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
Options
Replies
-
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.
Yikes, I don't consider 160 just above normal - if I get that high it's due to a severe miscalculation (which would include eating a Snickers bar - fun sized yes, full bar are you kidding?) Anything above 150 and you are doing nerve damage at that exact moment. The ADA may think it's cool up to 180, but the ADA isn't going to get neuropathy, I am.
I agree that different diabetics have very different reactions. And it's not as simple as glycemic load, flour tortillas supposedly have a low glycemic load but I can't tolerate them at all. Some people can. There's no substitute for individual testing.
Which is - to get back to the topic of the thread - fad "diets" claiming to be about good food and bad food strike me as silly. A diet based on flour tortillas might be terrible for me but good for someone else.
5 -
Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
It is simple math. Working out what the numbers in that formula are for the individual takes a little experimentation because there are things that affect CI. But the formula stands.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
It is simple math. Working out what the numbers in that formula are for the individual takes a little experimentation because there are things that affect CI. But the formula stands.
It's simple math that can't be nailed down to an exact number, so the use of estimates and approximations becomes good enough. Then you tailor to your own specific results. None of which negates the underlying principle (which is simple math).12 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
It is simple math. Working out what the numbers in that formula are for the individual takes a little experimentation because there are things that affect CI. But the formula stands.
It's simple math that can't be nailed down to an exact number, so the use of estimates and approximations becomes good enough. Then you tailor to your own specific results. None of which negates the underlying principle (which is simple math).
That too.0 -
CICO thinking is like when we thought the earth was flat 500 years ago. I ate about the same calories at 400lbs that I do at 195. But now it's not processed junk.
There are so many factors that effect weight. Gender age fitness genetics stress sleep menstruation etc etc. To think that a simple math equation if energy expenditure regulates weight is ludicrous.
BTW, up until a few years ago I used to think calories caused me to be obese. I'm glad I know better now.67 -
It doesn't regulate weight, it depicts the energy balance. And Stephen Jay Gould notes that we've known since classical times that the Earth was round: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdfThere never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless
of how many uneducated people may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of
sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of
cosmology. Ferdinand and Isabella did refer Columbus’s plans to a royal commission headed by Hernando de Talavera, Isabella’s confessor and, following defeat of the Moors, Archbishop of Granada. This commission, composed of both clerical and lay advisers, did meet, at Salamanca among other places. They did pose some sharp intellectual objections to Columbus, but all assumed the earth’s roundness. As a major critique, they argued that Columbus could not reach the Indies in his own allotted time, because the earth’s circumference was too great. Moreover, his critics were entirely right. Columbus had “cooked” his figures to favor a much smaller earth, and an attainable Indies.14 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »CICO thinking is like when we thought the earth was flat 500 years ago. I ate about the same calories at 400lbs that I do at 195. But now it's not processed junk.
There are so many factors that effect weight. Gender age fitness genetics stress sleep menstruation etc etc. To think that a simple math equation if energy expenditure regulates weight is ludicrous.
BTW, up until a few years ago I used to think calories caused me to be obese. I'm glad I know better now.
If you were tracking calories to get to 400lbs, why did you let yourself get to 400lbs? I have tracked calories to purposefully gain weight.... But I got myself to my heaviest point by being completely clueless about how much I was eating.25 -
We’ve been punked! Haha6
-
Aztec4Life wrote: »CICO thinking is like when we thought the earth was flat 500 years ago. I ate about the same calories at 400lbs that I do at 195. But now it's not processed junk.
There are so many factors that effect weight. Gender age fitness genetics stress sleep menstruation etc etc. To think that a simple math equation if energy expenditure regulates weight is ludicrous.
BTW, up until a few years ago I used to think calories caused me to be obese. I'm glad I know better now.
It's much easier to unknowingly eat too many calories of processed junk. A comfortable stomach full of French fries equals many more calories than a comfortable stomach full of cabbage.
I'm happy that you've found a way of eating which works for you, but I doubt very much that you have a personal exemption from the laws of physics. It's much more likely that you have an inaccurate idea of how many calories you used to eat.16 -
People are missing my point. The natural question that comes from reading this thread's title is "Why is CICO overrated?"
Understand that this conversation had filled 7 pages before I spoke up, so I acknowledge this isn't a commonly made argument, but I wish people were willing to at least consider a unique opinion instead of all-out attacking anyone who disagrees. I like to challenge people, I'm not malicious; my apologies if that wasn't clear from the outset. I'll re-state my point briefly.
If (I'm not saying it's the absolute truth), if CICO is overrated, it (IMO) could only possibly be overrated with respect to the remarkable amount of focus and self-control it takes to use the principles of CICO to change yourself in a positive way.
What good is information if one lacks the means (in this case, the 'behavior') to effectively use it to better their circumstances?
That is my point.
You should be saying calorie counting not CICO and understand the difference between the references5 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »CICO thinking is like when we thought the earth was flat 500 years ago. I ate about the same calories at 400lbs that I do at 195. But now it's not processed junk.
There are so many factors that effect weight. Gender age fitness genetics stress sleep menstruation etc etc. To think that a simple math equation if energy expenditure regulates weight is ludicrous.
BTW, up until a few years ago I used to think calories caused me to be obese. I'm glad I know better now.
You lost weight because you took in fewer calories then your expended, plain and simple.
You are incorrect to say “so many factors that effect weight”. A more precise way to state it would be, “there are so many factors that effect CICO that as a result effect weight...”10 -
Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
The point I think you're missing is that what your body calculates is CICO, it's not what you can calculate yourself.
All of these factors that people "yeah, but" are part of the CICO equation (in the true sense of it being a statement of energy balance) and just go to show how complicated it is and how much they don't understand it.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
It is simple math. Working out what the numbers in that formula are for the individual takes a little experimentation because there are things that affect CI. But the formula stands.
Well, to be fair, for some people it's more complicated due to some people wringing more calories out of food than other people, but we're talking margins here, you know? CO is also a crap shoot on how efficient you are at exercise too.
Again, this is just margins, but it's also close enough is good enough but it's also sometimes masked by the dreaded water weight on the scale and people get frustrated because they don't know this.4 -
What the poster should be doing is attaining a basic understanding of CICO before doling out opinions on it...Mazintrov13 wrote: »People are missing my point. The natural question that comes from reading this thread's title is "Why is CICO overrated?"
Understand that this conversation had filled 7 pages before I spoke up, so I acknowledge this isn't a commonly made argument, but I wish people were willing to at least consider a unique opinion instead of all-out attacking anyone who disagrees. I like to challenge people, I'm not malicious; my apologies if that wasn't clear from the outset. I'll re-state my point briefly.
If (I'm not saying it's the absolute truth), if CICO is overrated, it (IMO) could only possibly be overrated with respect to the remarkable amount of focus and self-control it takes to use the principles of CICO to change yourself in a positive way.
What good is information if one lacks the means (in this case, the 'behavior') to effectively use it to better their circumstances?
That is my point.
You should be saying calorie counting not CICO and understand the difference between the references
7 -
Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
How is it not simple? It may a guesstimate, but it is simple...4 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »CICO thinking is like when we thought the earth was flat 500 years ago. I ate about the same calories at 400lbs that I do at 195. But now it's not processed junk.
There are so many factors that effect weight. Gender age fitness genetics stress sleep menstruation etc etc. To think that a simple math equation if energy expenditure regulates weight is ludicrous.
BTW, up until a few years ago I used to think calories caused me to be obese. I'm glad I know better now.
So you were diligently tracking calorie intake while obese - weighing and recording all your foods, and are doing so now as well? I too eat more calories now that I’m slimmer than before I lost weight - but it’s because I’m far more active than my previously Sedentary self - so again, CICO is still in play but my balance has shifted, I have a higher CO from activity than I did from the extra pounds, therefore my CI is higher as well (I’m in maintenance).
All the factors you list do play a part in our overall health and well being. Some of them directly contribute to the CO number, some impact your ability to stick with a program, some result in water weight fluctuations. They don’t negate CICO.
So if it wasn’t Calories that causes you to be obese, what was it?16 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Aztec4Life wrote: »CICO thinking is like when we thought the earth was flat 500 years ago. I ate about the same calories at 400lbs that I do at 195. But now it's not processed junk.
There are so many factors that effect weight. Gender age fitness genetics stress sleep menstruation etc etc. To think that a simple math equation if energy expenditure regulates weight is ludicrous.
BTW, up until a few years ago I used to think calories caused me to be obese. I'm glad I know better now.
So you were diligently tracking calorie intake while obese - weighing and recording all your foods, and are doing so now as well? I too eat more calories now that I’m slimmer than before I lost weight - but it’s because I’m far more active than my previously Sedentary self - so again, CICO is still in play but my balance has shifted, I have a higher CO from activity than I did from the extra pounds, therefore my CI is higher as well (I’m in maintenance).
All the factors you list do play a part in our overall health and well being. Some of them directly contribute to the CO number, some impact your ability to stick with a program, some result in water weight fluctuations. They don’t negate CICO.
So if it wasn’t Calories that causes you to be obese, what was it?
LOL. I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.
I'll put in an early guess - "teh insulinz!1!!!".14 -
Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
How is it not simple? It may a guesstimate, but it is simple...
It really is.
People get hung up on how we don't know everything that goes into CI. Since CI=A+B+C+D+E and the exact values of A through E are unknown (although they can be estimated well), they complain that you can't know CI exactly. Same with CO, and with that one there may be inputs we don't even know about. Oh, that makes it impossible, they say.
But that's missing the forest for the trees.
All you need to lose weight is to change the inputs so CI<CO.
SO although we don't know for sure what CI and CO are, we CAN easily find out of they are CI=CO, CI<CO, or CI>CO, and we can do things that we know for certain will decrease CI or increase CO.
So it's simple.
The difficulty (and why it may not be easy) is that some people find it hard, for lots of reasons, to decrease CI or increase CO, but that does not mean CICO is wrong or "overrated." I personally think understanding the task you need to accomplish (here, decreasing CI and/or decreasing CO) and setting that part to rest makes it easier to then figure out how to accomplish it (which will be individual).
So many people seem to want to talk themselves into the idea that if they are gaining they might be eating too much, but also might just be eating too little and so it's important to figure out the exact right calories and exact right macros and exact right foods for it even to work at all, and I think that often keeps them from focusing on the main goal or from figuring out why they are not actually achieving CI<CO. I think a healthful diet is important and CAN make it easily to decrease CI (especially if one is eating a poor diet currently), but understanding that the goal is to decrease CI and that CI<CO is how weight loss works is important.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Munchberry wrote: »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).
Except with all things with the human body it is never quite as simple as it seems. I used to eye roll and tell people it was simple math. No more.
It is simple math. Working out what the numbers in that formula are for the individual takes a little experimentation because there are things that affect CI. But the formula stands.
Well, to be fair, for some people it's more complicated due to some people wringing more calories out of food than other people, but we're talking margins here, you know? CO is also a crap shoot on how efficient you are at exercise too.
Again, this is just margins, but it's also close enough is good enough but it's also sometimes masked by the dreaded water weight on the scale and people get frustrated because they don't know this.
I just noticed I put CI when I meant CO. And now it's way too late to correct and this will haunt me in five years.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions