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 overrated in my opinion
Replies
-
coletammym wrote: »Alot of people do not know how to eat properly so CICO is a good starting point for alot of people. Aslong as they are actually properly counting their calories, After that they can choose how to adjust their diet to their needs.
I think you also may be confused about what CICO is. It is not a diet, it doesn’t mean calorie counting, it doesn’t mean eat whatever you want and lose weight. It is a mathematical equation that represents energy balance, Calories In Calories Out.
It’s not a starting point because it isn’t something that you try and decide whether or not you are going to stick with or modify. Everyone, no matter whether they are losing, gaining, or maintaining weight; and regardless of the foods they eat, is subject to CICO.9 -
It seems like many people are really misunderstanding what calories in calories out means here.
It's not a diet, it's a mathematics equation.
15 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »I always eat oatmeal but on a whim I added some butter and was full until lunch. Fat is where it's at. LOL
Was just speaking to a physician who is an obesity expert with years of research behind him.
A woman in the room said she was addicted to high sugar coffee beverages from Starbucks.
He suggested that she try to ween herself off of sugars and make her own coffee and use full fat whipping cream (from a carton) and put in a tsp of ghee (purified butter) in it also. It was found to be very satisfying and the participants had high energy all morning. Labs also had shown cholesterol levels came down significantly.
But no sugar or any artificial sweetners at at not even stevia.
Very interesting!
I like coffee black, guess I can't get the magical health benefits, poor me.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »I always eat oatmeal but on a whim I added some butter and was full until lunch. Fat is where it's at. LOL
Was just speaking to a physician who is an obesity expert with years of research behind him.
A woman in the room said she was addicted to high sugar coffee beverages from Starbucks.
He suggested that she try to ween herself off of sugars and make her own coffee and use full fat whipping cream (from a carton) and put in a tsp of ghee (purified butter) in it also. It was found to be very satisfying and the participants had high energy all morning. Labs also had shown cholesterol levels came down significantly.
But no sugar or any artificial sweetners at at not even stevia.
Very interesting!
I like coffee black, guess I can't get the magical health benefits, poor me.
I don't like it at all, so I'm missing out on the magic as well!5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Oatmeal is super weird for me... it's mainly carbs, which means as a diabetic I should find that it raises my blood sugar. But according to my testing it raises it hardly at all, and sometimes it's even lower an hour after eating oatmeal than it was an hour before. It's mystifying. I assume it has something to do with fiber. Since rice, on the other hand, does really spike my sugar, I've started using steel cut oats in what used to be rice dishes, such as jambalaya and red beans with rice. I have yet to attempt steel cut oat sushi but plan to try that next. So far it's like a magic trick for keeping my levels low.quiksylver296 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »I must be going nuts.... I could have sworn that 99.9999999% of posts I've seen regarding calories for weight loss also mentioned the importance of eating a nutritious diet for good health... As well as recommending slower rates of loss, adequate protein and resistance training to help maintain muscle...
This.
OP sounds like yet another person who doesn't understand what CICO is and makes weird assumptions about it.
Yes, obviously not a good idea to diet irresponsibly, as is said over and over on this site. That doesn't mean CICO is "overrated," it means that there are other things to keep in mind too. That it is important to keep gas in my car if I want it to go doesn't mean that following traffic laws is overrated.
Everyone who "eats clean" seems to think that CIOC, IIFYM, and free eating/calorie counting are just other terms for eating Twinkies and donuts all day. No matter how much we tell them the nutrition is separate from the calories and that, yes, eat your vegetables, they still hear "eat garbage and lose weight".
OP is taking it even a step further -- if someone does CICO, they will cut calories irresponsibly low and lose muscle. So CICO means you will try to get as close to eating nothing as possible? Weird.
I think op is projecting. Just because she did it means of course EVERYONE is.
This is what bugs me about these posts. The posters who misinterpreted what CICO means and/or made poor personal choices about how to apply the principles now want to school the rest of us abou how we should be giving advice. Similar to the thread last week where a poster filled their day with “diet” foods, weren’t satiated, then wanted to educate everyone about how CICO isn’t complete advice. Which no one, no one ever says that CICO is the whole story for weight loss, health, fitness and satiety.
Can people really not understand that? Is there no critical thinking applied at all? No further reading - just take the one line “CICO is all that matters for weight loss” at face value and that’s it?
Funny story:
When I first started counting calories, the first few days I was really hungry because I ran out of calories early in the day.
What did I do? I went to the store and bought foods that were lower calorie per volume and more filling.
No one had to tell me that it was important to choose foods that left me satisfied.
I figured it out myself because I’m a sentient adult.
Carlos_421, this was my experience as well. I'm baffled when fellow commenters don't have this experience.
it's why I don't eat oatmeal- people are like "sticks to the ribs makes you full bla bla bla"
oatmeal = insta hungry.
which is why SURPRISE! I don't eat it anymore.
people like to make this harder than it needs to be I think.
And it keeps me full for hours, which is why everyone needs to experiment for themselves.
Anyway, I wonder if the lower than expected impact on blood glucose could be connected to the reason some people feel hungry and some don't.
Yeah, that's really interesting.
I don't have blood sugar issues at all, but I do find carbs vary a ton as to how satiating they are, and it's not just fiber. I find fruit pretty satiating -- I know many do not -- and oats (and green veg, but they are high fiber for the calories) and potatoes (plain and roasted, anyway). Bread is not. Rice and pasta, no clue, since I've never just eaten them on their own.0 -
JerSchmare wrote: »You know what makes me feel full?
1,000 calories, with roughly half being protein, and the balance including carbs, fat, and fiber.
That’s it.
Simple.
You mean 1,000 calories in one meal, right?
Just clarifying.
6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Oatmeal is super weird for me... it's mainly carbs, which means as a diabetic I should find that it raises my blood sugar. But according to my testing it raises it hardly at all, and sometimes it's even lower an hour after eating oatmeal than it was an hour before. It's mystifying. I assume it has something to do with fiber. Since rice, on the other hand, does really spike my sugar, I've started using steel cut oats in what used to be rice dishes, such as jambalaya and red beans with rice. I have yet to attempt steel cut oat sushi but plan to try that next. So far it's like a magic trick for keeping my levels low.quiksylver296 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »I must be going nuts.... I could have sworn that 99.9999999% of posts I've seen regarding calories for weight loss also mentioned the importance of eating a nutritious diet for good health... As well as recommending slower rates of loss, adequate protein and resistance training to help maintain muscle...
This.
OP sounds like yet another person who doesn't understand what CICO is and makes weird assumptions about it.
Yes, obviously not a good idea to diet irresponsibly, as is said over and over on this site. That doesn't mean CICO is "overrated," it means that there are other things to keep in mind too. That it is important to keep gas in my car if I want it to go doesn't mean that following traffic laws is overrated.
Everyone who "eats clean" seems to think that CIOC, IIFYM, and free eating/calorie counting are just other terms for eating Twinkies and donuts all day. No matter how much we tell them the nutrition is separate from the calories and that, yes, eat your vegetables, they still hear "eat garbage and lose weight".
OP is taking it even a step further -- if someone does CICO, they will cut calories irresponsibly low and lose muscle. So CICO means you will try to get as close to eating nothing as possible? Weird.
I think op is projecting. Just because she did it means of course EVERYONE is.
This is what bugs me about these posts. The posters who misinterpreted what CICO means and/or made poor personal choices about how to apply the principles now want to school the rest of us abou how we should be giving advice. Similar to the thread last week where a poster filled their day with “diet” foods, weren’t satiated, then wanted to educate everyone about how CICO isn’t complete advice. Which no one, no one ever says that CICO is the whole story for weight loss, health, fitness and satiety.
Can people really not understand that? Is there no critical thinking applied at all? No further reading - just take the one line “CICO is all that matters for weight loss” at face value and that’s it?
Funny story:
When I first started counting calories, the first few days I was really hungry because I ran out of calories early in the day.
What did I do? I went to the store and bought foods that were lower calorie per volume and more filling.
No one had to tell me that it was important to choose foods that left me satisfied.
I figured it out myself because I’m a sentient adult.
Carlos_421, this was my experience as well. I'm baffled when fellow commenters don't have this experience.
it's why I don't eat oatmeal- people are like "sticks to the ribs makes you full bla bla bla"
oatmeal = insta hungry.
which is why SURPRISE! I don't eat it anymore.
people like to make this harder than it needs to be I think.
And it keeps me full for hours, which is why everyone needs to experiment for themselves.
Anyway, I wonder if the lower than expected impact on blood glucose could be connected to the reason some people feel hungry and some don't.
Back on topic - CICO isn't a thing to do, it's a description of reality: calories in equals calories out. It can sometimes be tricky to discover one or the other, but in all situations CICO is true. It's like saying "a car uses a certain amount of gas to go a certain distance." You may have trouble calculating the amount of gas, the car may get different mileage from someone else's car, either the car or the gas meter may be broken in several possible ways, but the basic principle can't be escaped: gasoline engines use gas to operate.
It's called glycemic load. A food with a GL below 10 is considered low...above 20 is considered high. The higher the GL is, the more impact-full it will be on your glucose levels.
A 250 gram serving of oatmeal has a GL of 13...fairly low...150 grams of white rice has a GL of 29...relatively high.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods
ETA: what you eat with various things also changes the glycemic load. Like a plain cheese pizza will have a higher GL than a supreme for example...6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »I always eat oatmeal but on a whim I added some butter and was full until lunch. Fat is where it's at. LOL
Peanut butter works too!
Or avocado! JK
Ya know what? Some warm oats, chopped avocado, salt, and hot sauce? I'd eat that.
That sounds delicious. I adore avocados to an almost obsessive point. I'd have to add some protein in there. Maybe some eggs.
Oooo, with a fried egg or two on top. Hopefully avocados will be a decent price this weekend, I want this now.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Oatmeal is super weird for me... it's mainly carbs, which means as a diabetic I should find that it raises my blood sugar. But according to my testing it raises it hardly at all, and sometimes it's even lower an hour after eating oatmeal than it was an hour before. It's mystifying. I assume it has something to do with fiber. Since rice, on the other hand, does really spike my sugar, I've started using steel cut oats in what used to be rice dishes, such as jambalaya and red beans with rice. I have yet to attempt steel cut oat sushi but plan to try that next. So far it's like a magic trick for keeping my levels low.quiksylver296 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »I must be going nuts.... I could have sworn that 99.9999999% of posts I've seen regarding calories for weight loss also mentioned the importance of eating a nutritious diet for good health... As well as recommending slower rates of loss, adequate protein and resistance training to help maintain muscle...
This.
OP sounds like yet another person who doesn't understand what CICO is and makes weird assumptions about it.
Yes, obviously not a good idea to diet irresponsibly, as is said over and over on this site. That doesn't mean CICO is "overrated," it means that there are other things to keep in mind too. That it is important to keep gas in my car if I want it to go doesn't mean that following traffic laws is overrated.
Everyone who "eats clean" seems to think that CIOC, IIFYM, and free eating/calorie counting are just other terms for eating Twinkies and donuts all day. No matter how much we tell them the nutrition is separate from the calories and that, yes, eat your vegetables, they still hear "eat garbage and lose weight".
OP is taking it even a step further -- if someone does CICO, they will cut calories irresponsibly low and lose muscle. So CICO means you will try to get as close to eating nothing as possible? Weird.
I think op is projecting. Just because she did it means of course EVERYONE is.
This is what bugs me about these posts. The posters who misinterpreted what CICO means and/or made poor personal choices about how to apply the principles now want to school the rest of us abou how we should be giving advice. Similar to the thread last week where a poster filled their day with “diet” foods, weren’t satiated, then wanted to educate everyone about how CICO isn’t complete advice. Which no one, no one ever says that CICO is the whole story for weight loss, health, fitness and satiety.
Can people really not understand that? Is there no critical thinking applied at all? No further reading - just take the one line “CICO is all that matters for weight loss” at face value and that’s it?
Funny story:
When I first started counting calories, the first few days I was really hungry because I ran out of calories early in the day.
What did I do? I went to the store and bought foods that were lower calorie per volume and more filling.
No one had to tell me that it was important to choose foods that left me satisfied.
I figured it out myself because I’m a sentient adult.
Carlos_421, this was my experience as well. I'm baffled when fellow commenters don't have this experience.
it's why I don't eat oatmeal- people are like "sticks to the ribs makes you full bla bla bla"
oatmeal = insta hungry.
which is why SURPRISE! I don't eat it anymore.
people like to make this harder than it needs to be I think.
And it keeps me full for hours, which is why everyone needs to experiment for themselves.
Anyway, I wonder if the lower than expected impact on blood glucose could be connected to the reason some people feel hungry and some don't.
Back on topic - CICO isn't a thing to do, it's a description of reality: calories in equals calories out. It can sometimes be tricky to discover one or the other, but in all situations CICO is true. It's like saying "a car uses a certain amount of gas to go a certain distance." You may have trouble calculating the amount of gas, the car may get different mileage from someone else's car, either the car or the gas meter may be broken in several possible ways, but the basic principle can't be escaped: gasoline engines use gas to operate.
I'm the same way, oatmeal hardly raises my sugars at all, and comes down as expected. But other diabetics I know can't eat oatmeal at all, because it spikes it like crazy, and stays up, whereas a Snickers bar will spike and come right back down. I eat a Snickers and it spikes to just above normal (160-180) and stays up. Every diabetic is completely different in what will spike their sugars, which is why they recommend new diabetics to do lots of testing after they eat something new to see how they react.
I like the idea of substituting oatmeal for rice in things. I think I might start doing that too. Oatmeal fills me up faster and keeps me fuller longer than rice does too. And oatmeal is just as good with soy sauce as rice is (I sometimes eat oatmeal with soy sauce and a couple sunny side up (with runny yolks, if I can cook them properly) eggs on top. Sounds terrible, but is really good) actually.2 -
-
someone needs to do study on why some people feel more full on oatmeal than rice and vice versa.3
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »I always eat oatmeal but on a whim I added some butter and was full until lunch. Fat is where it's at. LOL
Was just speaking to a physician who is an obesity expert with years of research behind him.
A woman in the room said she was addicted to high sugar coffee beverages from Starbucks.
He suggested that she try to ween herself off of sugars and make her own coffee and use full fat whipping cream (from a carton) and put in a tsp of ghee (purified butter) in it also. It was found to be very satisfying and the participants had high energy all morning. Labs also had shown cholesterol levels came down significantly.
But no sugar or any artificial sweetners at at not even stevia.
Very interesting!
I like coffee black, guess I can't get the magical health benefits, poor me.
I don't like it at all, so I'm missing out on the magic as well!
Then, yeah, you're really screwed lol.0 -
GlorianasTears wrote: »CICO is important definitely but i think it shouldn't be a priority we want to LOSE FAT not just WEIGHT because weight includes those wonderful muscles you work so hard to build (and other stuff) . Also the human body is very intelligent if you eat low calorie for a long time like i did in the past you might come to find that your body adjust to your low calorie lifestyle and you lose weight but you look unhealthy . If you want to make your body let go of fat you have to be healthy , being malnourished is not healthy or pleasant. So please promote fat loss not weight loss .
Im not trying to rain on anyones parade but i just think that we should focus on health and nutrition more than obsessing over CICO. Have a nice day
So you just gonna walk in say your piece drop the mic and walk out huh? LOL9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Genuinely curious OP - how do you think you lose fat if not via CICO?
Dr Fung the author of "The Obesity Code" claims that calories are not the problem nor the solution. He claims it's the amount of times you spike your insulin.39 -
blackmantis wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Genuinely curious OP - how do you think you lose fat if not via CICO?
Dr Fung the author of "The Obesity Code" claims that calories are not the problem nor the solution. He claims it's the amount of times you spike your insulin.
Dr. Fung is a quack.25 -
blackmantis wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Genuinely curious OP - how do you think you lose fat if not via CICO?
Dr Fung the author of "The Obesity Code" claims that calories are not the problem nor the solution. He claims it's the amount of times you spike your insulin.
Oh well then if he says it then it must be true and we can all go home...12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »I always eat oatmeal but on a whim I added some butter and was full until lunch. Fat is where it's at. LOL
Peanut butter works too!
Or avocado! JK
Ya know what? Some warm oats, chopped avocado, salt, and hot sauce? I'd eat that.
That sounds delicious. I adore avocados to an almost obsessive point. I'd have to add some protein in there. Maybe some eggs.
Oooo, with a fried egg or two on top. Hopefully avocados will be a decent price this weekend, I want this now.
Avocado, eggs and pico now I want this!0 -
I see the 'CICO is overrated' argument as legitimate in ONLY one respect:
What percent of success in a weight loss endeavor would you attribute to the selection of a means of losing weight?
And what percent of success in a weight loss endeavor would you attribute to long-term focus and sustained control over yourself, behaviorally?
My answers are 20%, and 80%. Yes, CICO has less friction than other weight loss plans because you can eat anything you want. But someone whose head isn't in it simply can't be helped.21 -
blackmantis wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Genuinely curious OP - how do you think you lose fat if not via CICO?
Dr Fung the author of "The Obesity Code" claims that calories are not the problem nor the solution. He claims it's the amount of times you spike your insulin.
Fung is a laughingstock amongst actual evidence-based researchers. He's exactly like Dr. Oz - a physician who has prostituted himself for the almighty dollar by peddling BS. His writings show that he either doesn't have the first clue about physiology, or he's purposely ignoring it just so he can sell books.
Here's a read on what insulin is and what it does, backed by actual credible research: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/14 -
CICO is NOT a weight loss plan - it is a math formula that describes the relationship between calories taken in (CI) and calories expended (CO).11
-
-
I see the 'CICO is overrated' argument as legitimate in ONLY one respect:
What percent of success in a weight loss endeavor would you attribute to the selection of a means of losing weight?
And what percent of success in a weight loss endeavor would you attribute to long-term focus and sustained control over yourself, behaviorally?
My answers are 20%, and 80%. Yes, CICO has less friction than other weight loss plans because you can eat anything you want. But someone whose head isn't in it simply can't be helped.
Nothing about that contradicts or changes the fact that if you eat less calories than you expend, you'll lose weight. If you eat more calories than you expend, you'll gain weight. CICO has nothing whatsoever to do with behavioral/psychological aspects of weight loss - it's an equation which defines the laws of energy balance.
CICO applies whether you count calories or not. Whether you work out or not. Whether you "eat clean" or not. Whether you eat keto, paleo, IIFYM, veg*an, low fat, low protein, Zone, or whatever else. Whether you comply with your diet or not. Whether your head is in it or not. None of that matters or changes the laws of energy balance.19 -
its' not semantics- it's just a tool.
You use it to put on weight too. or maintain.15 -
Not semantics - people can lose/maintain/gain weight without any knowledge of CICO - in fact they do it all the time. CICO is not a process, it is not a means of reaching a goal, it is not a diet plan - it is an explanation of WHY a diet plan works (whatever the intention of the plan is).17 -
its' not semantics- it's just a tool.
You use it to put on weight too. or maintain.
I'd postulate that it isn't even a "tool". It's an equation that can be used to derive various strategies to gain, lose or maintain weight by manipulating energy balance. Those strategies ("tools") can include the concepts of satiety/adherence, workout performance, macro and micronutrient manipulation to target overall nutrition and body composition, etc. - but they're not CICO itself. CICO is just the equation which allows those other things to work.10 -
I'm so glad OP came back and addressed the feedback14
-
21
-
its' not semantics- it's just a tool.
You use it to put on weight too. or maintain.
I'd postulate that it isn't even a "tool". It's an equation that can be used to derive various strategies to gain, lose or maintain weight by manipulating energy balance. Those strategies ("tools") can include the concepts of satiety/adherence, workout performance, macro and micronutrient manipulation to target overall nutrition and body composition, etc. - but they're not CICO itself. CICO is just the equation which allows those other things to work.
ehhh I could probably get by on that.
To me it's like a budget- a budget is a tool to help you to your long term goal. even though- it's pretty much the same thing. same thing with conversions for lengths- or currency's- it's just an equation- but the converter is the tool. So column A column B.
But at it's heart- yes- it's just an equation.1 -
I am a little late to this party as I was skiing, trying to balance my CICO equation for the day, but here's my thoughts:
10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions