CICO - it’s truly that simple!!!
Replies
-
I think the difficult part about this is calculating calorie burn. You should be able to get a good estimate of your calorie burn based on activity, age, weight, body fat etc but some people burn significantly less than expected when using calculators.
And some people burn significantly more than expected when using "calculators", because statistics.
So we all start with a calculator estimate, and adjust based on personal results. Pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple.8 -
CICO implies (to me at least) that weight loss is linear. That it’s nothing more that entering numbers into a spreadsheet. Well my expirence has not been that. Many times I have ended the week with my 3500 cal deficit. Did I always lose a pound??? Of course not. Have gained at that deficit- yep. So please there are other factors other than simple math. It is not simple math and simple calorie counting.
I promise two people who are the exact age and weight and build same exercise level could eat exactly the same thing and same amt in a week and they will not gain and lose at the exact same rate.
Therefore it is not an exact measurement that so many on here claim. If so no one would ever complain about plateaus. But they do. All the time. Which tells me there are other factors at play other than simple calorie counting. Far too many people struggle with weight for it to be that simple.
There are too many people who do all the right things and still fail. I do not buy simple solutions in the face of so many people who fail. They are not all doing it wrong if it’s as simple as CICO.
It doesn't imply that weight loss is linear. Weight loss cannot be linear because body weight on the scale fluctuates naturally...you are comprised of anywhere between 50-60% water and that's always going to fluctuate and show up on a scale...you're always going to have variable degrees of waste in your system, etc.
People fail because it's hard...hard doesn't mean it's not simple.8 -
CICO implies (to me at least) that weight loss is linear. That it’s nothing more that entering numbers into a spreadsheet. Well my expirence has not been that. Many times I have ended the week with my 3500 cal deficit. Did I always lose a pound??? Of course not. Have gained at that deficit- yep. So please there are other factors other than simple math. It is not simple math and simple calorie counting.
I promise two people who are the exact age and weight and build same exercise level could eat exactly the same thing and same amt in a week and they will not gain and lose at the exact same rate.
Therefore it is not an exact measurement that so many on here claim. If so no one would ever complain about plateaus. But they do. All the time. Which tells me there are other factors at play other than simple calorie counting. Far too many people struggle with weight for it to be that simple.
There are too many people who do all the right things and still fail. I do not buy simple solutions in the face of so many people who fail. They are not all doing it wrong if it’s as simple as CICO.
People who complain about CICO seem to believe that the amount of calories they burn every day is exactly the same day to day....which is, you know crazy?
How can you even think that?
Every day your NEAT can vary by hundreds of calories.7 -
Although I agree with the message I have to say if you have only been tracking for 5 days then the fact that your weight loss lines up exactly with your predictions is more likely coincidence than anything else.
Keep it up though...I just am concerned that your "high" of having things work out over the span of a couple of days will be met with an equally big "low" when for a week or so you gain weight despite continuing your plan...which will happen. Might want to temper your expectations a bit and understand that the trends will pan out on the scale of months but not days.10 -
CICO implies (to me at least) that weight loss is linear. That it’s nothing more that entering numbers into a spreadsheet. Well my expirence has not been that. Many times I have ended the week with my 3500 cal deficit. Did I always lose a pound??? Of course not. Have gained at that deficit- yep. So please there are other factors other than simple math. It is not simple math and simple calorie counting.
I promise two people who are the exact age and weight and build same exercise level could eat exactly the same thing and same amt in a week and they will not gain and lose at the exact same rate.
Therefore it is not an exact measurement that so many on here claim. If so no one would ever complain about plateaus. But they do. All the time. Which tells me there are other factors at play other than simple calorie counting. Far too many people struggle with weight for it to be that simple.
There are too many people who do all the right things and still fail. I do not buy simple solutions in the face of so many people who fail. They are not all doing it wrong if it’s as simple as CICO.
Once again it's not a flaw with the principle, but your understanding. Makes me wonder why you or anyone would want to believe that CICO doesn't work...despite all evidence to the contrary.
Quite often it's an error in the data that is being entered into the spreadsheet, typically being underestimation of food ingested or an overestimation of exercise.
It's exact as is needs to be. The level of precision and accuracy you desire is not required and is not suitable for purpose. There are limits to genetic variance and while the numbers may not be exact, they are less than the degree of instrumentation error and for all intents and purposes...meaningless.
There are many people who cannot accept that they may be doing something wrong. There is a mountain of objective evidence suggesting this versus your suggestion of a failure in biochemical pathways.6 -
I think the difficult part about this is calculating calorie burn. You should be able to get a good estimate of your calorie burn based on activity, age, weight, body fat etc but some people burn significantly less than expected when using calculators.
And some people burn significantly more than expected when using "calculators", because statistics.
So we all start with a calculator estimate, and adjust based on personal results. Pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple.
Exactly. Calculators are based on extrapolations from population averages, they provide a starting point not necessarily an end point.2 -
I think the difficult part about this is calculating calorie burn. You should be able to get a good estimate of your calorie burn based on activity, age, weight, body fat etc but some people burn significantly less than expected when using calculators.
Calculators are just giving you a reasonable starting point based on population statistics...they aren't gospel. Logically, how could a calculator be 100% right?
They give you a starting point...it's up to you to make adjustments per your actual results.
Beyond that, the biggest issue for most people is accurately logging...picking erroneous entries...eyeballing portions...not logging certain things, etc. Most people are for *kitten* when it comes to keeping a food diary.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Although I agree with the message I have to say if you have only been tracking for 5 days then the fact that your weight loss lines up exactly with your predictions is more likely coincidence than anything else.
Keep it up though...I just am concerned that your "high" of having things work out over the span of a couple of days will be met with an equally big "low" when for a week or so you gain weight despite continuing your plan...which will happen. Might want to temper your expectations a bit and understand that the trends will pan out on the scale of months but not days.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Although I agree with the message I have to say if you have only been tracking for 5 days then the fact that your weight loss lines up exactly with your predictions is more likely coincidence than anything else.
Keep it up though...I just am concerned that your "high" of having things work out over the span of a couple of days will be met with an equally big "low" when for a week or so you gain weight despite continuing your plan...which will happen. Might want to temper your expectations a bit and understand that the trends will pan out on the scale of months but not days.
Well, a couple things on this:
1) I am a daily weigher. I’ve found that if I weigh only once a week it causes me to “trick” the scale or avoid it altogether. Daily weighing helps keep me accountable and keeps me from being “afraid” of the scale.
2) Related to the above, I lost 4 pounds in 3 days, which is unheard of for me. But then I gained 2 pounds back. Am I freaked out by this? Nah. I know fluctuations will happen, and I’m ok with that.
People seem to misunderstand the intent of my message. I’m not saying cico is a magic bullet, but it’s than fretting about macros, carbs, or whatever. And it’s not linear, and again, totally ok with that.
4 -
CICO implies (to me at least) that weight loss is linear. That it’s nothing more that entering numbers into a spreadsheet. Well my expirence has not been that. Many times I have ended the week with my 3500 cal deficit. Did I always lose a pound??? Of course not. Have gained at that deficit- yep. So please there are other factors other than simple math. It is not simple math and simple calorie counting.
I promise two people who are the exact age and weight and build same exercise level could eat exactly the same thing and same amt in a week and they will not gain and lose at the exact same rate.
Therefore it is not an exact measurement that so many on here claim. If so no one would ever complain about plateaus. But they do. All the time. Which tells me there are other factors at play other than simple calorie counting. Far too many people struggle with weight for it to be that simple.
There are too many people who do all the right things and still fail. I do not buy simple solutions in the face of so many people who fail. They are not all doing it wrong if it’s as simple as CICO.
Once again it's not a flaw with the principle, but your understanding. Makes me wonder why you or anyone would want to believe that CICO doesn't work...despite all evidence to the contrary.
Quite often it's an error in the data that is being entered into the spreadsheet, typically being underestimation of food ingested or an overestimation of exercise.
It's exact as is needs to be. The level of precision and accuracy you desire is not required and is not suitable for purpose. There are limits to genetic variance and while the numbers may not be exact, they are less than the degree of instrumentation error and for all intents and purposes...meaningless.
There are many people who cannot accept that they may be doing something wrong. There is a mountain of objective evidence suggesting this versus your suggestion of a failure in biochemical pathways.
All of this. Exactly!
2 -
witchaywoman81 wrote: »Let me also add, I think this information can be particularly liberating for someone who has just decided to lose weight but doesn’t know where to start. Maybe their diet isn’t the best, health-wise, right now, but as a first step, they can eat what they normally eat at a calorie deficit, then gradually work in healthier choices. It can be intimidating to think that they have to go on a special diet or eat foods they don’t enjoy.
Amen. This is how I started. Really, I started loosely guessing what I was eating and guessing at the calories. After reading about food scales and weighing things I started doing that. After I got that under control I started incorporating healthier foods. I lost 50 pounds in six months.
6 -
I think the difficult part about this is calculating calorie burn. You should be able to get a good estimate of your calorie burn based on activity, age, weight, body fat etc but some people burn significantly less than expected when using calculators.
And some people burn significantly more than expected when using "calculators", because statistics.
So we all start with a calculator estimate, and adjust based on personal results. Pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple.
Yes but if one burns more than expected then weight loss is easier. If someone is active and based on numbers should have a tdee of 1800 but their real tdee is 1400 then that makes it hard to lose weight.0 -
I think the difficult part about this is calculating calorie burn. You should be able to get a good estimate of your calorie burn based on activity, age, weight, body fat etc but some people burn significantly less than expected when using calculators.
And some people burn significantly more than expected when using "calculators", because statistics.
So we all start with a calculator estimate, and adjust based on personal results. Pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple.
Yes but if one burns more than expected then weight loss is easier. If someone is active and based on numbers should have a tdee of 1800 but their real tdee is 1400 then that makes it hard to lose weight.
Hypothetically, yes. But BMR rarely varies more than about 5% from normal/expected, so that's not often going to be the case.0 -
I think the difficult part about this is calculating calorie burn. You should be able to get a good estimate of your calorie burn based on activity, age, weight, body fat etc but some people burn significantly less than expected when using calculators.
And some people burn significantly more than expected when using "calculators", because statistics.
So we all start with a calculator estimate, and adjust based on personal results. Pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple.
Yes but if one burns more than expected then weight loss is easier. If someone is active and based on numbers should have a tdee of 1800 but their real tdee is 1400 then that makes it hard to lose weight.
Honestly it isn't easier, if you burn more than you think you are you will have a larger deficit and you will likely feel very hungry or deprived after keeping that up for more than a week....you'd still end up having to adjust.2 -
I think the difficult part about this is calculating calorie burn. You should be able to get a good estimate of your calorie burn based on activity, age, weight, body fat etc but some people burn significantly less than expected when using calculators.
And some people burn significantly more than expected when using "calculators", because statistics.
So we all start with a calculator estimate, and adjust based on personal results. Pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple.
Yes but if one burns more than expected then weight loss is easier. If someone is active and based on numbers should have a tdee of 1800 but their real tdee is 1400 then that makes it hard to lose weight.
The process for both is exactly the same. Each starts with a calculator estimate. The one with an unexpectedly low TDEE fails to lose weight. The one with an unexpectedly high TDEE gets weak and fatigued while losing weight unhealthfully fast. Each notices this, and adjusts calorie intake, or activity level, to achieve the desired healthy weight loss results.
In that sense, it's equally complex or simple for both.
If they're both the same size/age/sex with the same healthy goal weight, the one who has an unexpectedly low TDEE has more difficulty fitting in all the nutrients estimated to be needed for his/her goal weight, because s/he has fewer calories to "buy" those nutrients with, at an equal weight loss rate. (Whether equal nutrients are actually needed by both is anyone's guess; I don't have any science for that, except to say that to the extent the difference in TDEE is related to lean body mass differences, then the person with higher LBM, which is probably the high TDEE person, probably needs more protein.)
We have no way, that I can think of, to know which one has more difficulties with appetite or cravings. It's possible that someone gets just as hungry at a calorie deficit that's X% of TDEE regardless of whether their TDEE is high or low. In this realm, though, the low TDEE person does have more social difficulty, as s/he has to watch people around him/her who can eat a bit more.
So, harder nutritionally, and harder socially, for the lower TDEE person.
We should note that TDEE differences in same-characteristics people are likely to be quite small, unless those differences are somehow activity-related (which could be exercise or NEAT). The RMR bell curve is pretty tall and narrow - small standard deviation. Even LBM differences don't make huge calorie differences, as I understand it.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions