Why Calories In and Calories Out... It really ISN'T that simple.....
Replies
-
Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.
I'm sorry to have disturbed you @brianpperkins
I understood the thread as also being about "why CICO may not be enough for people," which OP had one opinion on, and I have another.
The facticity of CICO (which I believe in) is entirely irrelevant to whether someone will actually be able to change their life habits.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?
Maybe it does. When I finally woke up and realized how simple losing weight really is....that there doesn't have to be all these special rules to live by in order to see the scales go down, I started to truly have real, sustainable success.
Yes, it works for some people, which I've stated above. That's so great!!! Congrats
But certainly not for others! Therefore, knowing it is only part of the picture.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.
I'm sorry to have disturbed you @brianpperkins
I understood the thread as also being about "why CICO may not be enough for people," which OP had one opinion on, and I have another.
The facticity of CICO (which I believe in) is entirely irrelevant to whether someone will actually be able to change their life habits.
The link OP cited did not say "to control calories one may have to control behavior or appetite and food choice may play into that." I actually don't agree that learning to eat properly is all that difficult or that it's hard for people to figure out how to eat to be satiated,* but I agree that's important. It said "calories don't matter." That, I believe, is a flat out lie.
*Of course eating within your calories over time may still be challenging, but I think it's because people like food and don't want to think about how much they are eating, not because they genuinely cannot figure out how to not be hungry (for the most part). I don't believe that most people who overeat do so because they are actually hungry, so I think the theories that people today are eating insane numbers of calories in many cases because of that reason start with the wrong premise.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.
I'm sorry to have disturbed you @brianpperkins
I understood the thread as also being about "why CICO may not be enough for people," which OP had one opinion on, and I have another.
The facticity of CICO (which I believe in) is entirely irrelevant to whether someone will actually be able to change their life habits.
The only thing in your posts that disturbs me is your failed attempt at word games. Science (noun) is not changed by feelings. Your trying to say "science" isn't a "thing" ignores actual definitions.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
But it doesn't matter if you're "emotionally able" to handle CICO being accurate. That's like saying that once you're "emotionally able" to accept gravity, it'll start working on you. Facts don't care if you believe them or not.
Well I would presume that's pretty obvious that the truth of a fact isn't based on someone's emotional ability to handle it. But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere.
The point is, someone can "know" that fact and still be emotionally/psychologically unable to change anything about what they're doing regardless of their minds "KNOWING" the fact about their bodies' metabolism. Therefore...yes it is a true fact, and that's great. But weightloss itself won't happen magically because a person KNOWS something.
I think where things get muddy is that CICO isn't a diet, or a strategy or a tactic. It's not even exclusive to weight loss. It describes energy balance, that calories in equal calories out for an individual in maintenance, and that CI<CO results in weight loss and CI>CO results in weight gain.
Understanding that all calories are equal from an energy perspective has more to do with basic science and math than it does from an approach to weight loss (or gain as not everyone here is trying to lose).
So CICO is a mathematical equation and is indisputable. The approach I choose to follow to achieve my goals is flexible dieting, but others may choose to implement a different approach (LCHF, Paleo, etc). Or they may choose not to actively manage their weight at all, that doesn't negate CICO for them. They are just ignoring it. Which is fine, I did it for nearly 40 years. Some years I was underweight, some years I was overweight. The whole time, CICO applied to me.
0 -
Well thankyou each and every person i really have enjoyed all the post made. I have been inspired in my weight loss journey learned a few things now i will get up and move around to get a little calories out thank you all0
-
I've struggled with weight issues most of my adult life. Lost up to 40 lbs at various times through a variety of methods-Atkins, South Beach, Weight Watchers, SlimFasy, gluten-free, etc. Each time I thought "this is it, I've found a way to trick my body and I don't have to bother with weighing and measuring food, or with counting calories. Yippee me!"
HOWEVER, once I started to eat more normally, I always put the weight + back on within a few months -and always much faster than it took me to lose it. I am 100% certain that CICO is the only forever solution for me. While it does mean a lifetime of logging food, I feel liberated because I know I can eat anything I want as long as I stay within my calorie target. I do choose to focus on whole grains, lean proteins and lots of veggies and fruits, mainly because they keep me full longer and I can stay under my calories, even saving enough for wine on Fridays and Saturdays (yes, I am that person that prefers wine over cake)
I've been on MFP for about 3 weeks now and love it.
0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?
Methods and processes are things.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
But it doesn't matter if you're "emotionally able" to handle CICO being accurate. That's like saying that once you're "emotionally able" to accept gravity, it'll start working on you. Facts don't care if you believe them or not.
Well I would presume that's pretty obvious that the truth of a fact isn't based on someone's emotional ability to handle it. But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere.
The point is, someone can "know" that fact and still be emotionally/psychologically unable to change anything about what they're doing regardless of their minds "KNOWING" the fact about their bodies' metabolism. Therefore...yes it is a true fact, and that's great. But weightloss itself won't happen magically because a person KNOWS something.
I think where things get muddy is that CICO isn't a diet, or a strategy or a tactic. It's not even exclusive to weight loss. It describes energy balance, that calories in equal calories out for an individual in maintenance, and that CI<CO results in weight loss and CI>CO results in weight gain.
Understanding that all calories are equal from an energy perspective has more to do with basic science and math than it does from an approach to weight loss (or gain as not everyone here is trying to lose).
So CICO is a mathematical equation and is indisputable. The approach I choose to follow to achieve my goals is flexible dieting, but others may choose to implement a different approach (LCHF, Paleo, etc). Or they may choose not to actively manage their weight at all, that doesn't negate CICO for them. They are just ignoring it. Which is fine, I did it for nearly 40 years. Some years I was underweight, some years I was overweight. The whole time, CICO applied to me.
Indisputable, that is ^0 -
nuttynanners wrote: »Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP.....
As much as I agree that higher quality foods are going to be better for weight loss in the long run, MFP forums are not the place for that kind of thinking. They just don't want see it from that perspective.
Nutrition is incredibly important to hit goals and for overall health
If you think that the overarching truth of calories in vs calories out under which all successful losing weight ./ weight gain / weight maintenance / fitness goals fall doesn't allow for good nutrition you simply don't know what you're talking about
I swear, these threads beg the question: If you don't understand/like/believe in CICO, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
This is a calorie counting website. What did you think all the little numbers meant? And more importantly, what are you logging your food for if you think a calorie isn't a calorie? Why would you bother? If the answer really is "eat healthy ****" why aren't you on some forum of a website dedicated to lunatic anti-vaxxers who love collard greens? It doesn't make any sense!
"Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP....." DUH!!? Of course you wouldn't. You're trying to sell airline tickets on a used car lot here. People are here to buy a car to get them to and from work, then you show up moaning about how air travel is better for the environment or something. Maybe it is, but until you find me a plane that will take me, the same time every day, from my house to my office, for the low low price of $1.47, you're barking up the wrong tree!
1. Calories, and calories alone, in whatever form you ingest them, are ALL that matters for WEIGHT LOSS.
2. Nutrition is a complex arrangement of certain types of food over a period of time to meet all of your required nutrient levels.
3. Weight loss only occurs when in caloric deficit, even if your nutrition is flawless and you hit every number (save calories) perfectly.
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »nuttynanners wrote: »Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP.....
As much as I agree that higher quality foods are going to be better for weight loss in the long run, MFP forums are not the place for that kind of thinking. They just don't want see it from that perspective.
Nutrition is incredibly important to hit goals and for overall health
If you think that the overarching truth of calories in vs calories out under which all successful losing weight ./ weight gain / weight maintenance / fitness goals fall doesn't allow for good nutrition you simply don't know what you're talking about
I swear, these threads beg the question: If you don't understand/like/believe in CICO, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
This is a calorie counting website. What did you think all the little numbers meant? And more importantly, what are you logging your food for if you think a calorie isn't a calorie? Why would you bother? If the answer really is "eat healthy ****" why aren't you on some forum of a website dedicated to lunatic anti-vaxxers who love collard greens? It doesn't make any sense!
"Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP....." DUH!!? Of course you wouldn't. You're trying to sell airline tickets on a used car lot here. People are here to buy a car to get them to and from work, then you show up moaning about how air travel is better for the environment or something. Maybe it is, but until you find me a plane that will take me, the same time every day, from my house to my office, for the low low price of $1.47, you're barking up the wrong tree!
1. Calories, and calories alone, in whatever form you ingest them, are ALL that matters for WEIGHT LOSS.
2. Nutrition is a complex arrangement of certain types of food over a period of time to meet all of your required nutrient levels.
3. Weight loss only occurs when in caloric deficit, even if your nutrition is flawless and you hit every number (save calories) perfectly.
You tell them sister! Though if you find me that $1.47 ticket, I would love to spend the few hours it would take me to come and visit
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »nuttynanners wrote: »Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP.....
As much as I agree that higher quality foods are going to be better for weight loss in the long run, MFP forums are not the place for that kind of thinking. They just don't want see it from that perspective.
Nutrition is incredibly important to hit goals and for overall health
If you think that the overarching truth of calories in vs calories out under which all successful losing weight ./ weight gain / weight maintenance / fitness goals fall doesn't allow for good nutrition you simply don't know what you're talking about
I swear, these threads beg the question: If you don't understand/like/believe in CICO, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
This is a calorie counting website. What did you think all the little numbers meant? And more importantly, what are you logging your food for if you think a calorie isn't a calorie? Why would you bother? If the answer really is "eat healthy ****" why aren't you on some forum of a website dedicated to lunatic anti-vaxxers who love collard greens? It doesn't make any sense!
"Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP....." DUH!!? Of course you wouldn't. You're trying to sell airline tickets on a used car lot here. People are here to buy a car to get them to and from work, then you show up moaning about how air travel is better for the environment or something. Maybe it is, but until you find me a plane that will take me, the same time every day, from my house to my office, for the low low price of $1.47, you're barking up the wrong tree!
1. Calories, and calories alone, in whatever form you ingest them, are ALL that matters for WEIGHT LOSS.
2. Nutrition is a complex arrangement of certain types of food over a period of time to meet all of your required nutrient levels.
3. Weight loss only occurs when in caloric deficit, even if your nutrition is flawless and you hit every number (save calories) perfectly.
You tell them sister! Though if you find me that $1.47 ticket, I would love to spend the few hours it would take me to come and visit
Ha! If I found a $1.47 airline ticket, I'd be in Fiji. Yesterday.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Like it or not, our bodies are machines. No matter how much you resist understanding physics or chemistry, your body understands it. Your body does science all day, erry day. Your body does not care whether the carbs, fats, and proteins comes from a burger at McDonald's or a homemade, grass-fed, daily-massaged burger on Jehovah's Witness bread with organic non-pasteurized cheese (with a side of listeria) and organic lettuce, heirloom tomatoes, and hand-churned butter.
Your body takes what it needs and uses it, throwing away the trash like a $20 prostitute. You may "feel" like you did better by eating the fancy burger, but your body literally doesn't care.
You are my kind of people
Jehovahs witness bread. ...beautiful0 -
He can now be the spokesman for the prison diet.snowflake930 wrote: »Let's not forget Jared either on his Subway diet.
No matter how it is packaged the results from eating less calories than you burn is weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
He can now be the spokesman for the prison diet.snowflake930 wrote: »Let's not forget Jared either on his Subway diet.
No matter how it is packaged the results from eating less calories than you burn is weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
In other news, today we hear from famous Subway Jared on his rapid loss of 30 lbs in 4 minutes! Apparently that's how long it takes all the inmates with children at home to slice off your arm with a spork.... And now to Judy with the weather....0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Let's not forget Jared either on his Subway diet.
No matter how it is packaged the results from eating less calories than you burn is weight loss.
I wanted to be the Jared of McChickens, until all that... other stuff happened. Had to abort the mission.
Considering Jared's recent legal issues you may want to reconsider......whoops nevermind. Reading comprehension is on the fritz!0 -
Actually many people on the forums are on here to find CORRECT information to help them on their own journey. The best encouragement you can give people is that they really DON'T have to change a lot of how they like to eat. Just HOW MUCH the eat.MaggieAustin15 wrote: »All this back lash and negative energy is not getting anywhere, why go against what someone says everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We are on here tying to stay healthy and record our food and exercise as well as encourage others and help them meet their goals. It is only my third day using this cite and all have seen is a bunch of adults acting like Junior High Kids in regards of going against others own opinions and virtues. Let people speak their mind on their own accords. I'm only 18 and have more dignity and respect then most adults that I know.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?
Methods and processes are things.
Actually...they are different! Here, @Carlos_421 let me explain it to you so you'll know
I can say "e=mc(squared)" and that is not "science." It's a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact". The science are the methods by which Einstein figured that out. That is the difference. And it's the same with CICO. It's not "science" it is a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact." Science is the method and process by which people found it to be true to the extent that it has never been proven otherwise.
You're speaking to a PhD in the history of science, who is getting married to a PhD in Chemistry. I love my science!
Hey, you learned something today!0 -
Is it a "FORCE" protein shake?CICO is an umbrella. If you are counting calories, you are following CICO. If you don't count calories, you are still following CICO. CICO is overarching and never goes away. How you get there is your own preference.
If you think otherwise you have some "learnin" to do.
How many midichlorians are there in a protein shake?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.
I'm sorry to have disturbed you @brianpperkins
I understood the thread as also being about "why CICO may not be enough for people," which OP had one opinion on, and I have another.
The facticity of CICO (which I believe in) is entirely irrelevant to whether someone will actually be able to change their life habits.
The only thing in your posts that disturbs me is your failed attempt at word games. Science (noun) is not changed by feelings. Your trying to say "science" isn't a "thing" ignores actual definitions.
Oh no, they're not word games! It's just my thing, and I find the difference important. I'm a PhD in science studies, marrying a PhD in Chemistry. It's what I do...science!
I explained it to someone else above, if you're interested in learning the difference.
Back on topic: I think you've missed my point, but I'm OK with that.
Best of luck.0 -
A cup of gasoline has around 2000 calories.
A calorie is not a calorie. Nutrition counts too. Ever heard of vitamins? Minerals?0 -
Here's a dude who eats nothing but chips, candy and butter. Doesn't look obese to me. Great act too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2fCToSy0_U
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
A cup of gasoline has around 2000 calories.
A calorie is not a calorie. Nutrition counts too. Ever heard of vitamins? Minerals?
A calorie is indeed a calorie. I gotta quote myself on this. Welcome to page 1 of the thread.TheBeachgod wrote: »Nutrition is a different story altogether. People seem to get these confused.
calories ≠ nutrition
0 -
The only real arguments around a calorie not being a calorie need to take into discussion issues with Atwater Factors or the possible "metabolic advantage" of certain dietary types (and prove they actually exist, outside the lab).
For example - the calories in walnuts do not correspond to the useful energy that is bioavailable. 5 calories of nuts is really 4 calories available. But in general, these are minor factors in a normal diet.0 -
notnikkisixx wrote: »nuttynanners wrote: »Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP.....
As much as I agree that higher quality foods are going to be better for weight loss in the long run, MFP forums are not the place for that kind of thinking. They just don't want see it from that perspective.
In my experience, CICO was the best place for me to start. I had a lot of bad habits to break and the thought of completely overhauling my lifestyle all at once was too daunting. A few months of eating the foods I wanted, just less of them, and seeing results gave me the encouragement I needed to then pursue healthier eating and make more healthy choices. CICO was the foundation I needed to get me to a place where I could start slowly overhauling my life.
Thanks for this comment
I think part of the problem is that whenever someone says something like "a calorie isn't just a calorie, an apple is better than you than cake for weight loss", some people basically rush to start "shaming" that person, instead of a much more constructive comment like yours...
Thanks for the reasoned and moderate voice 0 -
-
0
-
Mapalicious wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?
Methods and processes are things.
Actually...they are different! Here, @Carlos_421 let me explain it to you so you'll know
I can say "e=mc(squared)" and that is not "science." It's a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact". The science are the methods by which Einstein figured that out. That is the difference. And it's the same with CICO. It's not "science" it is a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact." Science is the method and process by which people found it to be true to the extent that it has never been proven otherwise.
You're speaking to a PhD in the history of science, who is getting married to a PhD in Chemistry. I love my science!
Hey, you learned something today!
I already knew all that.
I agree that science is a process.
And a process is a thing. It may not be tangible but it is a thing. Explain whatever scientific theory you like. The fact that science is the process by which we discover, prove, disprove and fail to disprove theories doesn't change the fact that methods and processes are things (as classified by the concepts of the English language).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions