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.

Anyone else frustrated with the CICO mantra?

1234579

Replies

  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,365 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    When I hear people say to me "I wish I was that dedicated to health and exercise like you", they don't really mean it because if they did................they'd do it. Granted they may not work out like me, but hardly anyone that says it actually would dedicate to it. It just sounds good.

    I think the underlying wish is to have your results without needing to slog through the whole "dedication to exercise" bit.

    I occasionally indulge in the same wistful fantasy when I see photos of fit women. :D
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    clairesimpson4 wrote: »
    @cmriverside did you read my post? I don't deny that CICO is true. I'm saying it's unhelpful to keep saying it to people over and over because we all know it. I don't have a solution, it's not my area of expertise. But the answer isn't to shrug our shoulders and dismiss the idea that it really is more complicated than that. We need more research. But you're wrong about where the problem lies. I refer to my alcoholic example again - telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit.

    As an aside, a lot of medications cause weight gain, most often by increasing appetite. The opposite is also true - Saxenda for example works for weight loss partially by decreasing appetite. Hunger is part of the problem. Humans aren't designed to ignore it. It's why most diets fail.

    There have been a few times in my life when I wasn't in charge of the menu or didn't have access to American supermarkets and I did learn to ignore hunger. It is indeed more challenging when I have unlimited access to hyperpalatable food.

    Regular posters do spend a lot of time addressing hunger issues, with two main points:

    1. We often caution against creating too aggressive a calorie deficit and I post this graphic ad nauseam:

    9kjwnia17qv9.jpg

    2. Finding the foods/macro combos an individual finds most satiating and focusing on them.

    So, CICO is key to weight loss, and dialing in one's deficit and most filling foods makes compliance easier.

    (There was a great weight loss graphic that had Compliance on 50% of a pyramid that I thought I bookmarked but didn't. If anyone has it, please @ me.)

    @kshama2001

    I found that graphic:

    p8m1icq6sji4.png

    ADHERENCE!

    Thanks :smiley:
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,285 Member
    penguinmama87 wrote: »
    ccindicane2 wrote: »
    @clairesimpson4

    I didn't read all of the responses, so if this has already been pointed out, my apologies.

    CICO is merely an explanation of HOW to lose weight. You are asking a WHY question. You cannot answer a WHY question with a HOW answer. As a scientist, I would think you would know that.

    I think this is really the key thing. I think there's also an embedded assumption that when explaining the how, there's a passing of moral judgment. I'm not denying that obese and overweight people are subject to unfair moral judgments of their character because they absolutely are and I've experienced that myself, but actual nutrition science and the functioning of the digestive system does not pass judgment. It simply is what it is.

    People who are overweight or obese have habitually consumed more calories than their bodies actually needed. Why that is can be simple or complicated. It doesn't lessen their inherent dignity or worth as people. If they want to lose the excess weight they need to eat less than their bodies need, also habitually. Depending on circumstances it might require some really careful troubleshooting to figure out the math, and people who find it very difficult to do that should be treated with compassion. But it doesn't do anybody any favors to say that the math isn't going to apply at all, because it just isn't true.

    Exactly.
    And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well

    The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.

    Like, if someone says they are low thyroid and it’s hard to lose weight, I’d suggest they see an endocrinologist to get their thyroid meds fixed.
    This removes one complication.

    Same with any other complicating factor.

    Eating disorders, emotions around partners who show love through food, PCOS, disability that makes it impossible to exercise…. All of these things have an effect on how easy or hard it is to lose weight. And this needs to be acknowledged Which, frequently, it is not.

  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,285 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well

    The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.

    Isn't this what everyone else has been saying?

    Specifically, that what is good about understanding that CICO governs weight loss/gain/maintenance is that it frees you up to figure out the best way to get to the desired CICO for you (if you want to lose, CI<CO). Unlike other approaches, it doesn't tell you that you must also do something that might not work for you (like low carb, low fat, eat 6 mini meals, IF, exercise 1 hour per day, NO processed foods, etc.).

    I would say that if one has trouble achieving CI<CO due to a specific health condition or a problem with binging or hunger issues, those are all things that one will need to figure out how to deal with (through a doctor/medication or therapy or not over restricting or figuring out what foods and eating patterns help with hunger, depending on what the issue is).

    Absolutely no one claims that on an individual level you won't need to focus on anything but calories in order to achieve lasting weight loss, but that the specific things that will work for a person will likely vary based on their personal circumstances and preferences and the ways they gained in the first place. CICO, on the other hand, will be true for all -- the question is how a particular person finds it easiest to achieve the calorie balance that they are seeking.

    Some say that. But no. Not “everyone” says that. And I’ve gotten quite a few disagrees for mentioning that there are often other factors that people need to pay attention to in addition to CICO.

    I’ve even said on these forums that fat shaming is bad, and had people disagree with that.. .





  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well

    The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.

    Isn't this what everyone else has been saying?

    Specifically, that what is good about understanding that CICO governs weight loss/gain/maintenance is that it frees you up to figure out the best way to get to the desired CICO for you (if you want to lose, CI<CO). Unlike other approaches, it doesn't tell you that you must also do something that might not work for you (like low carb, low fat, eat 6 mini meals, IF, exercise 1 hour per day, NO processed foods, etc.).

    I would say that if one has trouble achieving CI<CO due to a specific health condition or a problem with binging or hunger issues, those are all things that one will need to figure out how to deal with (through a doctor/medication or therapy or not over restricting or figuring out what foods and eating patterns help with hunger, depending on what the issue is).

    Absolutely no one claims that on an individual level you won't need to focus on anything but calories in order to achieve lasting weight loss, but that the specific things that will work for a person will likely vary based on their personal circumstances and preferences and the ways they gained in the first place. CICO, on the other hand, will be true for all -- the question is how a particular person finds it easiest to achieve the calorie balance that they are seeking.

    One of the really interesting things to me about this community is seeing the huge array of strategies people use to get to what is pretty much the same end point: balancing their calories in with their calories out.

    There are people who make big changes in the types of foods they eat, either by adding high satiety foods or reducing/eliminating foods that trigger cravings or hunger (or both). There are people who increase their energy use. There are people who find meal timing or composition strategies that help control their appetite. There are people who still eat the same foods, but become masters of portion control. There are people who work on the emotional or environmental factors that prompt overeating. There's so many ways to do this -- in fact the same person may try different strategies at various times, depending on their lifestyle or needs.

    There's probably more strategies that I'm not even thinking of. It's so fascinating to me how there are so many paths to the same goal.

    Yeah, totally agree.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well

    The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.

    Isn't this what everyone else has been saying?

    Specifically, that what is good about understanding that CICO governs weight loss/gain/maintenance is that it frees you up to figure out the best way to get to the desired CICO for you (if you want to lose, CI<CO). Unlike other approaches, it doesn't tell you that you must also do something that might not work for you (like low carb, low fat, eat 6 mini meals, IF, exercise 1 hour per day, NO processed foods, etc.).

    I would say that if one has trouble achieving CI<CO due to a specific health condition or a problem with binging or hunger issues, those are all things that one will need to figure out how to deal with (through a doctor/medication or therapy or not over restricting or figuring out what foods and eating patterns help with hunger, depending on what the issue is).

    Absolutely no one claims that on an individual level you won't need to focus on anything but calories in order to achieve lasting weight loss, but that the specific things that will work for a person will likely vary based on their personal circumstances and preferences and the ways they gained in the first place. CICO, on the other hand, will be true for all -- the question is how a particular person finds it easiest to achieve the calorie balance that they are seeking.

    Some say that. But no. Not “everyone” says that. And I’ve gotten quite a few disagrees for mentioning that there are often other factors that people need to pay attention to in addition to CICO.

    I’ve even said on these forums that fat shaming is bad, and had people disagree with that.. .





    I really do think pretty much who is saying CICO is the way it works understands that on the individual level people are going to find various ways to get to CI<CO (or whatever). Mostly I think it's a matter of communication. And I've made this point lots of times without lots of disagrees (usually without any, although I often don't look at my post later so don't see) so I expect it's either some freak thing (disagrees can be weird) or something else in the post or a misunderstanding of the post.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,285 Member
    edited August 2021
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    penguinmama87 wrote: »
    ccindicane2 wrote: »
    @clairesimpson4

    I didn't read all of the responses, so if this has already been pointed out, my apologies.

    CICO is merely an explanation of HOW to lose weight. You are asking a WHY question. You cannot answer a WHY question with a HOW answer. As a scientist, I would think you would know that.

    I think this is really the key thing. I think there's also an embedded assumption that when explaining the how, there's a passing of moral judgment. I'm not denying that obese and overweight people are subject to unfair moral judgments of their character because they absolutely are and I've experienced that myself, but actual nutrition science and the functioning of the digestive system does not pass judgment. It simply is what it is.

    People who are overweight or obese have habitually consumed more calories than their bodies actually needed. Why that is can be simple or complicated. It doesn't lessen their inherent dignity or worth as people. If they want to lose the excess weight they need to eat less than their bodies need, also habitually. Depending on circumstances it might require some really careful troubleshooting to figure out the math, and people who find it very difficult to do that should be treated with compassion. But it doesn't do anybody any favors to say that the math isn't going to apply at all, because it just isn't true.

    Exactly.
    And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well

    The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.

    Like, if someone says they are low thyroid and it’s hard to lose weight, I’d suggest they see an endocrinologist to get their thyroid meds fixed.
    This removes one complication.

    Same with any other complicating factor.

    Eating disorders, emotions around partners who show love through food, PCOS, disability that makes it impossible to exercise…. All of these things have an effect on how easy or hard it is to lose weight. And this needs to be acknowledged Which, frequently, it is not.

    For me, and this is just one person's opinion but it's food for thought too, is that this is a give a person a fish / teach them to fish thing. Like, understanding how calories work means knowing if you're not able to exercise - I broke a rib and collapsed a lung a couple years ago - that your food choices and portion sizes are more important. Right now I know that if I'm feeling hungry or deprived or whatever, I know I can go over my calories, and I know how to equate food with hours on the bike and with miles walked. When I was injured, I knew that wasn't a strategy I could take. I had to pay a lot of attention to what made me feel satiated. I had to eat more frequently such that I never got really hungry and lost it. I had heard things like don't eat anything with sugar, don't eat after 8 pm, you've heard them all, that stuff can be confusing when well meaning people are trying to help with the bro science they've heard. Knowing how it works allows people to make informed decisions about their unique circumstances. 🙂

    I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. And, speaking as a person who is more and more disabled as the years go by, I completely get it. Right now, on my good days, I can exercise on exactly one piece of specialized rehab equipment.

    That said, when some newbie comes on the forum and says they can’t understand why they’re not losing weight, especially when they’re “eating healthy”, sometimes the replies can get pretty heavy handed. And those responses can be very dogmatic too.

    Ultimately that’s the part I disagree with. That behavior.

    Yes. Teach a man to fish. But don’t beat him over the head with the bait box while you’re doing it. Lead him to the water first.

    **Editing to add that even I will silently roll my eyes at anyone who says they can’t lose weight because they’re physically disabled.
    But I do it silently.
    And, then I feel them out to see what they’ve tried. And maybe suggest ideas that could help them.

    If they don’t want to listen? Yelling at them won’t solve it.

Categories