Do you believe it is ALL just CICO?
andreayup
Posts: 9 Member
Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?
For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?
Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.
Thoughts?
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?
For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?
Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.
Thoughts?
7
Replies
-
If you keep to CI<CO, the weight will probably come off while you eat straight junk, yes.
Your health, on the other hand, will suffer. Lack of proper nutrition shows up in lots of different ways. It may not show immediately, but over time it'll show in your skin, hair, quality of sleep, level of energy and mood. If you have any kind of incipient health issue, the lack of proper nutrition will likely bring it to the surface. And I ironclad guarantee you that the weight will come back, sooner or later.
It's everyone's choice for themselves.30 -
Technically, if you ate food with absolutely no nutritional value you would starve to death. All food has some nutritional value, but the amount of nutrition it has or doesn't have has no impact on how much of it is converted to fat. It is converted to fat because you have more than you need.18
-
I would say that CICO is 90% of weight loss, and the remaining 10% is so complicated, variable, and unproven that it's not worth worrying about. My results and the results of many people here speak for themselves. If you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight. Also, I totally made up those percentages.
And there really is no such thing as garbage food. Food provides calories, and calories fuel our bodies. Nutrients play additional important roles, but calories are not garbage. If you need energy fast, which as a teacher I imagine you do, then energy-dense food is absolutely fine in moderation. Just make sure you get those nutrients elsewhere, and if you want to lose weight, that your total calories are below your total energy output.23 -
Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?
For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?
Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.
Thoughts?
@andreayup welcome to MFP forums.
Will you define what you mean by ALL?18 -
If you eat nothing but mcDonalds at a deficiet, you will lose weight. But I can't promise you will be healthy. To lose weight, yes, it is as simple as cico. To be healthy.. that's another topic.21
-
Yes4
-
-
Nutrition is an important thing that you need to be sure that you get in sufficient quantities whether you are trying to lose, maintain, or gain weight.
Weight loss is entirely about calorie balance. Consume fewer calories than your body uses and you'll lose weight. Nutrition is still important but a separate topic. It's like asking if you still need to buy gas for your car as long as you keep making the car payments. You need to do both in order to use your car but doing one doesn't have any direct connection to doing the other.
"Garbage" foods don't have a multiplier. They still have 4 calories for each gram of carbs, 4 calories for each gram of protein, and 9 calories for each gram of fat.13 -
"Garbage" is often not only low in important micronutrients, it's also usually calorie-dense. For many people, that makes it more difficult to stay at a calorie deficit.3
-
Weight loss is all about calories.
BUT...
Nutrition is important.
And not just for health, which is obvious.
A consistently poor diet might make compliance with a calorie deficit harder if it leads to nutritional deficiencies, because that might result in cravings. Quite the catch 22.
Occasional spells of relying on convenience packaged foods to get you through busy days aren't going to hurt you if you balance those days with otherwise nutritionally sound ones.12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?
For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?
Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.
Thoughts?
@andreayup welcome to MFP forums.
Will you define what you mean by ALL?
It's a common way of addressing a number of people in place of "everyone".22 -
stevencloser wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?
For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?
Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.
Thoughts?
@andreayup welcome to MFP forums.
Will you define what you mean by ALL?
It's a common way of addressing a number of people in place of "everyone".
Or did he mean ALL as in "ALL just CICO".
I think the answer is 42.26 -
Here are 5 factors of weight loss that often get overlooked.
saragottfriedmd.com/balance-your-hormones-balance-the-scale-5-ways-to-lose-weight-through-natural-hormone-balancing/46 -
Hi all -
So, I am under the impression that if I eat burn more calories than I eat, I will lose weight. Is it that simple?
For example, if i eat food with little to no nutritional value, what one might call, garbage...but stay under my calorie goal, will I still lose weight?
Now, this isn't how I conduct my day to day life, but I am a teacher and somedays rely solely on candy, chips, and other assorted snacks to get through the day.
Thoughts?
Calories for weight loss, nutrition for health. I'm betting you'd like both?
Seriously, you can eat some less nutrient-dense foods within your calorie goal and still lose weight, but you'll feel more satiated and generally good if most of your food gives you well-rounded nutrition.
Why not simply log what you're eating, compare it to the MFP default nutrition goals, and adjust gradually as needed for good satiation, better nutrition, and if course tastiness?
Also, consider keeping some shelf-stable nutritious grab'n'eat foods that you enjoy in your desk or locker for busy times: Applesauce or fruit cups, instant soup or oatmeal, reasonable portions of dry-roasted nuts or soybeans, maybe reasonable protein bars, etc.
There's no need to make it complicated. Best wishes!3 -
Have you ever watched the film "That Suger Film" it is very informative. It will show you what the sorts of food you are eating do to your body.
I was horrified51 -
Have you ever watched the film "That Suger Film" it is very informative. It will show you what the sorts of food you are eating do to your body.
I was horrified
That Sugar Film is poorly researched, agenda driven junk science and propaganda - just like virtually every other "documentary" about nutrition. There are many far more reliable, evidence-based sources than Netflix for nutrition information.33 -
8
-
-
Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?11 -
collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale9 -
Water weight is always there, always bounces around, and isn't part of the Calories In Calories Out discussion. CICO refers to the weight of actual body parts rather than the water.collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you ovulation, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
Here's a graph of my weight loss over 3 months where I was at or below my calorie goal every day. I can see beyond the water fluctuations to note that my weight trend is downward over time.
17 -
Yup. CICO.
The other day I ate a hot dog, Cheetos, pizza and wine. I came under my calories and actually hit my macros too. Micro nutrients? Probably not but I don't eat that way every day.11 -
Water weight is always there, always bounces around, and isn't part of the Calories In Calories Out discussion. CICO refers to the weight of actual body parts rather than the water.collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you ovulation, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But why? The OP asked if it was *all* about CICO. From a dietary perspective, it is. From a weight loss perspective, it isn't.6 -
Fat gain/loss is all about energy surpluses and deficits. CICO is a simple model that captures most of the factors in the energy surplus/deficit equation but not all. If you stick to CICO and have deficits, you MUST lose at least as much fat (or muscle) as the deficit (in energy terms with 1lb of fat =3500kcals) because the energy has to come from somewhere (we don't create energy out of thin air). If you have a surplus, you MAY gain as much but no more fat equal to the surplus (you will actually gain something less cause the body can't convert the surplus to fat at 100% efficiency).4
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.22 -
Water weight isn't real body weight that's gained or lost. It's water and will always come and go. People say "weight loss isn't linear" because actual body weight loss can hide behind water weight fluctuations.collectingblues wrote: »
Water weight is always there, always bounces around, and isn't part of the Calories In Calories Out discussion. CICO refers to the weight of actual body parts rather than the water.collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you ovulation, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But why? The OP asked if it was *all* about CICO. From a dietary perspective, it is. From a weight loss perspective, it isn't.
For short term "ALL" I guess that water would count. So would getting a hair cut.5 -
Water weight isn't real body weight that's gained or lost. It's water and will always come and go. People say "weight loss isn't linear" because actual body weight loss can hide behind water weight fluctuations.collectingblues wrote: »
Water weight is always there, always bounces around, and isn't part of the Calories In Calories Out discussion. CICO refers to the weight of actual body parts rather than the water.collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you ovulation, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But why? The OP asked if it was *all* about CICO. From a dietary perspective, it is. From a weight loss perspective, it isn't.
For short term "ALL" I guess that water would count. So would getting a hair cut.
Perhaps it's a perception issue. I find the idea of "real" versus false weight to be ludicrous. It's a number on the scale. Sure, there's trending, and I generally agree with that, but if one lives a lifestyle that basically has one in a constant state of water retention, there comes a point where you have to start taking those numbers at face value.
Maybe in my situation, I have built muscle in that time. I'm certainly smaller. But considering you've also got people who insist that you can't build muscle in a deficit even with strength training, it gets to the point where it all becomes very nebulous.
3 -
In the context of weight loss, yup, CICO is all that matters. This is why the very basis of MFP is achieving a caloric deficit. Many people (normally new people) get themselves sidetracked by fixating on fad diets, macros, etc. but at the end of the day none of this matters for weight loss. It's just a handy distraction. They won't lose more weight by following any specific regimen if the calories are the same. For whatever reason, this reality is a VERY bitter pill for some people to swallow, but the sooner they accept it and move on with their life the better off they will be.8
-
collectingblues wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.
You are not a perpetual motion machine and short of a miracle, cannot create energy out of nothing. Fat gain/loss is an energy balance equation. CO can be difficult to calculate and BMR can decrease so to get a deficit, it can become harder (need smaller CI or more CO through activity). Everyone obeys thermodynamics, just some people have lower BMR for various medical reasons, eat more than they think, or are less active than they think.12 -
I don't think you are a freak of nature. It sounds like you've recomped and now have more muscle and less body fat than you used to have. That muscle takes up less volume so you look smaller at about the same weight.collectingblues wrote: »
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions