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.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
jefamer2017 wrote: »All calories are equal but not all calories are equally nutritious. I think that's the confusion people have. I could eat 1500 calories of little Debbie's and lose weight but I'd feel awful and probably lose hair and my nails would be brittle. For weight loss yes it's CICO but it's not necessarily good for nutrition.
CICO has literally nothing to do with nutrition, and I'm not sure why that's so confusing to people. It just means if you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight. It doesn't mean you pay no attention to what you eat, or you aren't supposed to care about other aspects of your diet. What you use those calories for is up to you. Denying CICO means denying that ultimately calories determine weight maintenance.
People deny CICO because they want to believe there is a magic pill and secret conspiracy that's keeping them overweight, not their lack of consistent effort. It is weird how our species survived and thrived while obtaining, preparing, and eating food was the center of our universe, but now people seem to think life would be awful if they had to spend 3 minutes a day logging their food and an hour on Sunday prepping.
Again. I literally just said that CICO is for weight loss but not necessary for nutrition. I do know that many people think they can eat as many avocados and nuts as they want because it's healthy and plenty of people who think paleo is going to help them lose weight because it's the way our bodies are supposed to be nourished.15 -
It is around digestion.
I think the other argument you some times get against all calories being equal is that their is suppose to be a slight difference in additional calories consumed from digestion of a protein, fat, and carb.
"Protein takes the most energy to digest (20-30% of total calories in protein eaten go to digesting it). Next is carbohydrates (5-10%) and then fats (0-3%). Thus, if you eat 100 calories from protein, your body uses 20-30 of those calories to digest and absorb the protein."
Certainly, the CICO model is weak in that it doesn't factor in appetite. Your ability to stick to CICO is influenced by what you eat.46 -
Because it sucks to be hungry and people will fixate on that part of "eating less."10
-
It is around digestion.
I think the other argument you some times get against all calories being equal is that their is suppose to be a slight difference in additional calories consumed from digestion of a protein, fat, and carb.
"Protein takes the most energy to digest (20-30% of total calories in protein eaten go to digesting it). Next is carbohydrates (5-10%) and then fats (0-3%). Thus, if you eat 100 calories from protein, your body uses 20-30 of those calories to digest and absorb the protein."
Certainly, the CICO model is weak in that it doesn't factor in appetite. Your ability to stick to CICO is influenced by what you eat.
Yes, I ate too many carbs in bread and potato form the other day and I was starving. My protein was low that day too.10 -
I am gonna go out and try to answer why I think people deny CICO in a way that isn't simply "they wunna blame something else and not themselves".
I think many people simply are not robotic with their measurements. "This looks like a cup" and "that looks like 5 ounces" when cooking in the morning turns into "I know it was 1 cup and 5 ounces" in the evening because brains are funny.
And even then, measuring 1 cup 10 times will for sure give you 10 different weights, nobody does such activities exactly the same over and over.
Next, a serving size is 1 cup, or 250 grams of X cereal for 200 calories. You measure 1 cup and ta da 200 calories... but its weight is actually 400 grams... To this day I rarely find ANY foods that match volume to weight as listed.
Caloric output varies day by day too. We like to see 500 less a day is EXACTLY 1 pound a week... 0.9 pounds means something is wrong! But really, every day we naturally use different calories even if we think we doing the same exact things. A few extra steps here, a little less of this or that, etc. We simply are not wired to account for every caloric expenditure.
Most people mainly learn solely by seeing. Humans are wired this way. So, they may hear CICO but their personal experiences differ. It is WAY easier to say CICO is wrong than it is to perfectly calculate calorie expenditure every minute of every day and compare with perfect calorie intake.
I am a firm believer in CICO. I even know when it feels like its wrong, its me. I know I under estimate my IN and over estimate my OUT. I match my daily goals to accommodate for this... so an outside observer might think my diet is crazy lol.21 -
It is around digestion.
I think the other argument you some times get against all calories being equal is that their is suppose to be a slight difference in additional calories consumed from digestion of a protein, fat, and carb.
"Protein takes the most energy to digest (20-30% of total calories in protein eaten go to digesting it). Next is carbohydrates (5-10%) and then fats (0-3%). Thus, if you eat 100 calories from protein, your body uses 20-30 of those calories to digest and absorb the protein."
Certainly, the CICO model is weak in that it doesn't factor in appetite. Your ability to stick to CICO is influenced by what you eat.
To repeat again, CICO does not say - Eat whatever you want. Eat 2000 calories of bread. Nutrition doesn't matter.
CICO says - IF you eat the right amount of calories, THEN you will lose weight.
Figuring out HOW to eat the right amount of calories is ABSOLUTELY a part of the plan for anyone who successfully loses weight by calorie counting. No one has ever said it wasn't. The only people who think that are people who don't understand what CICO is.
For some people, the best way to successfully eat a deficit is LCHF. For some it's vegetarian. For some it's focusing on whole foods. For some it's getting plenty of protein and fiber. For some it's ordering Jenny Craig food. For some it's doing IF and not eating until noon. But they all lost weight because of the energy balance equation that is CICO.54 -
jefamer2017 wrote: »jefamer2017 wrote: »All calories are equal but not all calories are equally nutritious. I think that's the confusion people have. I could eat 1500 calories of little Debbie's and lose weight but I'd feel awful and probably lose hair and my nails would be brittle. For weight loss yes it's CICO but it's not necessarily good for nutrition.
CICO has literally nothing to do with nutrition, and I'm not sure why that's so confusing to people. It just means if you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight. It doesn't mean you pay no attention to what you eat, or you aren't supposed to care about other aspects of your diet. What you use those calories for is up to you. Denying CICO means denying that ultimately calories determine weight maintenance.
People deny CICO because they want to believe there is a magic pill and secret conspiracy that's keeping them overweight, not their lack of consistent effort. It is weird how our species survived and thrived while obtaining, preparing, and eating food was the center of our universe, but now people seem to think life would be awful if they had to spend 3 minutes a day logging their food and an hour on Sunday prepping.
Again. I literally just said that CICO is for weight loss but not necessary for nutrition. I do know that many people think they can eat as many avocados and nuts as they want because it's healthy and plenty of people who think paleo is going to help them lose weight because it's the way our bodies are supposed to be nourished.
And I really wasn't criticizing you in my post, I was saying I don't understand why people are confused in the way you said they are, but I apologize if it read that way.11 -
It is around digestion.
I think the other argument you some times get against all calories being equal is that their is suppose to be a slight difference in additional calories consumed from digestion of a protein, fat, and carb.
"Protein takes the most energy to digest (20-30% of total calories in protein eaten go to digesting it). Next is carbohydrates (5-10%) and then fats (0-3%). Thus, if you eat 100 calories from protein, your body uses 20-30 of those calories to digest and absorb the protein."
Certainly, the CICO model is weak in that it doesn't factor in appetite. Your ability to stick to CICO is influenced by what you eat.
To repeat again, CICO does not say - Eat whatever you want. Eat 2000 calories of bread. Nutrition doesn't matter.
CICO says - IF you eat the right amount of calories, THEN you will lose weight.
Figuring out HOW to eat the right amount of calories is ABSOLUTELY a part of the plan for anyone who successfully loses weight by calorie counting. No one has ever said it wasn't. The only people who think that are people who don't understand what CICO is.
For some people, the best way to successfully eat a deficit is LCHF. For some it's vegetarian. For some it's focusing on whole foods. For some it's getting plenty of protein and fiber. For some it's ordering Jenny Craig food. For some it's doing IF and not eating until noon. But they all lost weight because of the energy balance equation that is CICO.
I'm still not getting the part in bold.
26 -
So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
Congratulations on your weight loss, and I'm glad that eating basically anything you want is working for you. However, I think calling it a "simple scientific concept" is a bit glib.
Yes, scientifically, CICO is simple. Eat less than you burn. People don't actually have trouble grasping that concept, what they have trouble with is incorporating the behaviors needed to get their bodies into that ratio.
For some people, it's easy. For others, there are more challenges. Some people have medical issues or physical limitations. Others have issues with certain foods, and need to figure what types of foods help them feel full or how to structure their meal plan so they don't have moments where they end up ravenous and make poor choices. Some people need to completely overhaul how they eat; it's not uncommon to see people switch to preparing more meals at home. Other people may have cultural or familial expectations around food, or struggle to increase their activity level (no, you don't need to exercise to lose weight per se, but for a lot of people, having that extra calorie burn allows them to eat the amount that keeps them on the right track). Others have lifestyles or commitments which make getting into a weight loss routine a challenge. Others struggle with mental health issues.
None of the things I mentioned above mean that a person cannot lose weight, but it also doesn't mean that they just don't understand weight loss. There are people on this site who have been here for years who have regained weight, or still have difficulty moderating certain foods, or are still working on figuring out how to maintain weight without slipping into old habits. All of them know how the "simple" process works, but that doesn't mean that's it's always going to be easy in practice.
And to be fair, many people are on this site because they need the tools provided here in order to track their intake and help them get into that CICO ratio, so even if the concept is "simple," losing weight wasn't exactly "simple" without having that to help them.30 -
I believe that it isn't CICO people are really debating. It's CALORIE COUNTING. A lot of people don't believe that calorie counting "works," by which they mean that they either dislike doing it or that they do it for a while, then stop and gain the weight back (which has happened to me many times).
If you ask someone who is a "CICO denier:" Do you mean to say that you don't believe that you will lose weight if you eat fewer calories than your body burns? They will capitulate.
I have demonstrated MFP to a wide range of people and ALMOST EVERY TIME people respond with "I could never do that." Also, I have several friends (including my wife) who have lost weight without counting calories. Some do a low-carb diet, some do a diet where a wide range of foods is placed off limits. In either case, it's just a way to limit calories. Low-carb has the added advantage of being a diuretic, where you dump a certain amount of "water weight" in the first week or two. None of this contradicts the basic fact that CICO ultimately rules weight loss.25 -
Eating 2000 calories of lard vs 2000 calories of pure protein does still follow CICO. The protein digestion just increases the OUT portion of CICO. I think people trying to argue this sort of way are purposely trying to find the 1% of cases to try and disprove the 99%. Science doesn't work that way though.
One thing I have always wondered is if chronic malnutrition can cause organs to not function at their peak performance, potentially resulting in lower calorie usage or would it be simply less efficient usage and thus no change. I honestly have no clue on this. Just throwing that out there... would love to hear from someone in the know on that one.5 -
So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I hope you do not have your hopes too high that people who deny weight management is about calories will admit you are right just because you lose weight. Pretty sure they aren't going to change.
However, there are others who just don't know that it is that simple because of all the fad diet noise and may benefit from your story.4 -
There's a large group of dieters that struggle because of the factors you mention, practical implementations of the simple concept of calories in-calories out - but those are not the "CICO deniers". The CICO deniers are real, and they come in a range of colors, some refuse to believe the basic concept of calories, some believe their metabolism is "broken", some ask if they are eating too little to lose weight, some can't understand that double portion means twice the calories, some think that if they only eat "clean", they will lose weight, or ask what exercises they should do to burn "belly fat". (I don't see overhauling one's diet, or cooking more, as problematic, at all - but I do have an impression that many people think cooking is boring and pointless.)So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
Congratulations on your weight loss, and I'm glad that eating basically anything you want is working for you. However, I think calling it a "simple scientific concept" is a bit glib.
Yes, scientifically, CICO is simple. Eat less than you burn. People don't actually have trouble grasping that concept, what they have trouble with is incorporating the behaviors needed to get their bodies into that ratio.
For some people, it's easy. For others, there are more challenges. Some people have medical issues or physical limitations. Others have issues with certain foods, and need to figure what types of foods help them feel full or how to structure their meal plan so they don't have moments where they end up ravenous and make poor choices. Some people need to completely overhaul how they eat; it's not uncommon to see people switch to preparing more meals at home. Other people may have cultural or familial expectations around food, or struggle to increase their activity level (no, you don't need to exercise to lose weight per se, but for a lot of people, having that extra calorie burn allows them to eat the amount that keeps them on the right track). Others have lifestyles or commitments which make getting into a weight loss routine a challenge. Others struggle with mental health issues.
None of the things I mentioned above mean that a person cannot lose weight, but it also doesn't mean that they just don't understand weight loss. There are people on this site who have been here for years who have regained weight, or still have difficulty moderating certain foods, or are still working on figuring out how to maintain weight without slipping into old habits. All of them know how the "simple" process works, but that doesn't mean that's it's always going to be easy in practice.
And to be fair, many people are on this site because they need the tools provided here in order to track their intake and help them get into that CICO ratio, so even if the concept is "simple," losing weight wasn't exactly "simple" without having that to help them.23 -
I can only tell you why I didn’t want to believe it was just CICO. Because if it’s that simple then I couldn’t make excuses anymore. But if it’s some magical elusive thing then it’s not my fault and I didn’t truly have to put in the work. I’m glad I finally came around and now I’m putting in the work.44
-
One thing I will admit is that I am equally as dismissive of the woo that they believe, so it often comes across as just being convinced by a different book/product/TV personality than they are, not science that easily disproves what they believe. They have been told there is science behind what they believe. In a debate, they feel like they are on even footing at worst.12
-
terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
Very well said. Our bodies are not simple. There is so much people don't understand about how hormones control metabolism, cravings, hunger, fat storage, muscle development, etc. CICO works, but for some it is much harder to master, and not because they are lazy or not trying.35 -
Eating 2000 calories of lard vs 2000 calories of pure protein does still follow CICO. The protein digestion just increases the OUT portion of CICO. I think people trying to argue this sort of way are purposely trying to find the 1% of cases to try and disprove the 99%. Science doesn't work that way though.
This part above contradicts original poster who said "eat" calories. To take CICO to its full definition, you have to consider the "out" part as well. "out" formula is not exercise alone, it may be the source of the calories you eat.
When people debate CICO, most are referring to the effort calorie counting strategy and/or exercise, rather than the formula. Personally I find calorie counting helpful, but sugar spikes ruin my ability to stick with the counting part. Also if caffeine, high protein, or things other than 'eating' help the energy out, even a little, it makes it easier in the long run.14 -
Not all, go in the keto community for example, many will claim carbs are bad and evil, then you have other groups who blame sugar and when I listen to the nonsense being thrown by my coworkers about nutrition....I get the impression the majority of the people have no clue how weight loss really works. My mom for example thinks she eats 1200 calories, but she doesn't weigh anything and visually I can tell she eats more calories than that, but she denies it.terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
Very well said. Our bodies are not simple. There is so much people don't understand about how hormones control metabolism, cravings, hunger, fat storage, muscle development, etc. CICO works, but for some it is much harder to master, and not because they are lazy or not trying.
18 -
kommodevaran wrote: »I have spent four years investigating this fascinating phenomenon, and this is my conclusion so far: Human beings are social animals. So people don't want easy and comfortable strategies to effectively reach their weightloss and fitness goals, people want to do pointless and hard, but also exciting, symbolic weightloss things, so they can feel that they're doing something, impress their peers, share struggles with them, and then have the necessary excuses to sabotage themselves, because people don't want to be outcasts. People are also deeply religious, even in our seemingly secular societies; a constant need to confess and repent for indulging in worldly pleasures. People also don't easily grasp concepts, so they want and need clear-cut rules, recipes and fat burning exercises. People, sheeple.
Yeah, this rings true to me. I think you are on to something!3 -
Eating 2000 calories of lard vs 2000 calories of pure protein does still follow CICO. The protein digestion just increases the OUT portion of CICO. I think people trying to argue this sort of way are purposely trying to find the 1% of cases to try and disprove the 99%. Science doesn't work that way though.
One thing I have always wondered is if chronic malnutrition can cause organs to not function at their peak performance, potentially resulting in lower calorie usage or would it be simply less efficient usage and thus no change. I honestly have no clue on this. Just throwing that out there... would love to hear from someone in the know on that one.
The thing is all of those things will result in a greater deficit, by either reducing effective CI or increasing actual CO.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions