIM?
I'm not denying CICO. I do not believe it is the cause of weight change though. I see it as the mechanism that makes it happen.
This is all well and good, but it really doesn't have much to do with the question.
If the question is why do people have a hard time losing weight, the conversation is different. But, at least for me, understanding the physics/math behind weight loss has been a huge benefit. It made calorie counting make far more sense to me and made the weight loss easier knowing I didn't have to eat frikken salad day in and day out.
I do get that there is a "why" to why I got to 330+ lbs, but honestly part of it was ignorance. A bigger part was laziness and apathy, but learning that 3500 calories = 1 lb of fat made a huge difference to how I approached weight loss.
Anyway, this is all besides the point when discussing CICO.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.31 -
skinnyjingbb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.
Know how we know you didn't read the whole thread?29 -
skinnyjingbb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.
Read the whole thread in it’s entirety please.18 -
Everyone gets extremely passionate and defensive on these forums when the question of calorie in calorie out is dissected and told its "wrong" when there are 1000's of amazing people here who have learned and lost weight using this exact method. Article or not, we have proven CICO works through physical evidence. Lost weight mind you, im not talking counting macros or nutrients, purely CICO for weight loss. Peer based mockery is not what 'most' people strive to do but there is no context in 'text' so things are often misconstrued or read as offensive, snarky and sometimes mean spirited. Brace yourself, was a comment directed at the onslaught of many varying passionate answers and feed back related to the OP. Discussions get heated and the repitious nature of the original post has been answered so many times. It does get tiresome. I love helping and trying to answer to MY ability and knowledge but unfortunately people dont take time to browse and jump right in.
*edited for spelling errors*12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...
This comment above doesn't suggets this.
But it reply to you, that is great. I just never understood the need to mock people who maybe slightly ignorant on a subject.
As i said, there is no context in text. I would never mock someone trying to learn. I answered above4 -
So after reading all of these CICO threads, I've wrapped my head around this:
- The reason for weight loss is a calorie deficit.
- The reason you are not in or find it difficult to get into a calorie deficit are personal and varied.
- A lot of people think that the truth of point #2 invalidates point #1.
- It doesn't. It just makes it more work for some people than for others.
- It seems many people also think that because their TDEE isn't what the TDEE calculator told them it would be, this means the whole idea is suspect and should be thrown out. I guess because playing with numbers is hard???
That's all I've got :drinker:
Late to this thread but I just wanted to respond to the last point - because while it may not invalidate the concept, yes playing with numbers IS hard!! Especially when you don't have much to lose and hence have a much smaller projected loss and smaller deficit to work with. Its commonly said on here that you need to give any deficit time to work, at least a few weeks, and if you work out and are a woman in her childbearing years, you'll be prone to a lot of possible water retention which can mask weight loss or gain. So you're looking at something like 6-8 weeks just to see whether the intake is working for you. If at the end you find you your estimated TDEE was too large and you haven't lost, or even gained over that time, you then need to start all over again with a smaller deficit.
Quite frustrating and a pain in the butt, not to mention very demotivating.17 -
This content has been removed.
-
nettiklive wrote: »So after reading all of these CICO threads, I've wrapped my head around this:
- The reason for weight loss is a calorie deficit.
- The reason you are not in or find it difficult to get into a calorie deficit are personal and varied.
- A lot of people think that the truth of point #2 invalidates point #1.
- It doesn't. It just makes it more work for some people than for others.
- It seems many people also think that because their TDEE isn't what the TDEE calculator told them it would be, this means the whole idea is suspect and should be thrown out. I guess because playing with numbers is hard???
That's all I've got :drinker:
Late to this thread but I just wanted to respond to the last point - because while it may not invalidate the concept, yes playing with numbers IS hard!! Especially when you don't have much to lose and hence have a much smaller projected loss and smaller deficit to work with. Its commonly said on here that you need to give any deficit time to work, at least a few weeks, and if you work out and are a woman in her childbearing years, you'll be prone to a lot of possible water retention which can mask weight loss or gain. So you're looking at something like 6-8 weeks just to see whether the intake is working for you. If at the end you find you your estimated TDEE was too large and you haven't lost, or even gained over that time, you then need to start all over again with a smaller deficit.
Quite frustrating and a pain in the butt, not to mention very demotivating.
Yep. I had 20 lbs to lose. It took me almost 2 years. A lot of that time upfront was first learning how to log correctly, then nailing down my numbers. But now that I took that time, I'm golden.
And when I was going through the learning and playing with the numbers, I never had to "start over". It was all one long learning experience. I'm still learning. I really think a big part of it is mindset, I never looked at this as something I was doing to lose weight and then it will be over. I wanted to figure out how to eat so that I'd never need to lose those 20 lbs again. I know not everyone can look at it that way or wants to look at it that way, maybe that's the difference?18 -
skinnyjingbb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.
I'm confused -- are you saying that a LFHC diet is the same thing as a a diet that is high in processed foods with loads of sugar? Because there are many options for LFHC beyond processed foods and foods with "loads" of sugar.
This is like saying that keto requires you to eat bacon and processed meats all day. Sure, some people on ketogenic diets *choose* these foods, but you can be keto without ever having bacon or processed meat if you choose to do so.
14 -
I just don't understand this "replace fat with sugar" argument. There may or may not be a couple of grams increase in processed foods for lower fat varieties of things that already have sugar (and even then it's not always), but just because I personally eat low-ish fat I don't feel compelled to fry my eggs in syrup. I just opt for a small teaspoon of oil in order to be able to eat more vegetables (which includes broccoli, more than 100 calories of it sometimes) because they're great for volume and more starches because they're great for satiety. Broccoli is not LCHF exclusive and is in fact low fat and relatively high in carbs for some diets.8
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions