It is more than a simple "CICO" - why can't we just admit it?
Replies
-
For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.4
-
nomorepuke wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).
I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!
You didn't gain weight because of these types of foods you ate. You gained weight because of HOW MUCH of those foods you ate. You could have eaten the same number of calories of lettuce, apples, and carrots, and you would have gained weight. That's the CI side of the CICO equation.
And just because you don't count calories now but you're losing weight, doesn't matter--if you're losing weight it's because the number of calories you're eating now is less than it was (and/or you're moving more).8 -
You're combining the physiological and psychological aspects and claiming an explanation of the physiological side doesn't work for both.Why does dieting not work, then, if all we have to do is shut our pie holes every in a while?
Yes; you're right. It doesn't.
CICO is absolutely THE be all and end all of the physiological side. If it wasn't, the universe we lived in would be a very different place.
CICO has nothing to do with the physiological side and if someone claimed it did I'd suggest they were an idiot and agree with you (ok, excluding some aspects where it does impinge on that, especially for MFP users that have an idea of calories).
Monitoring CICO isn't perfect - we're massively far off the technology that we could get to a six-sigma accuracy etc.
However, for the vast majority of people we can produce very useful estimations that are good enough.
I always suggest people use an app like libra to track their weight, which gives you a smoothed line including a figure in calories per day.
If you have a consistent lifestyle it makes it easier.
But so, I think it's reasonable to say 'CICO' is by far the best method available.5 -
Can I just say that CICO is not the same thing as counting calories?
This whole thread seems to be talking about counting calories but calling it CICO. They are not the same thing.
I've lost 70 lbs by counting calories.6 -
It's CICO. The end.7
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »Can I just say that CICO is not the same thing as counting calories?
This whole thread seems to be talking about counting calories but calling it CICO. They are not the same thing.
I've lost 70 lbs by counting calories.
As many of the posts ITT already note, CICO applies universally to absolutely everyone whether or not you're counting calories.
Counting calories is a (most direct) method of controlling CICO.5 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Can I just say that CICO is not the same thing as counting calories?
This whole thread seems to be talking about counting calories but calling it CICO. They are not the same thing.
I've lost 70 lbs by counting calories.
But why are you counting calories, and why has it work for you to lose weight? Because that's how you're making sure you're keeping your CI < CO.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Can I just say that CICO is not the same thing as counting calories?
This whole thread seems to be talking about counting calories but calling it CICO. They are not the same thing.
I've lost 70 lbs by counting calories.
I agree that people often confuse CICO with counting calories, or with simply eating less of the foods that a person normally eats as in "you can lose weight eating nothing but twinkles, it's all CICO!"
CICO is a math equation that describes an energy balance. Whether a person is gaining, maintaining, or losing, CICO is governing that. If a person is losing, regardless of whether they are counting calories, eating a certain way (paleo, LCHF, LFHC, IIFYM, or any other approach), their CI < CO, That part is immutable.5 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
I was going to leave this, but it's bothering me. You're never clear what you're actually saying when you talk about this. It's usually vague questions you ask about hormones, sleep, etc., but you don't come back with why you want to know these answers.
Are you saying (using myself as an example):
If I get enough sleep (7 hours) each night, I will lose weight?
If I find "balance" with my depressive thoughts, I will lose weight?
If I go to marriage counseling, I will lose weight?12 -
CI<CO is simple, that is not the same as saying it is easy. Everybody has their own daemons to fight and get in order. Now I just need to figure out how to keep my daemons from making CI>CO9
-
-
How refreshing, a simple post debunking CICO in a very simple way, with all the very simple comments (which I agree with) saying, "Errrrrr, Yes It Is CICO". Every now and then we get one of these to clean the pipes out.
Further agreeing with some other points, our accuracy in measuring both sides of the equation is where most of us get flummoxed.
I think another one (speaking for me personally) is that my wife is a great cook, chef quality, and she watches her CICO too. But when it comes to cooking dinner her creativity and taste buds take over, and I am quite certain that a few evenings of her cooking results in me consuming higher quantities of sodium then I bargained for, but I am not about to complain or ask the exact ingredients she included in her dish(es). A good chef does not measure, and she takes that to the next planet. Kosher salt, spices, olive oil, taste and dash with more salt, you get the picture.
When she travels I seem to weigh less simply because my cooking or take outs are more calculable of my macros. When she is in town for 3-5 days, I just accept that while my caloric intake is great, I will be higher on the scale, but that will flush itself out. I will accept a few days of 'fluffiness' for the great cooking I get.
Plus, I weigh daily and can see the swings (which I accept and tolerate since I am a data honk) and my wife weighs "When she feels like she has lost weight". lol. Like most women, she is perceptive and can tell when she has lost weight, so no matter how long she stays off the scale, she is always "losing weight" (since we both have a goal to get to, mine higher then hers).
Perfect example, Friday night our son came into town to visit. We love Sushi, and he picked it. I don't like being a MFP picky macro Debbie Downer, so I eat what comes to the table (which is our ordering fashion at the Sushi Restaurant, lot's of check marks on the long sheet of paper they give us). This makes it virtually impossible to calculate what I am eating, then my son hits the edamame with the regular soy sauce (loaded with sodium). Fun dinner.
Saturday, all out and needing lunch, and I have never known what Seafood Gumbo at the restaurant has in it. I followed my wife's order and got a bowl, with rice. Loading it later in MFP, that was a whopping dose of sodium.
Saturday night was our belated Valentines dinner. She ordered appetizers that I knew were on the higher side of everything, but it was a celebratory evening.
Sunday, great eating day, then she wanted to incorporate what her fish dish the night before tasted like with braised chicken breast. Well, that involved capers, salt, heavy spices on the rooted cauliflower, you get the idea. That is the time when I just enjoy the dish and don't ask, since it was a great dish, but this morning I saw the results on the scale, or rather, it might have just been the three days in a row. Up one pound for the night, up 1.5 pounds for the two days, and up 2 pounds for Friday thru Sunday night.
So, YES, it is CICO, but there are lots of variables. Throw in a hard session of weight lifting on Sunday mid-day and my body probably was retaining even more fluids and nutrients to repair the muscles that were broken down.
But when you understand all of this, it makes it easier to scoff at the scale. This is where (what I always read on MFP) weight loss is not linear. And I know a week from now, as long as I have kept working out, and my calories are in check, the body will process everything else out, and this increase on the scale for me will just be a blip on the long term radar screen.4 -
-
For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.
Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.
So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.
Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.
3 -
Thermic effect of food is roughly 10%, so for someone eating 2000 calories that's roughly 200 calories. If Tom uses 2 more calories digesting his peanut butter than Hank, how exactly would that affect weight loss in any meaningful way? Functional CI is also easy to calculate. Eat at a certain calorie level logging as accurately as you can (so your logging error is as consistent as possible), and after a couple of months you will be able to estimate your deficit by using pounds lost to calculate it. The numbers don't need to be accurate, they only need to be functional.
If you want to get down to it, there is also hormones, absorption percentage, sodium and glycogen levels, adaptation, NEAT compensation, temperature regulation, BMR deviation, movement economy and many other factors. Jumping into that rabbit hole will needlessly confuse you without providing any practical use.
The CICO equation is simplified down to calories eaten and general calories burned without taking the other factors into account because for practical purposes a consistent estimate for CI and CO is enough to produce results and adjust strategies. Again, it doesn't need to be accurate, it only needs to be consistent.
We have enough to worry about trying to manage the mental part of the game, over-complicating the math part is counterproductive when it can practically be the easiest part.4 -
This argument is so redundant....and old. Semantics.4
-
It does all boil down to CICO. Some people just have a harder time shutting their pie hole than others. If it doesn't work for both of your 200 pound women it is because one of them is going over her calorie limit, not because CICO doesn't work. CICO is a math equation. It will always work. Putting it into practice is another story, but that doesn't negate the fact that losing weight is as simple as eating less calories than you burn.3
-
It really was CICO for me and nothing else. I actually am annoyed I didn't know it was this "easy" years ago. 193 pounds to 137 in 30 weeks for me, ONLY by eating a calorie deficit.6
-
I had the "calories in" pretty much figured out. But it wasn't until I got a Fitbit that I realized how surprisingly low my "calories out" were. On days that I exercise vigorously (vigorous for ME at least) and burn around 500 in 75 minutes - I burn a total of about 2000 calories for the day. (I don't wear it while I sleep and am not counting those calories for this example.)
On the days I don't do ANY vigorous exercise (maybe just yoga or nothing at all) - my calories burned during the day average around 1200. THAT IS NOTHING!! Now I don't really know how accurate the Fitbit is when it comes to measuring calorie burn, but this was very eye-opening for me. ( I am a 5'4" 61-year old female at 147 lbs - having lost 35 with 10 more to go BTW. ) But what I have learned is this: I don't burn much when sedentary. I really DO need to exercise unless I pretty much want to exist on 1200-1500 calories/day forever. And I have pretty much been really over-estimating for most of my life, how much I can eat without putting on weight.6 -
I agree it is a complex process. For some, like myself, the CO is very inconsistent and challenging. With my health issues my metabolism slows and speeds up. While this may only cause a difference in 100-200 cals burnt on any given day (for same exact activity levels) being within 10-15lbs of goal that 200 cals can kill my deficit almost completely. When my deficit was larger and I was losing more I didn't notice the affect at all. Once my hormones stop bouncing all around my doctor will adjust medication and I believe my results will be more consistent again.
That said I do think the formula once you play with it and find your numbers is pretty reliable for people without any medical issues complicating it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions