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
-
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.
I think you misunderstand or I'm not communicating properly...
All I really needed to know is the basics of CICO and TDEE. Nothing mystifying about it. In fact its super simple!
I only mentioned people on these forums know it and have patiently explained in response to you saying folks on here think they know. Some actually do understand. Many very well educated in various fields are in this forum.
My belief is the only people who complicate things are those who try to say CICO isn't simple. The basic math is simple. Figuring out your personal stuff may not be for some folks.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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).
To your first point, valid. I don't think I was arguing to the contrary of your contention. Perhaps just a slight restating of the facts that we both seem to understand. No issue there.
To your second, Again, if you care to read my post thoroughly. The "parameters" are individualized and therefore must be tweaked based on response. "Setpoint" as we call it in which the real RMR and rate of exertion are calculated takes weeks of time. A program as outlined by MFP can only give you a general starting point in which we adjusted above and below to find metabolic equilibrium. I don't understand how you disagree with my assertion that parameters dictate control, as you've stated that you can exercise more (adjusting exercise variable), or tightening up logging (presumably adjusting diet variable). Those are parameters, and those are not usually factors that the average dieter is able or willing to determine. I'm not at odds with you. I can control them and seemingly you can too. But I'm trying to speak to a general readership...maybe without the background or interest to participate in this knit-pickery.
Lastly, to my knowledge there has yet to be be any conformable measuring device to determine calories expended during prolonged exercise (endurance or resistance). The algorithms used by fit bit and MFP and other exercise institutions use data collected on healthy individuals performing endurance exercise at a moderate pace. That is, the data models used to calibrate your fitness devices are based on an "average" or "weighted average" analysis of a person on a treadmill that is of relatively good health, of relatively young or middle age, of average build. Anecdotally, and with respect to the commonly accepted definitions of cardiovascular and intensity training, a 400 pound obese male running a mile is engaging in high intensity training, and a 120 pound marathon runner running a mile is engaged in light cardiovascular work. The calorie expenditures as logic would dictate should be immensely different. Moving 400 pounds 1600 meters vs moving 120 pounds 1600 meters is truly the difference between a light jog and a full weight training session. Couple that with the recuperative calories it must require for the obese man to recover versus that of the runner for traversing the same distance?
1 -
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?
Good point. I'm actually with you, and I'm glad you have embraced the simplicity of it with such success. But many haven't, you must understand. You must be one of those people that like structure. I am, too. Just because it comes simple to you does not mean it's a simple task for others. As to the science involved, just because you did not care to learn about it, doesn't mean it's useless.
1 -
@aelunyu while i largely agree with what you say, there are definitely more than a handful that have a solid understanding of health and basic biology. But even to that end, you dont need to have a degree in the sciences to understand basic math.
If you recognize the variables in this process and have a basic understanding of performance, its very easy to get people set up on a path to success with fredback mechanism to adjust for human error and estimate EE. I openly admit that i am not formally educated in the field and have spent a significant amount of hours self educating, but even with that i have designed many programs for people to get them hit their goals and more. Several of the women have gotta down to 14 to 17% body fat. None of the people i worked with have the same plan since adherence and compliance is key. In fact, i have yet to suggest a specific diet.
I do certainly respect and bow down to those in the field and only wish i recognized my passion prior to graduating college.5 -
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?
Good point. I'm actually with you, and I'm glad you have embraced the simplicity of it with such success. But many haven't, you must understand. You must be one of those people that like structure. I am, too. Just because it comes simple to you does not mean it's a simple task for others. As to the science involved, just because you did not care to learn about it, doesn't mean it's useless.
Unnecessary is not the same as useless.
Utility was mentioned by you, not me, when you claimed CICO is "only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies." This is the very statement I took exception to and motivated me to explain how the science is unnecessary based on my personal experience. At no point did I say it was useless.
2 -
@aelunyu while i largely agree with what you say, there are definitely more than a handful that have a solid understanding of health and basic biology. But even to that end, you dont need to have a degree in the sciences to understand basic math.
If you recognize the variables in this process and have a basic understanding of performance, its very easy to get people set up on a path to success with fredback mechanism to adjust for human error and estimate EE. I openly admit that i am not formally educated in the field and have spent a significant amount of hours self educating, but even with that i have designed many programs for people to get them hit their goals and more. Several of the women have gotta down to 14 to 17% body fat. None of the people i worked with have the same plan since adherence and compliance is key. In fact, i have yet to suggest a specific diet.
I do certainly respect and bow down to those in the field and only wish i recognized my passion prior to graduating college.
Hi Psu, trust me, I barely have a degree in being coherent. In your response I sense that you and I both know that setting a client or an individual on the right path for success is more than half the battle. In the end, the road traveled is nowhere as hard as finding or building the road.
I would only hope that you might inherit the field! We were all a bunch of bodybuilders stumbling in the dark. You are the chosen ones 0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »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?
Good point. I'm actually with you, and I'm glad you have embraced the simplicity of it with such success. But many haven't, you must understand. You must be one of those people that like structure. I am, too. Just because it comes simple to you does not mean it's a simple task for others. As to the science involved, just because you did not care to learn about it, doesn't mean it's useless.
Unnecessary is not the same as useless.
Utility was mentioned by you, not me, when you claimed CICO is "only useful if you understand its application in relation to our own physiologies and biologies." This is the very statement I took exception to and motivated me to explain how the science is unnecessary based on my personal experience. At no point did I say it was useless.
Oh, I see why we're not communicating correctly! All I meant is that CICO is only useful if you know your own body, your habits, and your every day efforts. As in, you have to know yourself and how your body works to apply the concept of calories in and calories out. I categorize that as your biology...which was never meant to mean you should study human biology......1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstand or I'm not communicating properly...
All I really needed to know is the basics of CICO and TDEE. Nothing mystifying about it. In fact its super simple!
I only mentioned people on these forums know it and have patiently explained in response to you saying folks on here think they know. Some actually do understand. Many very well educated in various fields are in this forum.
My belief is the only people who complicate things are those who try to say CICO isn't simple. The basic math is simple. Figuring out your personal stuff may not be for some folks.
I agree, once again! Some people can lose weight on "eat less, run more", others need a little more explanation, and even others need the full rundown of human metabolism. My peers, I'm sure are working on this forum to benefit others as I am, so please don't discredit their attempts. My view has always been that weight loss should be as stress-free as possible.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstand or I'm not communicating properly...
All I really needed to know is the basics of CICO and TDEE. Nothing mystifying about it. In fact its super simple!
I only mentioned people on these forums know it and have patiently explained in response to you saying folks on here think they know. Some actually do understand. Many very well educated in various fields are in this forum.
My belief is the only people who complicate things are those who try to say CICO isn't simple. The basic math is simple. Figuring out your personal stuff may not be for some folks.
I agree, once again! Some people can lose weight on "eat less, run more", others need a little more explanation, and even others need the full rundown of human metabolism. My peers, I'm sure are working on this forum to benefit others as I am, so please don't discredit their attempts. My view has always been that weight loss should be as stress-free as possible.
What? I have no idea what you are referencing when you say "please don't discredit their attempts".
I absolutely credit the long time posters here and I'm even working with one trainer on these boards. Many of my posts credit these folks for helping me. It was me who pointed out that folks on these boards are very knowledgable and know their stuff.
You and I are misunderstanding each other:)1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstand or I'm not communicating properly...
All I really needed to know is the basics of CICO and TDEE. Nothing mystifying about it. In fact its super simple!
I only mentioned people on these forums know it and have patiently explained in response to you saying folks on here think they know. Some actually do understand. Many very well educated in various fields are in this forum.
My belief is the only people who complicate things are those who try to say CICO isn't simple. The basic math is simple. Figuring out your personal stuff may not be for some folks.
I agree, once again! Some people can lose weight on "eat less, run more", others need a little more explanation, and even others need the full rundown of human metabolism. My peers, I'm sure are working on this forum to benefit others as I am, so please don't discredit their attempts. My view has always been that weight loss should be as stress-free as possible.
What? I have no idea what you are referencing when you say "please don't discredit their attempts".
I absolutely credit the long time posters here and I'm even working with one trainer on these boards. Many of my posts credit these folks for helping me. It was me who pointed out that folks on these boards are very knowledgable and know their stuff.
You and I are misunderstanding each other:)
Apparently so. I meant no disrespect! But please do not pick out a line of text and make it bold faced to suggest that I am at odds with my industry...it's destructive to my original message: that I have overwhelming respect for the people working in my field, and I am a long term poster here, since 2012. But at the same time there is a lot of snake oil, you must admit. I understand you have issues with my original post...considering it's "eloquence", but I assure you that's unwarranted. I hope your coach is helping you move past those issues and more.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstand or I'm not communicating properly...
All I really needed to know is the basics of CICO and TDEE. Nothing mystifying about it. In fact its super simple!
I only mentioned people on these forums know it and have patiently explained in response to you saying folks on here think they know. Some actually do understand. Many very well educated in various fields are in this forum.
My belief is the only people who complicate things are those who try to say CICO isn't simple. The basic math is simple. Figuring out your personal stuff may not be for some folks.
I agree, once again! Some people can lose weight on "eat less, run more", others need a little more explanation, and even others need the full rundown of human metabolism. My peers, I'm sure are working on this forum to benefit others as I am, so please don't discredit their attempts. My view has always been that weight loss should be as stress-free as possible.
What? I have no idea what you are referencing when you say "please don't discredit their attempts".
I absolutely credit the long time posters here and I'm even working with one trainer on these boards. Many of my posts credit these folks for helping me. It was me who pointed out that folks on these boards are very knowledgable and know their stuff.
You and I are misunderstanding each other:)
Apparently so. I meant no disrespect! But please do not pick out a line of text and make it bold faced to suggest that I am at odds with my industry...it's destructive to my original message: that I have overwhelming respect for the people working in my field, and I am a long term poster here, since 2012. But at the same time there is a lot of snake oil, you must admit. I understand you have issues with my original post...considering it's "eloquence", but I assure you that's unwarranted. I hope your coach is helping you move past those issues and more.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about now, honestly. I think you are reading more into what I'm saying.
I do not think nor implied you were at odds with your industry. Not sure where you even got that from because I never even implied it.
I definitely give credit to the professionals and long time posters here for clarifying things for me. They know it as I've mentioned it in several of my posts.
I never implied you lack respect for anyone.
The only issue I had with your original post is that CICO was simple for me and life changing.
The lack of eloquence was about MY post and how I do not fully understand the science behind CICO and how I might possibly not be explaining my self thus I said "does this make sense". It was nothing about your post.
I bolded a part where you said "please don't discredit their attempts" which to me implied I was discrediting folks on this forum with a ton of knowledge which again for emphasis they have helped me tremendously.
My coach is helping me with strength training as I don't really have any other issues now that I've learned about CICO & TDEE.
We are friends now so in order to not hijack this thread we can continue on our newsfeed if this didn't clear up things.
Best!
jo
3 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstand or I'm not communicating properly...
All I really needed to know is the basics of CICO and TDEE. Nothing mystifying about it. In fact its super simple!
I only mentioned people on these forums know it and have patiently explained in response to you saying folks on here think they know. Some actually do understand. Many very well educated in various fields are in this forum.
My belief is the only people who complicate things are those who try to say CICO isn't simple. The basic math is simple. Figuring out your personal stuff may not be for some folks.
I agree, once again! Some people can lose weight on "eat less, run more", others need a little more explanation, and even others need the full rundown of human metabolism. My peers, I'm sure are working on this forum to benefit others as I am, so please don't discredit their attempts. My view has always been that weight loss should be as stress-free as possible.
What? I have no idea what you are referencing when you say "please don't discredit their attempts".
I absolutely credit the long time posters here and I'm even working with one trainer on these boards. Many of my posts credit these folks for helping me. It was me who pointed out that folks on these boards are very knowledgable and know their stuff.
You and I are misunderstanding each other:)
Apparently so. I meant no disrespect! But please do not pick out a line of text and make it bold faced to suggest that I am at odds with my industry...it's destructive to my original message: that I have overwhelming respect for the people working in my field, and I am a long term poster here, since 2012. But at the same time there is a lot of snake oil, you must admit. I understand you have issues with my original post...considering it's "eloquence", but I assure you that's unwarranted. I hope your coach is helping you move past those issues and more.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about now, honestly. I think you are reading more into what I'm saying.
I do not think nor implied you were at odds with your industry. Not sure where you even got that from because I never even implied it.
I definitely give credit to the professionals and long time posters here for clarifying things for me. They know it as I've mentioned it in several of my posts.
I never implied you lack respect for anyone.
The only issue I had with your original post is that CICO was simple for me and life changing.
The lack of eloquence was about MY post and how I do not fully understand the science behind CICO and how I might possibly not be explaining my self thus I said "does this make sense". It was nothing about your post.
I bolded a part where you said "please don't discredit their attempts" which to me implied I was discrediting folks on this forum with a ton of knowledge which again for emphasis they have helped me tremendously.
My coach is helping me with strength training as I don't really have any other issues now that I've learned about CICO & TDEE.
We are friends now so in order to not hijack this thread we can continue on our newsfeed if this didn't clear up things.
Best!
jo
No worries. I tend to get confrontational, so please excuse my rudeness. I knew with my post that I'd have to defend my position, and if nothing else, I am defensive. I'm really glad you've found someone to help you in the community, and wish you the best of luck...if you're ever in the need of advice however marginal, please reach out!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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).
To your first point, valid. I don't think I was arguing to the contrary of your contention. Perhaps just a slight restating of the facts that we both seem to understand. No issue there.
Fair enough. Starting with "the OP wasn't wrong" without reading through the responses which were pointing out she was arguing a straw man was the issue. I don't think many would disagree that for health and nutrition there's more to it than calories.To your second, Again, if you care to read my post thoroughly. The "parameters" are individualized and therefore must be tweaked based on response.
Where I was disagreeing was the claim that CICO is not within our individual control."Setpoint" as we call it in which the real RMR and rate of exertion are calculated takes weeks of time.
Sure, and rate of exertion can change. Point is it's not hard. You don't even need to know the term RMR. I figured out how to lose weight (pre MFP--I maintained for years and then had some stuff in my life, regained, and then discovered MFP and the calorie counting approach, which fit my personality) in the most simplistic of all possible ways. Basically I wrote down what I'd been eating, looked at it, figured out I could cut calories without noticing too much, and added in exercise which I gradually increased to a level I found appealing (I like endurance running and biking so largely based on training for those kinds of events).A program as outlined by MFP can only give you a general starting point in which we adjusted above and below to find metabolic equilibrium. I don't understand how you disagree with my assertion that parameters dictate control, as you've stated that you can exercise more (adjusting exercise variable), or tightening up logging (presumably adjusting diet variable). Those are parameters, and those are not usually factors that the average dieter is able or willing to determine.
I disagree with the idea that this is complicated, that it's a flaw with CICO as an approach, that we need to worry about specifically calculating TDEE or the like (I do that, but I think that's because it's interesting to me -- I lost as well following the same approach but without any specific numbers), and -- most of all -- that understanding the parameters (I'd simplify and call them the major variables) "are not usually factors that the average dieter is able or willing to determine."
Maybe I'm misreading but you seem to be talking down a bit to the general reader or dieter or MFP participant and I don't think that's necessary. But again, I could well be wrong about what you are intending to say and am open to listening.Lastly, to my knowledge there has yet to be be any conformable measuring device to determine calories expended during prolonged exercise (endurance or resistance).
On this, I'd say again, doesn't matter. It's close enough. I don't know exactly what I burn running in addition to what I'd burn anyway. I have an estimate, but I don't worry about it -- I focus on overall weekly exercise (and the types of exercise, as I burn more calories running in an hour than various other things I do), how I feel (avoid overtraining), and results.Anecdotally, and with respect to the commonly accepted definitions of cardiovascular and intensity training, a 400 pound obese male running a mile is engaging in high intensity training, and a 120 pound marathon runner running a mile is engaged in light cardiovascular work.
Unless the marathon runner is doing speed training, sure, I agree.The calorie expenditures as logic would dictate should be immensely different. Moving 400 pounds 1600 meters vs moving 120 pounds 1600 meters is truly the difference between a light jog and a full weight training session.
Yes--this is what I said above, the difference is the weight. What I think it generally wrong is the idea that all else equal you burn way more doing the same activity when unfit than you would as a fit person (same size and weight). With something like running, at least, I don't believe that is true or at least not significantly so -- the HRM tends to overstate calories for a very unfit person, in other words. But yeah, maybe recouperation counters that some (although greater decrease in non exercise activity while recouperating might counter that even more). Point is, probably not worth worrying about -- if I estimate (based on weight) that a 5 mile run burns about 400 calories I'm close enough even if it's a bit high unless I am trying to lose with a really narrow deficit and even then I should adjust over time and it will be fine.
So many people (there's a precision nutrition graphic about it and I've seen it lots of other places) seem to want to use "the calculators are imperfect for individuals and are only an estimate" and "you are going to be imperfect in calculating calories from food and workouts" to CICO doesn't really work or "it works but is too hard for the average person." I'd prefer to point out that you don't have to overthink it -- it really is pretty simple.
(The hard part for most is figuring out HOW to make new habits and not fall back into bad habits over time, to keep CI and CO where they should be. The psychology, not the math.)
My opinion, anyway.5 -
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.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 601 -
TEF shouldn't be included in "calorie burns" though. That's majoring in the minors. How many people eat 250 grams of protein a day anyway unless they are doing keto? And when burning calories for physical activity, does the body resort amino acids or energy from carbs (glycogen) first?Russellb97 wrote: »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.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
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
2 -
TEF shouldn't be included in "calorie burns" though. That's majoring in the minors. How many people eat 250 grams of protein a day anyway unless they are doing keto? And when burning calories for physical activity, does the body resort amino acids or energy from carbs (glycogen) first?Russellb97 wrote: »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.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
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
Most people eating much over 100 grams of protein daily will be knocked out of ketosis. Keto is NOT a high protein WOE because about half of protein can become glucose like sugar becomes.0 -
Russellb97 wrote: »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.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
This isn't totally correct. While TEF for protein is roughly 20-35%, TEF for carbs is roughly 5-20%, or an average difference of about 15% or 150 calories on average per 1000 calories.
In practice, it isn't that pronounced. No one eats 100% carbs or 100% protein. A dieting woman who averages 1500 calories could in theory eat 250 grams of protein, but that would make her diet very limited in variety and could greatly affect adherence, which is really the single most important factor in weight loss beyond energy balance. Would going that high be worth the extra 80-100 calories burned over what she would burn on a more reasonable split? For practical purposes, TEF is not significant and would fall within the acceptable margin of error.5 -
Russellb97 wrote: »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.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
Now let's put it in context and look at a couple actual realistic scenarios, since virtually nobody eats diets composed of exclusively protein vs. exclusively carbs. Here are two macro settings, the first is for a keto diet and the second is for a "Zone" type diet. Let's assume an intake of 1500 calories just to make it easy (numbers are rounded, so it doesn't add up exactly):
Keto:
5C/25P/70F
Carbs: 18.75g, 75 cal. / Protein: 94g, 375 cal. / Fats: 116g, 1050 cal.
Zone:
40C/30P/30F
Carbs: 150g, 600 cal. / Protein: 112g, 450 cal. / Fats: 50g, 450 cal.
Using generally accepted TEF values (link) of 25% for protein, 6% for carbs, 3% for fats, we get:
Keto:
Carbs: 4.5 cal burned / Protein: 93.75 cal burned / Fats: 31.5 cal burned. Total calories expended by TEF: 129.75
Zone:
Carbs: 36 cal burned / Protein: 112.5 cal burned / Fats: 13.5 cal burned. Total calories expended by TEF: 162
Difference between the two diets in terms of TEF: 32.25 calories.
32.25 calories. In an entire day's intake of 1500 calories. That's well within the "noise" limitations of intake/expenditure measurement and most certainly majoring in the minors.9 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »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.
I think you misunderstand or I'm not communicating properly...
All I really needed to know is the basics of CICO and TDEE. Nothing mystifying about it. In fact its super simple!
I only mentioned people on these forums know it and have patiently explained in response to you saying folks on here think they know. Some actually do understand. Many very well educated in various fields are in this forum.
My belief is the only people who complicate things are those who try to say CICO isn't simple. The basic math is simple. Figuring out your personal stuff may not be for some folks.
I agree, once again! Some people can lose weight on "eat less, run more", others need a little more explanation, and even others need the full rundown of human metabolism. My peers, I'm sure are working on this forum to benefit others as I am, so please don't discredit their attempts. My view has always been that weight loss should be as stress-free as possible.
What? I have no idea what you are referencing when you say "please don't discredit their attempts".
I absolutely credit the long time posters here and I'm even working with one trainer on these boards. Many of my posts credit these folks for helping me. It was me who pointed out that folks on these boards are very knowledgable and know their stuff.
You and I are misunderstanding each other:)
Apparently so. I meant no disrespect! But please do not pick out a line of text and make it bold faced to suggest that I am at odds with my industry...it's destructive to my original message: that I have overwhelming respect for the people working in my field, and I am a long term poster here, since 2012. But at the same time there is a lot of snake oil, you must admit. I understand you have issues with my original post...considering it's "eloquence", but I assure you that's unwarranted. I hope your coach is helping you move past those issues and more.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about now, honestly. I think you are reading more into what I'm saying.
I do not think nor implied you were at odds with your industry. Not sure where you even got that from because I never even implied it.
I definitely give credit to the professionals and long time posters here for clarifying things for me. They know it as I've mentioned it in several of my posts.
I never implied you lack respect for anyone.
The only issue I had with your original post is that CICO was simple for me and life changing.
The lack of eloquence was about MY post and how I do not fully understand the science behind CICO and how I might possibly not be explaining my self thus I said "does this make sense". It was nothing about your post.
I bolded a part where you said "please don't discredit their attempts" which to me implied I was discrediting folks on this forum with a ton of knowledge which again for emphasis they have helped me tremendously.
My coach is helping me with strength training as I don't really have any other issues now that I've learned about CICO & TDEE.
We are friends now so in order to not hijack this thread we can continue on our newsfeed if this didn't clear up things.
Best!
jo
No worries. I tend to get confrontational, so please excuse my rudeness. I knew with my post that I'd have to defend my position, and if nothing else, I am defensive. I'm really glad you've found someone to help you in the community, and wish you the best of luck...if you're ever in the need of advice however marginal, please reach out!
May I ask what your training/profession/qualifications in this area are, and what is your industry as mentioned upthread? Your invitation to reach out to you for advice is what's prompting me to ask. I'm honestly not being rude or confrontational, just curious.
4 -
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 whole thread could have been moot if it had been titled "CICO isn't the only equation".
6
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