Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is not the whole equation
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »NatureOfMan wrote: »For the most part CICO works. Using CICO can transform someone from being overweight to someone being healthy, however anyone who believe CICO is the be all and end all needs to up their knowledge on how hormones in the body operate.
If you believe that, then you dont know actually understand CICO is. Its an energy balance equation. Hormones effect metabolism and other factors which fall into CICO.
I think this is the main thing people who complain about CICO don't understand. Things like health issues, TEF, etc. are still part of the CICO equation. The number MFP spits out for you might not work for you, but that doesn't mean CICO doesn't work for you. It just means you don't know all of the variables in the equation.
I agree. CICO cannot be wrong. However in no way does it explain Why we tend to overeat.
Nor is it designed to do so.
This observation is like saying that understanding how a car works doesn't explain why someone would want to drive to a Nickleback concert.
To pick up chicks. That's the only acceptable reason to drive to a Nickelback concert.
But they would be chicks that like Nickelback. Why would you do that to yourself?
14 -
The Facts:
1. Losing weight is easy - Heck, I've probably lost a thousand pounds in my lifetime
2. It ultimately does come down to calories consumed vs calories burned
3. Maintaining weight loss is extremely difficult
4. There is MUCH more to this than simply CICO
CICO is the black and white answer. It's just the equation. It's kind of like this, the formula for the atomic bomb is E=MC2 and now go and make one.
I'm on my 13th year of over 100 lbs lost and to be honest, it's been rather easy.
What you want to do is look at your calories not so much day to day but as a weekly balance sheet. Vary your days based on how you need/want them.
For long-term success;
*Be in control of your hunger and cravings
You do this by not depriving yourself and building a positive relationship with food. Don't call foods you enjoy "bad" or "junk". This will lead to an "abusive relationship" (love and hate & shame and guilt)
*Make having a strong metabolism a priority
5 -
wow, still going..
CICO is MATH ..it is not hormones, it is not a way of eating, it is not eating oreos all day, it is not negated by a medical condition, etc, etc,etc..
it is a math formula that says calories consumed - calories burned = calorie deficit/maintenance/surplus
wow
We agree in this subject...not sure why people try to turn it in to any more than what it is.
One thing I have learned as an adult is how many people cannot follow a simple logical thread.3 -
wow, still going..
CICO is MATH ..it is not hormones, it is not a way of eating, it is not eating oreos all day, it is not negated by a medical condition, etc, etc,etc..
it is a math formula that says calories consumed - calories burned = calorie deficit/maintenance/surplus
wow
We agree in this subject...not sure why people try to turn it in to any more than what it is.
They are desperately seeking anything...anything that points away from personal responsibility and accountability.
sad, but true...2 -
Russellb97 wrote: »The Facts:
1. Losing weight is easy - Heck, I've probably lost a thousand pounds in my lifetime
2. It ultimately does come down to calories consumed vs calories burned
3. Maintaining weight loss is extremely difficult
4. There is MUCH more to this than simply CICO
CICO is the black and white answer. It's just the equation. It's kind of like this, the formula for the atomic bomb is E=MC2 and now go and make one.
I'm on my 13th year of over 100 lbs lost and to be honest, it's been rather easy.
What you want to do is look at your calories not so much day to day but as a weekly balance sheet. Vary your days based on how you need/want them.
For long-term success;
*Be in control of your hunger and cravings
You do this by not depriving yourself and building a positive relationship with food. Don't call foods you enjoy "bad" or "junk". This will lead to an "abusive relationship" (love and hate & shame and guilt)
*Make having a strong metabolism a priority
Great points.
Until I got in charge of my hunger and Cravings by cutting out all processed foods and keepiing total carbs under 50 grams a day losing weight and keeping it off was impossible0 -
Except you do eat processed food under any reasonable definition.4
-
Russellb97 wrote: »CICO is the black and white answer. It's just the equation. It's kind of like this, the formula for the atomic bomb is E=MC2 and now go and make one.
My understanding from many of these conversations on MFP is that when people say "it's just CICO," they mean just that. Everything else is important to, but that will be individual. To figure out how to keep my calories under my output (or at my output, for maintenance), I need to figure out a strategy that will work FOR ME. There is no diet that everyone needs to follow or foods that we need to avoid (except if we personally do for some reason) or meal timing that I need to learn. Instead, I know what is mathematically required, and now I need to figure out, for myself, what strategies work for me.
I think that's what you are saying, and also what people here are (mostly) saying.
The argument is with those insisting that to lose weight people must "eat low carb" or "eat low fat" (not common anymore) or "avoid white foods" or "avoid processed foods" or "eat clean" or "eat only low GI foods" or "eat good foods, not bad foods" or "never eat after 7 pm" or "always eat breakfast" or "eat 6 mini meals" or on and on and on.
Nope, what I need to do is eat CI=CO (to maintain). How I do that is something I should figure out, based on me.4 -
wow, still going..
CICO is MATH ..it is not hormones, it is not a way of eating, it is not eating oreos all day, it is not negated by a medical condition, etc, etc,etc..
it is a math formula that says calories consumed - calories burned = calorie deficit/maintenance/surplus
wow
We agree in this subject...not sure why people try to turn it in to any more than what it is.
They are desperately seeking anything...anything that points away from personal responsibility and accountability.
sad, but true...
Maybe true for some but I think the majority are doing the best they can and with good intentions.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »CICO is the black and white answer. It's just the equation. It's kind of like this, the formula for the atomic bomb is E=MC2 and now go and make one.
My understanding from many of these conversations on MFP is that when people say "it's just CICO," they mean just that. Everything else is important to, but that will be individual. To figure out how to keep my calories under my output (or at my output, for maintenance), I need to figure out a strategy that will work FOR ME. There is no diet that everyone needs to follow or foods that we need to avoid (except if we personally do for some reason) or meal timing that I need to learn. Instead, I know what is mathematically required, and now I need to figure out, for myself, what strategies work for me.
I think that's what you are saying, and also what people here are (mostly) saying.
The argument is with those insisting that to lose weight people must "eat low carb" or "eat low fat" (not common anymore) or "avoid white foods" or "avoid processed foods" or "eat clean" or "eat only low GI foods" or "eat good foods, not bad foods" or "never eat after 7 pm" or "always eat breakfast" or "eat 6 mini meals" or on and on and on.
Nope, what I need to do is eat CI=CO (to maintain). How I do that is something I should figure out, based on me.
That is exactly right. I've lost weight doing the low-fat diets the early 90's, low carb, no carb and what I do now which is basically a 33-33-33 split with 1% leftover for some vodka
5 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »I don't like big macs
Me either.
I've never had one. I remember someone telling me that the special sauce is Thousand Island dressing, and I'm not a fan, so I've never ordered one.
Pretty sure it's 1000 Island. I had my first one last year and I think the meat to bread ratio is wildly out of whack. Quarter pounders for life.
Double QP or gtfo.
Better yet, Jimmy John's Gargantuan.
0 -
I will backtrack a bit by saying that not every calorie is equal.
There's the thermic effect of food (250 grams of protein burns about 250 more calories than 250 grams of sugar)
They also vary in nutrition, fullness, and effect on hormones.
But weight-loss can be had with any type of food/calorie0 -
3 years ago, I wrote on this forum an article that sparked a healthy yet rigorous debate about CICO, and why (for most) 1200 calories is not the answer to long term sustained fitness and weight loss. It was titled "1200 calories and why it won't work". I wrote the article as a one-off, as I hardly ever participate in online forums, but the response to the tune of 2000+ replies within the first week, got me thinking. I tried to help as many as I could.
The fitness and health industry has evolved over the last 3 years, and for the most part people have come to terms with the inevitability of energy balance in their attempts to lose weight, gain strength, maintain health. Contemplating the market research, this reckoning has come simultaneously with the awakening of a monstrous millennial fitness industry, the proliferation of knowledge through social media (Youtube trainers...etc) and a keen awareness that for a "healthy" individual, CICO is the 800 pound gorilla of weight management (though not a marker of overall health, per se -mental? emotional? spiritual?). It would surprise me if we could have such a heated debate about energy balance 10 years in the future, but I've been surprised before.
The main reason many have not adhered to CICO as a viable approach to dieting is because it carries with it so much technical baggage - in the form of counting and weighing and approximating. The main reason so many have adhered to it is the fact that it offers a structured absolute - one that reigns over every eating decision in our lives and yet does so ever so un-invasively.
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health, and CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters. The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different. Calories in vs calories out is only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies. As with all things, a better understanding of the concepts will yield better results from their application. A half-assed acknowledgement of the principles will only yield confusion. CICO is "simple" but only if you understand the factors that influence its variables on a personal level.
5 -
3 years ago, I wrote on this forum an article that sparked a healthy yet rigorous debate about CICO, and why (for most) 1200 calories is not the answer to long term sustained fitness and weight loss. It was titled "1200 calories and why it won't work". I wrote the article as a one-off, as I hardly ever participate in online forums, but the response to the tune of 2000+ replies within the first week, got me thinking. I tried to help as many as I could.
The fitness and health industry has evolved over the last 3 years, and for the most part people have come to terms with the inevitability of energy balance in their attempts to lose weight, gain strength, maintain health. Contemplating the market research, this reckoning has come simultaneously with the awakening of a monstrous millennial fitness industry, the proliferation of knowledge through social media (Youtube trainers...etc) and a keen awareness that for a "healthy" individual, CICO is the 800 pound gorilla of weight management (though not a marker of overall health, per se -mental? emotional? spiritual?). It would surprise me if we could have such a heated debate about energy balance 10 years in the future, but I've been surprised before.
The main reason many have not adhered to CICO as a viable approach to dieting is because it carries with it so much technical baggage - in the form of counting and weighing and approximating. The main reason so many have adhered to it is the fact that it offers a structured absolute - one that reigns over every eating decision in our lives and yet does so ever so un-invasively.
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health, and CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters. The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different. Calories in vs calories out is only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies. As with all things, a better understanding of the concepts will yield better results from their application. A half-assed acknowledgement of the principles will only yield confusion. CICO is "simple" but only if you understand the factors that influence its variables on a personal level.
I hear you but my experience...I only "half-*kitten*" understand the stuff behind CICO (you know the sciencey thermo stuff). But I understand the very simple math of CI vs CO. That little piece of missing information I didn't have in the past is all I needed to put me on the right path.
When I didn't have the basic understanding of CICO/TDEE, I just knew to eat less move more but combined with the other issues (below) I couldn't isolate what was preventing me from maintaining my loss from fad/crash diets.
Emotional/boredom/guilt eating was so much easier for me to figure out once I had the basic math of CICO.
I can now isolate what prevented me from maintaining my weight loss, it was ME. This very small simple basic math equation has empowered me to have control of what goes into my mouth because I now know I have a fixed amount of calories I can eat before I begin to gain weight. Regardless of how I FEEL I can lose/maintain weight IF I make sure as accurately as I can to have less CI than CO.
All the other stuff emotional/boredom/stress eating was now a separate issue, so to speak for me. That was something I needed to address and was much easier to address once I understood the basics of CICO.
Hopefully this makes sense. I'm not as eloquent as some:(4 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »3 years ago, I wrote on this forum an article that sparked a healthy yet rigorous debate about CICO, and why (for most) 1200 calories is not the answer to long term sustained fitness and weight loss. It was titled "1200 calories and why it won't work". I wrote the article as a one-off, as I hardly ever participate in online forums, but the response to the tune of 2000+ replies within the first week, got me thinking. I tried to help as many as I could.
The fitness and health industry has evolved over the last 3 years, and for the most part people have come to terms with the inevitability of energy balance in their attempts to lose weight, gain strength, maintain health. Contemplating the market research, this reckoning has come simultaneously with the awakening of a monstrous millennial fitness industry, the proliferation of knowledge through social media (Youtube trainers...etc) and a keen awareness that for a "healthy" individual, CICO is the 800 pound gorilla of weight management (though not a marker of overall health, per se -mental? emotional? spiritual?). It would surprise me if we could have such a heated debate about energy balance 10 years in the future, but I've been surprised before.
The main reason many have not adhered to CICO as a viable approach to dieting is because it carries with it so much technical baggage - in the form of counting and weighing and approximating. The main reason so many have adhered to it is the fact that it offers a structured absolute - one that reigns over every eating decision in our lives and yet does so ever so un-invasively.
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health, and CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters. The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different. Calories in vs calories out is only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies. As with all things, a better understanding of the concepts will yield better results from their application. A half-assed acknowledgement of the principles will only yield confusion. CICO is "simple" but only if you understand the factors that influence its variables on a personal level.
I hear you but my experience...I only "half-*kitten*" understand the stuff behind CICO (you know the sciencey thermo stuff). But I understand the very simple math of CI vs CO. That little piece of missing information I didn't have in the past is all I needed to put me on the right path.
When I didn't have the basic understanding of CICO/TDEE, I just knew to eat less move more but combined with the other issues (below) I couldn't isolate what was preventing me from maintaining my loss from fad/crash diets.
Emotional/boredom/guilt eating was so much easier for me to figure out once I had the basic math of CICO.
I can now isolate what prevented me from maintaining my weight loss, it was ME. This very small simple basic math equation has empowered me to have control of what goes into my mouth because I now know I have a fixed amount of calories I can eat before I begin to gain weight. Regardless of how I FEEL I can lose/maintain weight IF I make sure as accurately as I can to have less CI than CO.
All the other stuff emotional/boredom/stress eating was now a separate issue, so to speak for me. That was something I needed to address and was much easier to address once I understood the basics of CICO.
Hopefully this makes sense. I'm not as eloquent as some are:(
Haha, I don't think anyone knows the sciency-thermo stuff, no matter how much they claim to. You give me too much credit in that aspect. Many people on these forums think they know a thing or two about a thing or two, but in fact they lack the ability to apply them with any meaningful effect. I hope I'm not one of those people and I hope you don't think my response in any way discredits your own personal journey.
But you're completely right in one regard: YOU are and have always been the barrier and or the motivator of your destiny. If more come to that realization, I believe we'll be headed to a healthier community and country.2 -
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health
If you had read the responses (even the very first page or two), you'd see that the main objection was to OP's assumption that anyone at all was claiming that CICO defined health or nutrition. CICO is what controls weight loss. Obviously one should also eat a nutritious diet.CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters.
This, I disagree with. If you respond to results it is, whether we count accurately or not. If I think I burn 1500 being sedentary, burn on average 500 a day through activity, and eat 1500, I should lose a lb a week. If something is off (my BMR is lower than I think, my exercise is overestimated, my calories are badly counted) and I maintain over time, I can tighten up my logging, etc. OR I can just exercise a bit more (if possible) and eat a bit less until I am getting the results I want.The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different.
Actually, the main difference is weight. Running calories are easy to figure with weight and distance and time (to back out what you would have burned anyway, not important for just a mile, of course).
But again exact numbers aren't necessary. If you are running 40 miles per week and assume it's about 4000 calories and are losing less than expected, it might be less (it would be for a lot of people).5 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »3 years ago, I wrote on this forum an article that sparked a healthy yet rigorous debate about CICO, and why (for most) 1200 calories is not the answer to long term sustained fitness and weight loss. It was titled "1200 calories and why it won't work". I wrote the article as a one-off, as I hardly ever participate in online forums, but the response to the tune of 2000+ replies within the first week, got me thinking. I tried to help as many as I could.
The fitness and health industry has evolved over the last 3 years, and for the most part people have come to terms with the inevitability of energy balance in their attempts to lose weight, gain strength, maintain health. Contemplating the market research, this reckoning has come simultaneously with the awakening of a monstrous millennial fitness industry, the proliferation of knowledge through social media (Youtube trainers...etc) and a keen awareness that for a "healthy" individual, CICO is the 800 pound gorilla of weight management (though not a marker of overall health, per se -mental? emotional? spiritual?). It would surprise me if we could have such a heated debate about energy balance 10 years in the future, but I've been surprised before.
The main reason many have not adhered to CICO as a viable approach to dieting is because it carries with it so much technical baggage - in the form of counting and weighing and approximating. The main reason so many have adhered to it is the fact that it offers a structured absolute - one that reigns over every eating decision in our lives and yet does so ever so un-invasively.
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health, and CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters. The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different. Calories in vs calories out is only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies. As with all things, a better understanding of the concepts will yield better results from their application. A half-assed acknowledgement of the principles will only yield confusion. CICO is "simple" but only if you understand the factors that influence its variables on a personal level.
I hear you but my experience...I only "half-*kitten*" understand the stuff behind CICO (you know the sciencey thermo stuff). But I understand the very simple math of CI vs CO. That little piece of missing information I didn't have in the past is all I needed to put me on the right path.
When I didn't have the basic understanding of CICO/TDEE, I just knew to eat less move more but combined with the other issues (below) I couldn't isolate what was preventing me from maintaining my loss from fad/crash diets.
Emotional/boredom/guilt eating was so much easier for me to figure out once I had the basic math of CICO.
I can now isolate what prevented me from maintaining my weight loss, it was ME. This very small simple basic math equation has empowered me to have control of what goes into my mouth because I now know I have a fixed amount of calories I can eat before I begin to gain weight. Regardless of how I FEEL I can lose/maintain weight IF I make sure as accurately as I can to have less CI than CO.
All the other stuff emotional/boredom/stress eating was now a separate issue, so to speak for me. That was something I needed to address and was much easier to address once I understood the basics of CICO.
Hopefully this makes sense. I'm not as eloquent as some are:(
Haha, I don't think anyone knows the sciency-thermo stuff, no matter how much they claim to. You give me too much credit in that aspect. Many people on these forums think they know a thing or two about a thing or two, but in fact they lack the ability to apply them with any meaningful effect. I hope I'm not one of those people and I hope you don't think my response in any way discredits your own personal journey.
But you're completely right in one regard: YOU are and have always been the barrier and or the motivator of your destiny. If more come to that realization, I believe we'll be headed to a healthier community and country.
I think quite a few on these boards know a lot about the science-thermo stuff and have patiently explained it to me and others several times:)2 -
Russellb97 wrote: »I will backtrack a bit by saying that not every calorie is equal.
There's the thermic effect of food (250 grams of protein burns about 250 more calories than 250 grams of sugar)
They also vary in nutrition, fullness, and effect on hormones.
But weight-loss can be had with any type of food/calorie
A calorie is a unit of measurement - the "amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere". You're mixing up a unit of measurement with food.5 -
3 years ago, I wrote on this forum an article that sparked a healthy yet rigorous debate about CICO, and why (for most) 1200 calories is not the answer to long term sustained fitness and weight loss. It was titled "1200 calories and why it won't work". I wrote the article as a one-off, as I hardly ever participate in online forums, but the response to the tune of 2000+ replies within the first week, got me thinking. I tried to help as many as I could.
The fitness and health industry has evolved over the last 3 years, and for the most part people have come to terms with the inevitability of energy balance in their attempts to lose weight, gain strength, maintain health. Contemplating the market research, this reckoning has come simultaneously with the awakening of a monstrous millennial fitness industry, the proliferation of knowledge through social media (Youtube trainers...etc) and a keen awareness that for a "healthy" individual, CICO is the 800 pound gorilla of weight management (though not a marker of overall health, per se -mental? emotional? spiritual?). It would surprise me if we could have such a heated debate about energy balance 10 years in the future, but I've been surprised before.
The main reason many have not adhered to CICO as a viable approach to dieting is because it carries with it so much technical baggage - in the form of counting and weighing and approximating. The main reason so many have adhered to it is the fact that it offers a structured absolute - one that reigns over every eating decision in our lives and yet does so ever so un-invasively.
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health, and CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters. The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different. Calories in vs calories out is only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies. As with all things, a better understanding of the concepts will yield better results from their application. A half-assed acknowledgement of the principles will only yield confusion. CICO is "simple" but only if you understand the factors that influence its variables on a personal level.
I don't know a damn thing about the science behind any of this. I didn't even take biology in high school so hormones what? Physiology what? I don't have a clue yet all I needed to lose weight after 20 years of trying was to learn how much I should eat then not eat more than that. I am literally slimmer now than I have been my entire adult life because I now know how much to eat.
Health, nutrition and strength are completely separate from weight loss. It's true that my nutrition has improved as a result of adopting CICO but that came long after I started weighing, measuring and tracking. I found over time that I could not satisfy my appetite within my calorie allowance without changing what foods I use for that allowance. What didn't happen over time was me learning anything about the science involved, I just changed what I eat to satisfy my macros and micros without feeling hungry all the time.
I am baffled how you can declare that knowing nothing more than your TDEE and observing CICO leads to confusion. It is so very simple. Why must people complicate it?
9 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »3 years ago, I wrote on this forum an article that sparked a healthy yet rigorous debate about CICO, and why (for most) 1200 calories is not the answer to long term sustained fitness and weight loss. It was titled "1200 calories and why it won't work". I wrote the article as a one-off, as I hardly ever participate in online forums, but the response to the tune of 2000+ replies within the first week, got me thinking. I tried to help as many as I could.
The fitness and health industry has evolved over the last 3 years, and for the most part people have come to terms with the inevitability of energy balance in their attempts to lose weight, gain strength, maintain health. Contemplating the market research, this reckoning has come simultaneously with the awakening of a monstrous millennial fitness industry, the proliferation of knowledge through social media (Youtube trainers...etc) and a keen awareness that for a "healthy" individual, CICO is the 800 pound gorilla of weight management (though not a marker of overall health, per se -mental? emotional? spiritual?). It would surprise me if we could have such a heated debate about energy balance 10 years in the future, but I've been surprised before.
The main reason many have not adhered to CICO as a viable approach to dieting is because it carries with it so much technical baggage - in the form of counting and weighing and approximating. The main reason so many have adhered to it is the fact that it offers a structured absolute - one that reigns over every eating decision in our lives and yet does so ever so un-invasively.
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health, and CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters. The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different. Calories in vs calories out is only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies. As with all things, a better understanding of the concepts will yield better results from their application. A half-assed acknowledgement of the principles will only yield confusion. CICO is "simple" but only if you understand the factors that influence its variables on a personal level.
I hear you but my experience...I only "half-*kitten*" understand the stuff behind CICO (you know the sciencey thermo stuff). But I understand the very simple math of CI vs CO. That little piece of missing information I didn't have in the past is all I needed to put me on the right path.
When I didn't have the basic understanding of CICO/TDEE, I just knew to eat less move more but combined with the other issues (below) I couldn't isolate what was preventing me from maintaining my loss from fad/crash diets.
Emotional/boredom/guilt eating was so much easier for me to figure out once I had the basic math of CICO.
I can now isolate what prevented me from maintaining my weight loss, it was ME. This very small simple basic math equation has empowered me to have control of what goes into my mouth because I now know I have a fixed amount of calories I can eat before I begin to gain weight. Regardless of how I FEEL I can lose/maintain weight IF I make sure as accurately as I can to have less CI than CO.
All the other stuff emotional/boredom/stress eating was now a separate issue, so to speak for me. That was something I needed to address and was much easier to address once I understood the basics of CICO.
Hopefully this makes sense. I'm not as eloquent as some are:(
Haha, I don't think anyone knows the sciency-thermo stuff, no matter how much they claim to. You give me too much credit in that aspect. Many people on these forums think they know a thing or two about a thing or two, but in fact they lack the ability to apply them with any meaningful effect. I hope I'm not one of those people and I hope you don't think my response in any way discredits your own personal journey.
But you're completely right in one regard: YOU are and have always been the barrier and or the motivator of your destiny. If more come to that realization, I believe we'll be headed to a healthier community and country.
I think quite a few on these boards know a lot about the science-thermo stuff and have patiently explained it to me and others several times:)
I see...that's valuable advice, if taken correctly and with a heavy grain of salt. But aren't we trying to help a community of people prosper and simplify (not mystify) their weight loss and health goals? I've been active in the field of performance and nutrition for 13 years, and I've realized that in those instances where we cram science down the throats of someone looking for practical solutions, it never leads to any appreciable result. Yes, we can talk about the thermo-mechanics of substrate metabolism, but why? How will that help? Does ketosis or gluceogenesis or oxidative phosphorylation mean anything to you? I'm happy to talk to you about sciencey things if you'd like, but I'd rather not, unless it'll get you closer to your goals.0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »3 years ago, I wrote on this forum an article that sparked a healthy yet rigorous debate about CICO, and why (for most) 1200 calories is not the answer to long term sustained fitness and weight loss. It was titled "1200 calories and why it won't work". I wrote the article as a one-off, as I hardly ever participate in online forums, but the response to the tune of 2000+ replies within the first week, got me thinking. I tried to help as many as I could.
The fitness and health industry has evolved over the last 3 years, and for the most part people have come to terms with the inevitability of energy balance in their attempts to lose weight, gain strength, maintain health. Contemplating the market research, this reckoning has come simultaneously with the awakening of a monstrous millennial fitness industry, the proliferation of knowledge through social media (Youtube trainers...etc) and a keen awareness that for a "healthy" individual, CICO is the 800 pound gorilla of weight management (though not a marker of overall health, per se -mental? emotional? spiritual?). It would surprise me if we could have such a heated debate about energy balance 10 years in the future, but I've been surprised before.
The main reason many have not adhered to CICO as a viable approach to dieting is because it carries with it so much technical baggage - in the form of counting and weighing and approximating. The main reason so many have adhered to it is the fact that it offers a structured absolute - one that reigns over every eating decision in our lives and yet does so ever so un-invasively.
The OP is not wrong in her critique of CICO.. It does not offer an all encompassing solution to our individual definitions of health, and CICO is not always within our individual control if we are not given the right parameters. The marathon runner that runs 1 mile barely expends any calories. The same distance for an overweight office worker might be something completely different. Calories in vs calories out is only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies. As with all things, a better understanding of the concepts will yield better results from their application. A half-assed acknowledgement of the principles will only yield confusion. CICO is "simple" but only if you understand the factors that influence its variables on a personal level.
I don't know a damn thing about the science behind any of this. I didn't even take biology in high school so hormones what? Physiology what? I don't have a clue yet all I needed to lose weight after 20 years of trying was to learn how much I should eat then not eat more than that. I am literally slimmer now than I have been my entire adult life because I now know how much to eat.
Health, nutrition and strength are completely separate from weight loss. It's true that my nutrition has improved as a result of adopting CICO but that came long after I started weighing, measuring and tracking. I found over time that I could not satisfy my appetite within my calorie allowance without changing what foods I use for that allowance. What didn't happen over time was me learning anything about the science involved, I just changed what I eat to satisfy my macros and micros without feeling hungry all the time.
I am baffled how you can declare that knowing nothing more than your TDEE and observing CICO leads to confusion. It is so very simple. Why must people complicate it?
Because there are people who can't believe it's that simple (mostly people who have failed at it), and there are people who don't want you to believe it's that simple (mostly people with something to sell you).5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions