Does CICO result in slower weight loss than low carb?
Options
Replies
-
If you're losing weight, then you are following CICO.
CICO is a simplification of the process used by humans to either create or consume bodyfat.
No matter how you choose to eat you are still at the mercy of this process.
I assume the OP is really meaning slower weight loss of a balanced macronutritional intake compared to a low carbohydrate dietary intake.
This is an important distinction to make as it always leads to people believing the laws of the known physical universe are wrong.0 -
If you're losing weight, then you are following CICO.
CICO is a simplification of the process used by humans to either create or consume bodyfat.
No matter how you choose to eat you are still at the mercy of this process.
I assume the OP is really meaning slower weight loss of a balanced macronutritional intake compared to a low carbohydrate dietary intake.
This is an important distinction to make as it always leads to people believing the laws of the known physical universe are wrong.
Yes thats what I mean. Thank you.0 -
From my own experience flirting with low carb-yeah, I lost a lot of weight (around 10lbs), in just a few days. But it was 95% water weight and it came right back on when I began eating more carbs. I don't consider that weight loss success.
However, with CICO I've lost over 50lbs and have maintained the loss for around 3 years now (dealing with some weight creep right now, due to loss of focus/stopped tracking, back to tracking as of today!). Within the parameters of CICO I can eat all the foods I enjoy, just in moderation/portion control. There's no way a low carb diet is sustainable for me, for any length of time. This whole thing is hard enough as it is, no sense in making it any harder!
Also, if low carb worked so well for you in the past, why aren't you still doing it? I'm going to take a guess that it wasn't very sustainable for you either?0 -
Low carb is a form of controlling your CICO. Just like this website counts calories to control CICO.
Low carb does not automatically equal weight loss. You could very well gain weight by having your CI greater than your CO while low carbing (because butter, yum).
CICO is not a diet- It is an equation.0 -
Midwesterner85 has a medical condition that is known to be better managed by going low carb. Do you have a medical, Microscopes? If not the general recommendation applies, however if you have a medical condition then I sagest you talk to your doctor and a dietitian about appropriate macro ratios for your condition.midwesterner85 wrote: »
Here is my experience, which may differ from the experience of others:
For more than 2 years, I've been trying to lose weight using CICO. It happens slowly and is very inconsistent (i.e. I'll lose some times when expected, but not lose sometimes when expected). Every time I hit a plateau (a real plateau, meaning that I'm eating less than I'm burning and still not losing), I get frustrated and try different things to get that loss. Every time so far, the plateau has eventually ended (with a big whoosh), but only once can I identify what I actually did to cause the plateau to end. I've had a lot of frustration with weight loss. I have health issues, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (I don't make any insulin - type 1; and I'm insulin resistant - type 2) so I have issues related to that. My endocrinologist has low expectations for me to lose weight and I have exceeded his expectations, but have lost so slowly and failed what I would expect and what MFP projects based on calories. For the past 1.5 years, I've used a food scale and a Fitbit (with HRM for just over a year). Despite measuring fairly accurately, I just can't lose at the rate MFP says I should be. My endocrinologist has an explanation as to why I can't lose very fast, but it annoys me anyway. In more than 2 years, I've lost just over 30 lbs.
Almost a month ago, I switched to low carb in an effort to better control blood glucose. During the past month (a couple days shy), I've been losing faster and faster to where I'm not losing 2 lbs. / week (MFP is set for 1 lb. / week). I have not changed calories at all, but I've changed macros. The intent was not to lose weight any faster, but to improve BG's. I have a theory as to why low carb is making a difference for me for weight loss, which is based on my knowledge and understanding of the different energy sources in my body and how and when different macros get converted to energy... but that is a topic for another thread.
holy crap.
that goes against what is being preached by many here. not sure what to believe0 -
CICO always applies no matter what diet you are doing, low carb included.
My advice would be to take a long hard look at your logging and see how accurate it may or may not be. That is where I would look to make changes.Microscopes wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here is my experience, which may differ from the experience of others:
For more than 2 years, I've been trying to lose weight using CICO. It happens slowly and is very inconsistent (i.e. I'll lose some times when expected, but not lose sometimes when expected). Every time I hit a plateau (a real plateau, meaning that I'm eating less than I'm burning and still not losing), I get frustrated and try different things to get that loss. Every time so far, the plateau has eventually ended (with a big whoosh), but only once can I identify what I actually did to cause the plateau to end. I've had a lot of frustration with weight loss. I have health issues, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (I don't make any insulin - type 1; and I'm insulin resistant - type 2) so I have issues related to that. My endocrinologist has low expectations for me to lose weight and I have exceeded his expectations, but have lost so slowly and failed what I would expect and what MFP projects based on calories. For the past 1.5 years, I've used a food scale and a Fitbit (with HRM for just over a year). Despite measuring fairly accurately, I just can't lose at the rate MFP says I should be. My endocrinologist has an explanation as to why I can't lose very fast, but it annoys me anyway. In more than 2 years, I've lost just over 30 lbs.
Almost a month ago, I switched to low carb in an effort to better control blood glucose. During the past month (a couple days shy), I've been losing faster and faster to where I'm not losing 2 lbs. / week (MFP is set for 1 lb. / week). I have not changed calories at all, but I've changed macros. The intent was not to lose weight any faster, but to improve BG's. I have a theory as to why low carb is making a difference for me for weight loss, which is based on my knowledge and understanding of the different energy sources in my body and how and when different macros get converted to energy... but that is a topic for another thread.
holy crap.
that goes against what is being preached by many here. not sure what to believe
Those with metabolic issues (insulin resistance) tend to lose better on low carb high fat (moderate protein) because insulin levels are lower. When insulin is lower, it is often easier to lose weight. Possibly because insulin is one of the main drivers behind fat storage, or maybe because the extra glucose in the blood (from higher carb diets) has to go somewhere, and fat is where it goes.
My weight loss experience was similar to @midwesterner85 's. I tried to lose by just counting calories; it would work for a while but I felt so hungry I would eventually stop and regain my weight. I went very low carb high fat (less than 20g of carbs per day) and lost 40lbs in just over 4 months even though I was eating 1500 kcals per day. That should have worked out to a pound per week, and not 10 lbs per month while basically sedentary.
Now I have increased my calories to 2000-2500 kcals per day, and I am still losing although at a very very slow rate. My past experiences of cutting calories on a higher carb diet would not have given me the same result. LCHF seems to work for me, but I am someone with insulin resistance (I was prediabetic).0 -
@Microscopes, seriously? Midwesterner85 has diabetes, both type 1 & type 2. Do you? He has a very serious medical condition that requires monitoring. For people with no medical issues, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate carbs, nor should you. Every diet for weight loss is limiting calories, whether or not they come right out and say so. That is the only way for most people (with no medical issues) to lose weight. Eat less calories than your body burns. Long term benefit for all foods in moderation, no re-learning a new way of eating when you reach your goal weight. You just continue on with what you have been doing and increase your calorie intake to maintenance calories.0
-
CICO always applies no matter what diet you are doing, low carb included.
My advice would be to take a long hard look at your logging and see how accurate it may or may not be. That is where I would look to make changes.Microscopes wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here is my experience, which may differ from the experience of others:
For more than 2 years, I've been trying to lose weight using CICO. It happens slowly and is very inconsistent (i.e. I'll lose some times when expected, but not lose sometimes when expected). Every time I hit a plateau (a real plateau, meaning that I'm eating less than I'm burning and still not losing), I get frustrated and try different things to get that loss. Every time so far, the plateau has eventually ended (with a big whoosh), but only once can I identify what I actually did to cause the plateau to end. I've had a lot of frustration with weight loss. I have health issues, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (I don't make any insulin - type 1; and I'm insulin resistant - type 2) so I have issues related to that. My endocrinologist has low expectations for me to lose weight and I have exceeded his expectations, but have lost so slowly and failed what I would expect and what MFP projects based on calories. For the past 1.5 years, I've used a food scale and a Fitbit (with HRM for just over a year). Despite measuring fairly accurately, I just can't lose at the rate MFP says I should be. My endocrinologist has an explanation as to why I can't lose very fast, but it annoys me anyway. In more than 2 years, I've lost just over 30 lbs.
Almost a month ago, I switched to low carb in an effort to better control blood glucose. During the past month (a couple days shy), I've been losing faster and faster to where I'm not losing 2 lbs. / week (MFP is set for 1 lb. / week). I have not changed calories at all, but I've changed macros. The intent was not to lose weight any faster, but to improve BG's. I have a theory as to why low carb is making a difference for me for weight loss, which is based on my knowledge and understanding of the different energy sources in my body and how and when different macros get converted to energy... but that is a topic for another thread.
holy crap.
that goes against what is being preached by many here. not sure what to believe
Those with metabolic issues (insulin resistance) tend to lose better on low carb high fat (moderate protein) because insulin levels are lower. When insulin is lower, it is often easier to lose weight. Possibly because insulin is one of the main drivers behind fat storage, or maybe because the extra glucose in the blood (from higher carb diets) has to go somewhere, and fat is where it goes.
My weight loss experience was similar to @midwesterner85 's. I tried to lose by just counting calories; it would work for a while but I felt so hungry I would eventually stop and regain my weight. I went very low carb high fat (less than 20g of carbs per day) and lost 40lbs in just over 4 months even though I was eating 1500 kcals per day. That should have worked out to a pound per week, and not 10 lbs per month while basically sedentary.
Now I have increased my calories to 2000-2500 kcals per day, and I am still losing although at a very very slow rate. My past experiences of cutting calories on a higher carb diet would not have given me the same result. LCHF seems to work for me, but I am someone with insulin resistance (I was prediabetic).
Turning glucose into triglycerides is not a free energy reaction, it requires energy to do it, which is why grams fattay acids out of de novo lipogensis generally requires 100s to 1000s of excess calories from carbohydrates. If the body was turning glucose into fatty acid, just to turn around and burn those, CO would increased. It would be like taking a laptop and charging the battery to run it off the battery latter instead of just operating the laptop directly from the wall.
If you think operating more efficiently would increase weight loss, you don't understand weight loss as energy systems, numbers, and thermodynamics. You understand it as a belief that being overweight is some kind of bad state that comes out of bad health, so you assume improving one thing (more efficient metabolism) would mean improving (losing weight) another.0 -
CICO always applies no matter what diet you are doing, low carb included.
My advice would be to take a long hard look at your logging and see how accurate it may or may not be. That is where I would look to make changes.Microscopes wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here is my experience, which may differ from the experience of others:
For more than 2 years, I've been trying to lose weight using CICO. It happens slowly and is very inconsistent (i.e. I'll lose some times when expected, but not lose sometimes when expected). Every time I hit a plateau (a real plateau, meaning that I'm eating less than I'm burning and still not losing), I get frustrated and try different things to get that loss. Every time so far, the plateau has eventually ended (with a big whoosh), but only once can I identify what I actually did to cause the plateau to end. I've had a lot of frustration with weight loss. I have health issues, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (I don't make any insulin - type 1; and I'm insulin resistant - type 2) so I have issues related to that. My endocrinologist has low expectations for me to lose weight and I have exceeded his expectations, but have lost so slowly and failed what I would expect and what MFP projects based on calories. For the past 1.5 years, I've used a food scale and a Fitbit (with HRM for just over a year). Despite measuring fairly accurately, I just can't lose at the rate MFP says I should be. My endocrinologist has an explanation as to why I can't lose very fast, but it annoys me anyway. In more than 2 years, I've lost just over 30 lbs.
Almost a month ago, I switched to low carb in an effort to better control blood glucose. During the past month (a couple days shy), I've been losing faster and faster to where I'm not losing 2 lbs. / week (MFP is set for 1 lb. / week). I have not changed calories at all, but I've changed macros. The intent was not to lose weight any faster, but to improve BG's. I have a theory as to why low carb is making a difference for me for weight loss, which is based on my knowledge and understanding of the different energy sources in my body and how and when different macros get converted to energy... but that is a topic for another thread.
holy crap.
that goes against what is being preached by many here. not sure what to believe
Those with metabolic issues (insulin resistance) tend to lose better on low carb high fat (moderate protein) because insulin levels are lower. When insulin is lower, it is often easier to lose weight. Possibly because insulin is one of the main drivers behind fat storage, or maybe because the extra glucose in the blood (from higher carb diets) has to go somewhere, and fat is where it goes.
My weight loss experience was similar to @midwesterner85 's. I tried to lose by just counting calories; it would work for a while but I felt so hungry I would eventually stop and regain my weight. I went very low carb high fat (less than 20g of carbs per day) and lost 40lbs in just over 4 months even though I was eating 1500 kcals per day. That should have worked out to a pound per week, and not 10 lbs per month while basically sedentary.
Now I have increased my calories to 2000-2500 kcals per day, and I am still losing although at a very very slow rate. My past experiences of cutting calories on a higher carb diet would not have given me the same result. LCHF seems to work for me, but I am someone with insulin resistance (I was prediabetic).
Turning glucose into triglycerides is not a free energy reaction, it requires energy to do it, which is why grams fattay acids out of de novo lipogensis generally requires 100s to 1000s of excess calories from carbohydrates. If the body was turning glucose into fatty acid, just to turn around and burn those, CO would increased. It would be like taking a laptop and charging the battery to run it off the battery latter instead of just operating the laptop directly from the wall.
If you think operating more efficiently would increase weight loss, you don't understand weight loss as energy systems, numbers, and thermodynamics. You understand it as a belief that being overweight is some kind of bad state that comes out of bad health, so you assume improving one thing (more efficient metabolism) would mean improving (losing weight) another.
For me, the following is true: I gain weight at 2000-2500kcals of a higher carb diet. I lose very small amount of weight (or maybe it is now maintain) at 2000-2500 kcal of a LCHF diet. That's just the way it is for me. Happily I consider giving up high carb foods for better health and weight management a fair trade.. It is my n=1. That's it. No need to tell me what I think... What you think that I think.
0 -
Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob0 -
RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?
I would also like to see the data included in this. I don't consider fiber to be a part of my net carbs, so I would be interested in other parts of the data.0 -
Not the study people are looking for...but related to the low-carb discussion...
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413115003502?showall=trueCalorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity0 -
@senecarr The part you bolded, as I understand, is making that point that body fat is created from excess glucose. If a person has no excess glucose, then they don't get extra body fat.
So here is my understanding of my own results when changing macros without changing calories:
The 3 main energy sources in our body are glucose, glycogen, and fat. Before glycogen or fat is added, it is glucose. Net carbs create a glucose spike. Within a short time, if this glucose is not used, it gets added to glycogen and then to fat. For a sedentary individual, or for someone who is not expending that energy within 1-2 hours of consuming net carbs, some or most of the spike of a high carb meal ends up as body fat. If it doesn't get used quickly and it doesn't replenish glycogen quickly, then it is converted to fat. If this did not happen, then everyone who eats high net carbs would have high blood glucose all the time. The differences in my case are that I take insulin manually to make this happen instead of creating my own (as most do), and that I have to take a lot of insulin to make it work. You will always be using some energy, and glucose is always needed to be available to feed muscles throughout the day even for sedentary individuals. But a big spike that isn't going to be used for several hours just isn't going to stick around... your body will store it instead.
How does one get glucose when on a low carb diet? We still need glucose to live, even when we are not eating carbs to spike blood glucose levels. When we eat protein, it is broken down into individual amino acids. Most amino acids can be used to repair muscles. Protein can also be broken down and converted to blood glucose (through gluconeogenesis). This process takes much more time and there is not glucose spike. It is a slower supply of glucose that doesn't normally cause such high levels that it is removed from blood and stored as body fat. A similar thing happens with dietary fat - it is broken down to become glucose, but it takes a very long time for this to happen and there is no glucose spike from dietary fat. Like dietary protein and dietary fat, body protein (muscle) and body fat can also be converted to blood glucose.
Here is the part that I'm less certain about from a scientific standpoint: Does gluconeogenesis happen if one does not actually need blood glucose to rise? We know that net carbs spike glucose no matter what, and excess glucose goes to fat. But if the body is operating efficiently, then it would not expend effort for gluconeogenesis for any more glucose than is actually necessary, right? I'm not sure, but my theory as to why the low carb diet has been so successful for me is based on a 2-word modification in the known explanation of how this works: protein and fat will be broken down to create glucose as needed. The result of these 2 words is that glucose is not created when not needed and that means there is no extra glucose to be converted into body fat.
0 -
blues4miles wrote: »Not the study people are looking for...but related to the low-carb discussion...
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413115003502?showall=trueCalorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity
The 6 day wonder study with no measured fat loss by DEXA and different deficits. We probably need something better than that to answer the question.0 -
CICO isn't a diet. It's the (very well-supported) idea that if you're eating less calories than you're burning, you'll lose weight, which is true for any diet you're losing weight on, low carb, high carb, or whatever. Were you tracking your activity, and how many calories you ate, when you were doing a low carb diet? If not, then there's not really any way to compare what you're doing now with what you were doing then. If you're not satisfied with your progress, then either move more, or eat less.0
-
snowflake930 wrote: »@Microscopes, seriously? Midwesterner85 has diabetes, both type 1 & type 2. Do you? He has a very serious medical condition that requires monitoring. For people with no medical issues, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate carbs, nor should you. Every diet for weight loss is limiting calories, whether or not they come right out and say so. That is the only way for most people (with no medical issues) to lose weight. Eat less calories than your body burns. Long term benefit for all foods in moderation, no re-learning a new way of eating when you reach your goal weight. You just continue on with what you have been doing and increase your calorie intake to maintenance calories.
How was I supposed to know he had a condition? I guess I could have researched his previous posts.
Thank you for the info though. I appreciate it!0 -
Microscopes wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »@Microscopes, seriously? Midwesterner85 has diabetes, both type 1 & type 2. Do you? He has a very serious medical condition that requires monitoring. For people with no medical issues, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate carbs, nor should you. Every diet for weight loss is limiting calories, whether or not they come right out and say so. That is the only way for most people (with no medical issues) to lose weight. Eat less calories than your body burns. Long term benefit for all foods in moderation, no re-learning a new way of eating when you reach your goal weight. You just continue on with what you have been doing and increase your calorie intake to maintenance calories.
How was I supposed to know he had a condition? I guess I could have researched his previous posts.
Thank you for the info though. I appreciate it!
I put that in the first response to this thread... I'm not hiding anything or even making it hard to find.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »@Microscopes, seriously? Midwesterner85 has diabetes, both type 1 & type 2. Do you? He has a very serious medical condition that requires monitoring. For people with no medical issues, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate carbs, nor should you. Every diet for weight loss is limiting calories, whether or not they come right out and say so. That is the only way for most people (with no medical issues) to lose weight. Eat less calories than your body burns. Long term benefit for all foods in moderation, no re-learning a new way of eating when you reach your goal weight. You just continue on with what you have been doing and increase your calorie intake to maintenance calories.
How was I supposed to know he had a condition? I guess I could have researched his previous posts.
Thank you for the info though. I appreciate it!
I put that in the first response to this thread... I'm not hiding anything or even making it hard to find.
You're right.
I completely missed it and that's my fault.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions