Science undecided of CICO?
tfield98
Posts: 28 Member
I’m new to the dieting world.
Now 66 years old, thin as a rail for my first 45 years. But my weight crept up over 15 years. I just lost 20 pounds (my first ever) and BMI is now 23. I know maintenance may be a new challenge.
I’m a CICO zealot. BUT, reading the reader comments section on this NY Times article was an eye opener.
(More Fitness, Less Fatness. https://nyti.ms/2sZ8grQ?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
The commenters allege that the Science of CICO is far from settled.
That’s disconcerting and threatens to unseat my conviction that CICO is the gospel of weight loss.
Surely many of the readers who commented there are not rigorously tracking CI or CO.
But, what about the alleged science. Do we need to temper our zeal for CICO? Or tone it down?
Now 66 years old, thin as a rail for my first 45 years. But my weight crept up over 15 years. I just lost 20 pounds (my first ever) and BMI is now 23. I know maintenance may be a new challenge.
I’m a CICO zealot. BUT, reading the reader comments section on this NY Times article was an eye opener.
(More Fitness, Less Fatness. https://nyti.ms/2sZ8grQ?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
The commenters allege that the Science of CICO is far from settled.
That’s disconcerting and threatens to unseat my conviction that CICO is the gospel of weight loss.
Surely many of the readers who commented there are not rigorously tracking CI or CO.
But, what about the alleged science. Do we need to temper our zeal for CICO? Or tone it down?
40
Replies
-
I only skimned, but where in that article does it say CICO is wrong?6
-
TavistockToad wrote: »I only skimned, but where in that article does it say CICO is wrong?
He said the comments section.
OP Ignore the random posts of morons on the internet. CICO worked for you stick with it.
Simples.51 -
I certainly wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in comments from random people on an article. I see many ridiculous comments on FB and everywhere else from people who don't actually know what they're talking about.24
-
Sorry, but I'm not going to read through 613 comments. If you want to summarize for me (us), great... otherwise I'll make some assumptions.
- Most people who argue against CICO don't really know what CICO is and what it isn't.
- Many people use CICO and calorie counting interchangeably. They are not the same thing, and it's important to know which of the two you are arguing for/against.
- Most people who argue against CICO leave out crucial context (intentionally or unintentionally), and that missing context makes their argument sound more valid on the surface.
- Some people who argue against CICO are trying to sell something.
59 -
People come here all the time and allege the same. However they are not able to present to documentary support or alternative hypothesis.
So no. While science is never "settled" the science is settled.12 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »I only skimned, but where in that article does it say CICO is wrong?
He said the comments section.
OP Ignore the random posts of morons on the internet. CICO worked for you stick with it.
Simples.
So no different to people on here who claim they eat 6000 cals of fat doing keto and still lose weight... got it!27 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I certainly wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in comments from random people on an article. I see many ridiculous comments on FB and everywhere else from people who don't actually know what they're talking about.
It happens here too.9 -
Most of the articles I have read that purport to show there is more to it than that are really just accomplishing the same end some other way. They point out that is nearly impossible to get counts of calories consumed and calories burned completely accurate and then propose that some other inexact method is better because keto (or whatever term they choose to insert at the end).8
-
All the "Science of CICO" states is that if you know how much energy your body is utilizing and you know how much energy your body is intaking then you know your net energy. If your net energy is negative then your body will compensate by breaking bonds in stored molecules such as triglycerides or glycogen to release the required energy to balance it. If your net energy is positive then your body will store that as chemical bonds in storage molecules such as triglycerides or glycogen.
That is all that it says. It says nothing about how easy or difficult it is to obtain accurate estimates of energy output and intake. It says nothing about what you should or should not do diet wise in order to get to a desired outcome. The reason why "CICO" is contentious in forums like this is simply because people associate dieting strategies and methods like calorie counting with it as if they are one and the same. When people say "I don't believe in CICO" what they are really saying is that they don't find that calorie counting is effective for them as a strategy.48 -
I didn't see anything in the comments that was an attack on CICO, but maybe I didn't read far enough. You might want to post the specific comments that have you asking this question so others can share their knowledge on the correct point(s).2
-
So you lost 20 pounds though creating a calorie deficit but some random comments on an article are making you doubt that it actually happened?54
-
First off - I'm in the UK and haven't read the article. But whatever any weight loss regime is, it can only work if the amount of energy you use exceeds the amount of energy you consume - whether you count the calories or not. For many of us, accurately counting the calories is the best way of ensuring this happens and we lose weight. For lots increasing our activity helps increase the gap between what we eat and what we use (and makes us feel better too). The only issue that I can think of with the purely CICO approach is that there are some people who may take it to the nth degree and only look at calories without considering nutrition. While they would lose weight eating 1500 cals (or whatever) worth of Mars bars (exaggeration but...) it is not sustainable and they will end up failing and possible gaining all or more back as a result. That's why many of us pay attention to the quality of food we eat, including a little of what we like etc in our calorie allowance. A good, varied range of normal food eaten within a calorie deficit is what makes CICO work for most of us. Worked for you - working for me so whar's to question?
ETA I know a lot of doctors who do not like calorie counting - their argument is that counting can be too tedious for people to stick to (!!) and that they prefer an approach of simply eating normally, but reducing portion size and exercising a little more. Isn't this what we all achieve by counting calories and being more active - still CICO! You don't HAVE to count calories and log - it just helps.10 -
Am I missing something from the article? It doesn’t seem to call into question the science of CICO.
If anything it’s enforcing the message, eat less or move more!0 -
Why would anyone waste time reading comments from anonymous posters with no accountability?10
-
-
janejellyroll wrote: »So you lost 20 pounds though creating a calorie deficit but some random comments on an article are making you doubt that it actually happened?
I have a friend who watched a utube video that said garlic was poisonous to your body. One video and she's on the anti-garlic crazytrain. I sent her all kinds of medical studies, articles but then she became mad. I don't want to eat something that's going to poison me.
I told her that thousands of years of eating garlic by the Greeks and Italians has not proven to be poisonous for people. She made a decision to believe one random opinion and throw everything out with the bathwater. She has not spoken to me again. History, food science did not tell her what she wanted to hear and that's where most of the food debate gets started and never ends. Sigh.17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »So you lost 20 pounds though creating a calorie deficit but some random comments on an article are making you doubt that it actually happened?
I have a friend who watched a utube video that said garlic was poisonous to your body. One video and she's on the anti-garlic crazytrain. I sent her all kinds of medical studies, articles but then she became mad. I don't want to eat something that's going to poison me.
I told her that thousands of years of eating garlic by the Greeks and Italians has not proven to be poisonous for people. She made a decision to believe one random opinion and throw everything out with the bathwater. She has not spoken to me again. History, food science did not tell her what she wanted to hear and that's where most of the food debate gets started and never ends. Sigh.
Mmmmm, more garlic for me!10 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Yup - this was pretty much my point. We've reached my post-modernist phase evidently.4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So you lost 20 pounds though creating a calorie deficit but some random comments on an article are making you doubt that it actually happened?
I have a friend who watched a utube video that said garlic was poisonous to your body. One video and she's on the anti-garlic crazytrain. I sent her all kinds of medical studies, articles but then she became mad. I don't want to eat something that's going to poison me.
I told her that thousands of years of eating garlic by the Greeks and Italians has not proven to be poisonous for people. She made a decision to believe one random opinion and throw everything out with the bathwater. She has not spoken to me again. History, food science did not tell her what she wanted to hear and that's where most of the food debate gets started and never ends. Sigh.
Mmmmm, more garlic for me!
You're falling further behind.1 -
I’m new to the dieting world.
Now 66 years old, thin as a rail for my first 45 years. But my weight crept up over 15 years. I just lost 20 pounds (my first ever) and BMI is now 23. I know maintenance may be a new challenge.
I’m a CICO zealot. BUT, reading the reader comments section on this NY Times article was an eye opener.
(More Fitness, Less Fatness. https://nyti.ms/2sZ8grQ?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
The commenters allege that the Science of CICO is far from settled.
That’s disconcerting and threatens to unseat my conviction that CICO is the gospel of weight loss.
Surely many of the readers who commented there are not rigorously tracking CI or CO.
But, what about the alleged science. Do we need to temper our zeal for CICO? Or tone it down?
The actual bariatric surgeon quoted in the article (Dr. Livingston) reportedly said this: “the common denominator for all successful diet plans is calorie reduction, irrespective of how that is achieved. . . .”
Some random anonymous doofus(es) in the public comments section allege that there's no science to CICO (whatever the heck they may think it is).
OP, you, personally, have lost 20 pounds by applying the idea that a calorie deficit causes weight loss.
I know what I'd be most likely to believe about the energy balance equation (CICO), based solely on that collection of facts . . . even if I hadn't read a good-ish number of other level-headed, expert sources who think calories are the main basis of weight management (in the technical, physical sense - other factors obviously apply to the behavioral and psychological side, as well as to overall health).
If you prefer to listen to the peanut gallery, feel free. Human beings are very influenced by what's popular, and tend to stick close to reference group behavioral norms. I'd prefer to do my best to keep my weight in the healthy zone, thanks.
10 -
I am undecided of the purpose behind this thread. Does that make me science?13
-
-
-
That's like deciding not to vaccinate your children because of Jenny McCarthy's comments. You burn more than your eat, you lose weight. It's as simple as that. Don't let opinions sway fact.16
-
The comments section is laughable, it's people who have no clue how nutrition works, failed any attempts for weight loss because they were most likely still overeating and then to make themselves feel better, they say CICO isn't real. I mean how many people do you know weigh and track their food??? I am willing to bet that it's a very small percentage. I know at my job, we are about 50+ people and apart from myself, I only one other person who track what they eat. The rest complain about not losing weight, but when you see the garbage they eat, it pretty much answers the question on why they don't lose weight.I’m a CICO zealot. BUT, reading the reader comments section on this NY Times article was an eye opener.
I hate bringing up this fact, but if CICO wasn't true, how come their were no obese people in the concentration camp where the jews were basically eating little to no food??? Or the Minnesota Starving experiment (1945) where all their subjects were reduced to bones? We all have a caloric deficit and the 2 situations I gave as an example, even though they were extreme cases proves that no one is immune to weight loss.
If CICO wasn't real, then we would have a real problem in our hands, because we wouldn't know how to lose weight.12 -
I’m a biomedical engineer. CICO must work due to the laws of the universe. If you can’t acknowledge that, we can’t have a useful conversation.
The problem with CICO is that it is somewhat challenging to estimate the CI and really hard to estimate the CO. For most people the general rules work, but I have seen people that have bodies that do all kinds of crazy things. That’s what special studies are for.22 -
stanmann571 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So you lost 20 pounds though creating a calorie deficit but some random comments on an article are making you doubt that it actually happened?
I have a friend who watched a utube video that said garlic was poisonous to your body. One video and she's on the anti-garlic crazytrain. I sent her all kinds of medical studies, articles but then she became mad. I don't want to eat something that's going to poison me.
I told her that thousands of years of eating garlic by the Greeks and Italians has not proven to be poisonous for people. She made a decision to believe one random opinion and throw everything out with the bathwater. She has not spoken to me again. History, food science did not tell her what she wanted to hear and that's where most of the food debate gets started and never ends. Sigh.
Mmmmm, more garlic for me!
You're falling further behind.
I'm trying! Without cheating...2 -
john_not_typical wrote: »I’m a biomedical engineer. CICO must work due to the laws of the universe. If you can’t acknowledge that, we can’t have a useful conversation.
The problem with CICO is that it is somewhat challenging to estimate the CI and really hard to estimate the CO. For most people the general rules work, but I have seen people that have bodies that do all kinds of crazy things. That’s what special studies are for.
Pretty much. I think that what scientists don't really agree on is how the body might use up more calories to burn some food versus others or whatnot... But it's still CICO...1
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
- 426 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