Good vs bad CICO
Options
Replies
-
queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.
CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.
That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.
None of do, so there!
You've made up your mind. You have your paradigm. It's overly simplistic and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you constantly knock down people who say anything else. Share your simplistic advice and move on. It's same advice people hear everywhere, even from Coca Cola advertisements, no less. There's no depth to it. Why hate on people who share anything more detailed about nutrition?
What are you talking about? Your posts are like a drumbeat, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again but it is still wrong. The only diet one needs to follow is the one that can adhere to for the rest of one's life. Macros are personal.
Macros are personal. Interesting... you completely ignored what I actually said.0 -
@Crisseyda
It's like this: CICO is like saying a car needs fuel to run. It's a basic fact. But, if a car owner wants to get the most out of his vehicle, he will be sure to put in high quality fuel and perform regular maintenance. It would be stupid of him to put in too much fuel (so the tank overflows) or too little fuel (and risk getting stranded), or to skimp on maintenance. Both maintenance and the right amount edit: and right KIND of fuel are needed to keep things running at optimum levels--even in the human body. You can't ignore one or the other without eventual problems.
ETA: I'm curious about what you will come up with to tell me this is wrong.7 -
queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.
CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.
That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.
None of do, so there!
You've made up your mind. You have your paradigm. It's overly simplistic and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you constantly knock down people who say anything else. Share your simplistic advice and move on. It's same advice people hear everywhere, even from Coca Cola advertisements, no less. There's no depth to it. Why hate on people who share anything more detailed about nutrition?
What are you talking about? Your posts are like a drumbeat, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again but it is still wrong. The only diet one needs to follow is the one that can adhere to for the rest of one's life. Macros are personal.
Macros are personal. Interesting... you completely ignored what I actually said.
Dumb it down for me then0 -
Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality.
It's also a reality that the Great Pyramid weighs more than my car. Sapphire is harder than steel. We can spend the whole day listing things that are true, and be just as confused about weight loss.Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do.
Are you telling us there are people who are losing weight while eating a calorie surplus???7 -
queenliz99 wrote: »I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.
CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.
That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.
None of do, so there!
You've made up your mind. You have your paradigm. It's overly simplistic and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you constantly knock down people who say anything else. Share your simplistic advice and move on. It's same advice people hear everywhere, even from Coca Cola advertisements, no less. There's no depth to it. Why hate on people who share anything more detailed about nutrition?
Almost everyone here says - CICO for weight loss, but of course nutrition is important. Nobody says it doesn't matter what you eat for health or body comp.
Regardless, I've read all the links and videos etc you've posted, and none of them convinced me I need to switch to LCHF in order to be healthy or "effortlessly" thin. In fact, I struggled on and off for 5 years trying to lose 20 lbs, until I came here and read all the posts about CICO. I pretty easily then lost the weight, and I was not hungry all the time. And I eat more whole food since I've been reading the posts by all the veteran posters you keep saying are overly simplistic and unhelpful.3 -
I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.
CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.
That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about, there it is.
As if it wasn't glaringly obvious that you have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, so there it is.
I don't understand you either. You assign strange and judgemental meanings to commonly understood concepts such as energy balance.
If someone is aware of their calorie balance (whether calorie counting or not) it doesn't say anything about the quality or makeup of their diet.
5 -
@JaneSnowe
I never said it was wrong, just incomplete and unhelpful.
@NorthCascades
Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.
@queenliz99
The hormonal effects of food matter more than their calorie count. The human body is not going to process 100 calories of donuts in the same way as 100 calories of sardines. I'm not sure why this is a confusing concept.0 -
@JaneSnowe
I never said it was wrong, just incomplete and unhelpful.
@NorthCascades
Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.
@queenliz99
The hormonal effects of food matter more than their calorie count. The human body is not going to process 100 calories of donuts in the same way as 100 calories of sardines. I'm not sure why this is a confusing concept.
CICO doesn't necessarily mean you have to count calories. No one says you have to count calories to lose weight. What they are saying is that you have to eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight. There are different ways to get that deficit. But you have to have CI<CO. If you can do that without counting then awesome you can lose weight. For most people the easiest way is to count calories. That way you know that your CI is less than your CO.9 -
@JaneSnowe
I never said it was wrong, just incomplete and unhelpful.
@NorthCascades
Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.
@queenliz99
The hormonal effects of food matter more than their calorie count. The human body is not going to process 100 calories of donuts in the same way as 100 calories of sardines. I'm not sure why this is a confusing concept.
Donuts = happiness = serotonin5 -
@JaneSnowe
I never said it was wrong, just incomplete and unhelpful.
@NorthCascades
Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.
@queenliz99
The hormonal effects of food matter more than their calorie count. The human body is not going to process 100 calories of donuts in the same way as 100 calories of sardines. I'm not sure why this is a confusing concept.
CICO doesn't mean you have to count calories. It means the only why to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn and the only way to gain weight is to eat more calories than you burn. The method used to get there doesn't change that.
Of course macros and micros matter for health. CICO doesn't doesn't get in the way of that.2 -
@NorthCascades
Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.
Ok, I'm one of those people then. I haven't bothered to input anything I eat for months and I've continued to lose weight until recently. (I deliberately started eating more when I began lifting weights.)
I'll let you in on a secret. I continued to lose weight because I ate fewer calories than I burned.
Let's try another analogy. We know that nothing in the universe can move faster than the speed of light. Maybe some people drive around in their cars, watching the speedometer, trying not to offend poor Einstein. Other people don't pay any attention at all, but they're still not going faster than light. Those people who are going slower, naturally, without measuring, are still obeying the law. The fact that it doesn't take them more effort to obey the law doesn't mean the law is wrong.6 -
I disagree that it's unhelpful.
As for being incomplete, I agree that there is a serious lack of nutrition education in many countries, but CICO can be a good--not necessarily the only--starting point for people who want to learn. But yes, it shouldn't be the only component of said education. Many people here take pains to give a rounded yet easy to understand explanation of weight loss and nutrition.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »@JaneSnowe
I never said it was wrong, just incomplete and unhelpful.
@NorthCascades
Nope, I'm saying there are people who are able to lose weight without counting their calories, but instead choosing satisfying foods that don't promote overconsumption. A combination of both is still fine, but type of food matters more than calorie count.
@queenliz99
The hormonal effects of food matter more than their calorie count. The human body is not going to process 100 calories of donuts in the same way as 100 calories of sardines. I'm not sure why this is a confusing concept.
Donuts = happiness = serotonin
Sardines = ick = sadness --> donuts = happiness etc.
QED2 -
Not all calories are created equal. Sorry. Your body uses chemistry to break down foods and it treats different nutrients differently. CICO is a great way to start losing weight. But listen to your body. When you eat junk calories then you feel like crap because your body is being deprived of nutrients. Will you lose some weight? If you keep with the CICO equation, sure thing. However, good luck maintaining that in the long run. Learning to eat good whole foods and nourish your body properly will give you the best results in the long run. You still need to pay attention to portion control, but it is much easier because eating nutrient dense foods fills you up much easier and doesn't leave you craving more. Listen to your body and enjoy the journey. Educate yourself and you will have success for years to come.
I never understand how some associate CICO with lack of nutrition...
Because CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count. A lot of people have simply ditched CICO, instead eating nutrient dense, whole foods (especially with low carbohydrate content) and have lost weight effortlessly without all the math and starvation involved.
@jenniswylie If you're interested in learning more, check out www.dietdoctor.com They are ad free with no industry sponsors, superb evidence-based nutrition from a collaboration of many different doctors and clinicians who know what works based on both theory and personal practice.
so according to your position, I can eat less calories than I burn and because of hormones, I will gain weight? I did not know that hormones trumped physics and math ...
I use CICO and I don't suffer from starving, and the math part of it is pretty basic...7 -
I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.
CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.
That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.
thank you for clarifying that you are clueless about CICO and basic nutritional science.7 -
I'll just point back to my first statement: CICO ignores the hormonal effects of foods, which actually matters way more than their calorie count.
CICO puts the focus on calories. Not all calories are created equal. Not all fats are created equal. Not all carbs are created equal. Not all proteins are created equal. That's just a reality. Also, if CICO was 100% necessary, then people couldn't lose weight without it. And yet, many people do. They simply eat in a way that promotes being satisfied and losing weight.
That being said, counting calories can be a good tool for understanding your macro breakdown, but it is definitely not going to work if your focus in on calories and not quality of food.
My 125 lb weight loss by counting calories proves you wrong.
Oh, and while people say CICO doesn't mean a lack of nutrition, I also lost that 125 lbs by eating a lot of "crap" foods.
Also, all fats/carbs/protein *are* created equal when it comes to calories. 9 calories/gm for fats, and 4 calories/gm for carbs and protein.1 -
For weight loss or gain CICO matters but personally I don't want to look skinny Fat so I pay close attention to my Macros, know what it takes to maintain muscle calorie wise and lift like a beast..3
-
so according to your position, I can eat less calories than I burn and because of hormones, I will gain weight? I did not know that hormones trumped physics and math ...
I use CICO and I don't suffer from starving, and the math part of it is pretty basic...
I don't think that's what the poster meant.
I think what people mean by saying hormones matter is that hormones are technically capable of grinding your metabolism to that much of a halt that it would be next to impossible for a person to create a deficit under these conditions.
I posted about this on the debate board but no one responded, but I've always been curious about that. If you look at diseases like Cushing's, or pitutiary tumors, or people who take steroids, you'll see a massive, drastic, very rapid weight gain, with fat deposits in specific places, that seems to defy thermodynamics because the person will not be eating anywhere near that many excess calories. Often people will starve themselves to try and not gain but they still do. It's mystifying as to how it happens, but the only answer is hormones. Or in a less drastic scenario, in pregnancy a woman will begin gaining weight and fat even if her diet stays exactly the same as before baby, in spite of higher caloric needs. If you look at literature, they document that the metabolism slows way down and packs away fat in certain places to ensure nutrition for the fetus.
yes, it's still CICO in a way, and if you literally starve yourself you won't gain under either of these conditions. But it's entirely possible that, say, someone on steroids will die of malnutrition before they lose the fat gained due to treatment. Hormones are powerful.0 -
nettiklive wrote: »so according to your position, I can eat less calories than I burn and because of hormones, I will gain weight? I did not know that hormones trumped physics and math ...
I use CICO and I don't suffer from starving, and the math part of it is pretty basic...
I don't think that's what the poster meant.
I think what people mean by saying hormones matter is that hormones are technically capable of grinding your metabolism to that much of a halt that it would be next to impossible for a person to create a deficit under these conditions.
I posted about this on the debate board but no one responded, but I've always been curious about that. If you look at diseases like Cushing's, or pitutiary tumors, or people who take steroids, you'll see a massive, drastic, very rapid weight gain, with fat deposits in specific places, that seems to defy thermodynamics because the person will not be eating anywhere near that many excess calories. Often people will starve themselves to try and not gain but they still do. It's mystifying as to how it happens, but the only answer is hormones. Or in a less drastic scenario, in pregnancy a woman will begin gaining weight and fat even if her diet stays exactly the same as before baby, in spite of higher caloric needs. If you look at literature, they document that the metabolism slows way down and packs away fat in certain places to ensure nutrition for the fetus.
yes, it's still CICO in a way, and if you literally starve yourself you won't gain under either of these conditions. But it's entirely possible that, say, someone on steroids will die of malnutrition before they lose the fat gained due to treatment. Hormones are powerful.
Hormones aren't able to do that though. Because physics. All work performed needs energy. That includes your brain function (that's already a good 20% of your total calories!), all other organs and then every single movement you do. If your body does work equalling X calories, it will have to use X calories, no way around that. Your body can downregulate internal functions to some extent, but it can not ever lower it so much that you can't lose weight.
If your body could burn less just like that, why doesn't it do that all the time? Why are there people starving who are just skin and bones, why aren't those people's hormones making them need next to nothing to survive the times of low food? Have you ever seen someone who starved to death who was fat?4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions