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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I have never seen anyone here claim that our bodies don't have specific nutritional needs, needs that go beyond just calories.
Are you sure you aren't simply misunderstanding some people who are arguing that our weight (which is just one part of our physical state) is determined by the balance of calories in versus calories out?
I really do think the problem is people skimming through threads and seeing what they want to see.
I mean if an OP just posts that they can't lose weight even though they're eating clean, sure they might just get told that it doesn't matter what they eat, calories determine weight loss. Because we can only respond to the info we're given, and deal with the immediate problem at hand. And even then, I'd guess some posters will ask them to open their food log and suggest a food scale.
And if someone ASKS about nutrition, they'll get more nuanced answers about nutrition. But if they ask about weight loss, we're not going to dissect every aspect of their health and well being, we're going to talk about weight loss and calories.
This is a public Internet forum, not a consult with a doctor, RD, and therapist
I do make a basic assumption (unless I see things in the post that suggest otherwise) that people posting here are aware of things like vitamins and understand that they play a role in our wellbeing.
I know not everyone has an understanding of basic nutrition and sometimes it is necessary for threads to veer into those areas even when they begin with a focus on weight loss, but when someone is asking how to lose weight, I think it's ridiculous to assume they also need a lecture on, say, making sure they get enough vitamin C.12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra. 14 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
I've been posting here for a few years now. Sadly, it isn't unnecessary to sometimes let people know that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight. Many people don't fully understand how weight loss happens -- they think you need a specific macro range in order to lose weight or that you must "eat clean" or that exercise is required.
We're not typing this stuff just for the fun of it. Those of us who have been helping people for a while have observed the questions that people have, the general types of things that many new to MFP don't seem to know. I don't think any of us would be educating others about calorie deficits if we felt it was unnecessary.
When you see people say "Eat what you want within your calorie goal," that's advice for *weight loss*. You'll see that in threads where people are asking about how to lose weight or why they aren't losing weight. If you'd like to see some different types of advice, check out threads where people are asking for specific nutritional advice (like how to get more vegetables in their diets, how much protein they need, etc).19 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
In my experience here, far more newbies know (or think they know) how to eat "healthy". Most of them are confused about calories and what hey need to do to lose weight.16 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
But how else would you respond to the numerous posts that begin "I'm eating [insert named food plan] and I never cheat and I'm not losing weight and I'm hungry all the time? All I can think of is a big plate of [insert food prohibited by current diet] and I just don't know what I'm doing wrong!"?
If not a majority, a good minority of new posters (and by extension people new to the site) really don't understand that weight loss comes down to calories, and whatever food plan they're using will only help them lose if it causes them to eat fewer calories than they burn. They tend to use the diary function to track the kinds of foods they're eating rather than the quantity, because they're been convinced by relentless diet industry advertising that weight will magically fall off if they just follow the plan. They will fail again and again if they don't get a grasp on how weight loss actually happens. I've yet to see a thread involving a veteran poster that doesn't also mention nutrition and saity, but when the question is how to lose weight, of course the answers will focus on...how to lose weight.12 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
Bear in mind that you have a multitude of people in various states of health and wellness. You have people at 40% bodyfat and people at <10%, some looking to create a deficit, others maintaining, and others in surplus, so making a generalization without understanding the context isn't going to come across well.
The reason people are adamant about CICO is twofold - first of all it's an objective truth. Secondly it provides people wanting to lose weight an understanding that you don't have to restrict yourself from calorie dense food to lose weight.11 -
mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters.
For anything? No, that's not the primary advice on this forum, so it's weird to claim people must conform to that idea. Many people (including me) routinely give advice re protein and re satiety (and how variable it can be) and re nutrition and how important it is for health. It would be hard to find a post from a regular that says, say, having a good overall diet isn't good for health or that protein doesn't matter for things like muscle maintenance, and when people do take the alternative position (protein doesn't matter!), they get major pushback.If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all?
I don't think tracking macros (beyond protein) matters for most people, actually, and MFP is not a great place to track nutrients (I do it at Cron). But the answer is nutrition and satiety.Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
For most, if you are obese, losing weight is the best thing you can do for your health (apart from something like quitting smoking). Yes, nutrition matters, but some find it hard to adjust their diet right away, they find it overwhelming or have the idea they cannot lose if they keep eating the foods they like (in any amount), so it's important IMO to stress both that you don't have to change your diet right away if you cut calories, first, and, second, that even if you improve your diet (and not all fat people eat nutritionally poor diets, I did not), you can still include the foods you love that may not seem like diet foods. Too many people see it as a choice between not thinking about what you eat at all, vs eating only chicken breast and vegetables (no oil!), and stereotypically "healthy" stuff.
And again I think people on MFP often talk up and give good examples for what is a well rounded, satisfying, and nutrient-dense diet; I certainly try to!7 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
I've been on this forum for about 5.5 years...ironically enough there are a great many people who don't know how weight loss/management works. There are a lot of people who don't even understand what a calorie deficit is or that their target given to them by MFP is their calorie deficit.
A lot of times, people just need to focus on the basics first and let things evolve. I think deep down, people know what quality nutrition is and in my experience, when people start logging, their diets eventually evolve to some extent or another.
I think you will also see more in depth nutritional information provided in the Food and Nutrition boards vs the General weight loss board.
7 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
(1) You'd be surprised at how many people don't understand that a calorie deficit is what matters for weight loss.
(2) Maybe I'm weird, but for me eating what I want means a primarily nutrient dense diet with some nice restaurants and treats included. I don't assume that what someone else wants is all fast food or all cake or whatever or that they won't want to eat a good diet nutritionally. Plus, even if they wanted to eat the strawman only junk food diet, they know that's not actually ideal -- who doesn't know they should eat vegetables, have adequate protein, etc?10 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
If you look at the state of the dieting industry and media reporting on diets, it's quite easy to see that no, most people aren't aware that you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. A lot of people think that you need to eat certain food or foods in certain proportions or restrict or eliminate certain foods and the weight will magically fall off.
A great many of the posts that are worded "eat whatever you want" are aimed at erasing the mentality that tells you that you need to eliminate certain foods from your diet in order to lose weight, and it usually goes hand in hand with the advice to eat nourishing food at the same time.
The greatest driver of health is maintaining a healthy weight. You can eat a really nutritious diet and be obese (there are a couple of us posting in this thread who lived this example) and be at a far greater risk to your health than if you were eating a less than ideal diet and at a healthy weight.
This isn't to say that it's okay to just have a free for all of dubious food as long as you maintain a healthy weight. The ideal would be to have a nutritious diet and maintain a healthy weight. The point I'm making is that you don't need to be 100% "pure" in your food choices if you maintain a healthy body weight and exercise. Many people have been led to believe otherwise by the dieting industry, and disabusing them of that notion is a good thing.13 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
This is fun read! >>>> http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
12 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
20 -
WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.3 -
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/69/6/1189/4714941
In response to those who lose weight have screwed up metabolisms:
RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35).
CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
I’m not sure this study says what you think it says. This is a National Weight Control Registry study. To be enrolled in the study you have to have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least one year. Among THOSE specific individuals there is not a significant RMR difference. That’s why they’re in the study, and why they haven’t regained the weight. Unfortunately, the majority of individuals don’t keep it off for a year. They regain the weight and experience sustained reductions in RMR. But those individuals are not in this study. I think if you read the study abstract you’ll see that they are clear that this finding is not generalizable.
I think people regain the weight after losing it because they go back to the same behavior and eating habits they had at a higher weight, not because their RMR is reduced to the point where they start gaining weight. Also, people who lose weight will experience a reduction in their RMR. This is normal and expected because you have less mass and therefore need less energy. I would expect the RMR of a 110 pound person to be much less then that of a 300 pound person.
Another example, Susie is 200 pounds. Her TDEE is 2,500 calories a day. She starts eating 2,000 calories a day and loses 50 pounds. At 150 pounds, her new TDEE is 2,000 calories a day. If Susie continues eating 2,000 calories a day and her TDEE stays at 2,000, I don't see how Susie will ever regain the weight. If Susie decides she has reached her goal weight, thank goodness now she now she can start eating large portions again and stop exercising, and goes back to eating 2,500 calories a day, she will gain the weight back.
Note: these numbers are made up, if you disagree with the my point, then feel free to do so, but please don't argue with me that a 200 pound person doesn't have a TDEE or 2,500 calories or that no one can lose weight eating 2,000 calories a day, that was not the point of this illustration.9 -
I think what the research shows is that significant weight loss results in long lasting changes in BMR/TDEE, so there’s no need for her to return to her previous level of eating in order to regain weight. She may regain weight at a caloric intake that would result in weight loss for most individuals without a history of significant weight loss. Sad, but true. It’s why permanent weight loss is as difficult as it is, especially for the formerly obese. Unfortunately almost all of us lack access to a detailed medical calculation of our individual TDEE to guide our choice of maintenance calories.10
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.14 -
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.
https://studyfinds.org/dieting-irregular-eating-habits-weight-gain/
@weequay this seems to support your last statement in my view.14 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
What point is that?
From the OP of the thread posted: "You can eat McDonalds everyday and still lose weight. Now, I’m not saying to eat McDonalds everyday, of course. Healthy foods, rich in nutrition and sustenance is the key to feeling energetic, keeping bloat away, sleeping well, having your body function awesomely, etc."9 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
What is LOL.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
What point is that?
From the OP of the thread posted: "You can eat McDonalds everyday and still lose weight. Now, I’m not saying to eat McDonalds everyday, of course. Healthy foods, rich in nutrition and sustenance is the key to feeling energetic, keeping bloat away, sleeping well, having your body function awesomely, etc."
QFT6 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
Please explain how this proves your point?
But reading your post, I still think you don't get what is meant by CICO. CICO is not a tool. It is not a way of eating. It is not a good methodology. It is a simple statement relating energy (calories) consumed to energy expended.
If you want to discuss counting calories as a tool, methodology or way of eating, that is a different discussion and will need to focus on "diet" and macros and what is filling vs "empty calories". But that discussion is not about CICO. It is about calorie counting.
CICO is in play regardless of how you choose to eat.9 -
@mutantspicy
I like how this most recent thread is shaping out.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10658915/who-eats-what-they-want-within-a-certain-calorie-deficit-of-course-and-still-looses#latest5 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
The poster you were quoting was trying to find a thread where no one brought up the importance of good nutrition in the context of using CICO (energy balance) to lose weight. They are saying that they still can't find it after searching. I notice you haven't posted an example either, even though you said it happens all the time in this "culture of conformity".
15 -
Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)5 -
Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Nope - my greek yogurt with prepackaged granola and berries, my soup made with frozen vegetables, boxed chicken broth, lean ground beef, dried pasta and canned tomatoes do not make me feel like garbage. Nor does pizza, wine, and ice cream; eaten in moderation as part of an overall calorie appropriate diet. Nor is a 1200 calorie deficit appropriate for me or for most people - I'm already at a healthy weight, and even when I was losing, 0.5lb-1 lb /week was the rate of loss appropriate for my goals.
21
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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