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 ?
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »TicoCortez wrote: »
Dom is funny and obviously satirical but most of the guys and gals I know that are in fantastic shape follow strict "bro diets" (chicken breast and broccoli) and "bro splits" (low frequency/ high volume training).
correlation =/= casuation
I agree that a lot of it is correlation. Still, me thinks that healthy food (high fiber, high protein, low sugar) = more energy = harder training and better recovery.
And for people who have no interest in "harder training" and following bro diets and bro splits to achieve "fantastic shape"? What do you recommend for them? Still need to avoid eating whatever your definition of processed food/junk food is?
I recommend trying eating a diet full of whole foods for a month and pay attention to how it affects your cognition and energy levels. If you think eating pasta if worth it still then go for it.
Have any objective evidence supporting superiority of this practice?
Try google. Keywords: inflammation, gut micro-biome, cognition, sugar/ glucose.
I find when people are challenged they do one of two things depending on confidence. The unconfident will double down, bring up past achievements, degrees, etc. and distinctly no objective evidence. The confident will take a moment to ensure that what they believe is true is actually true and to expand their knowledge base.
One side wants to be right, the other seeks truth.
I don't necessarily agree with how you characterize the two positions.
I would say that
One side wants to win the conversation, the other wants to be right/seek the truth. But that's nitpicking pedantry.
The second group knows that asking the right question is almost always more important than getting the right answer.1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »If there is one thing I've learned from the MFP Debate forum, it's that there are a lot of people out there who aren't familiar with the concept of "debate". I guess it explains our current political climate (at least in the US) where if someone disagrees with you they are assumed to be evil, stupid, unpatriotic, criminal, and barely fit to live without a second thought.
Debate is healthy and actually necessary. Having your opinion challenged gives you the opportunity to ensure you fully understand the issue and determine how firmly you hold your opinion. And it opens the door to the idea that changing your mind when confronted with facts you weren't aware of is not necessarily a bad thing. Disagreeing with someone isn't rude, disrespectful, or an attack. It's a part of thoughtful conversation.
The demise of debate, compromise, and understanding of the scientific process are all leading us as a society down a dangerous path. This is my deep thought of the day, and it was brought to you by "Why Do People Deny CICO?". I really hope there are some ACV or starvation mode threads today, I need to lighten up a little here
I don't mind people debating what someone says. We run into problems when people either attribute something completely different, or debate based on faulty understanding.
I've seen many variations of, "I'm not saying CICO doesn't work, just it's not the complete picture."
Weight is a very course measure of health and fitness. It doesn't tell the whole story. But many seem to jump on that and suggest the person saying it is trying to say CICO doesn't work.
Odd, I didn't see that said at all. But there are those who will begin arguing that someone said just that, when they didn't.
Context matters here. When someone posts that they can't lose weight, and they know CICO "works", but are they eating too many refined carbs, or should they go plant-based or do intermittent fasting, the answer will always be some version of "You will lose weight if you are in a calorie deficient, regardless of food choices or timing. Period." The poster isn't asking about health and fitness, they are asking why the scale isn't moving, and deserve a direct answer to their question,
Too many people misunderstand what CICO means at it's stripped down core, and often believe that in order for it to "work" they have to also manage insulin spikes, or gut health, or inflammation, or eat things they don't like or give up things they do. The answer is always "Eat fewer calories then you are expending, and you will lose weight."
Of course nutrition and lifestyle matter in the context of health and fitness, and as repeated endlessly on thest boards people need to pay attention to these things. But people also need to understand weight loss is not "CICO and - ". Once this is clear, they are free to build a food plan that meets their nutritional, calorie and satiety requirements without the burden of restricting or eliminating random foods in order for CICO to "work", and are more likely to be successful in meeting their goals.
edited for clarity13 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »TicoCortez wrote: »
Dom is funny and obviously satirical but most of the guys and gals I know that are in fantastic shape follow strict "bro diets" (chicken breast and broccoli) and "bro splits" (low frequency/ high volume training).
correlation =/= casuation
I agree that a lot of it is correlation. Still, me thinks that healthy food (high fiber, high protein, low sugar) = more energy = harder training and better recovery.
And for people who have no interest in "harder training" and following bro diets and bro splits to achieve "fantastic shape"? What do you recommend for them? Still need to avoid eating whatever your definition of processed food/junk food is?
I recommend trying eating a diet full of whole foods for a month and pay attention to how it affects your cognition and energy levels. If you think eating pasta if worth it still then go for it.
Have any objective evidence supporting superiority of this practice?
Try google. Keywords: inflammation, gut micro-biome, cognition, sugar/ glucose.
I find when people are challenged they do one of two things depending on confidence. The unconfident will double down, bring up past achievements, degrees, etc. and distinctly no objective evidence. The confident will take a moment to ensure that what they believe is true is actually true and to expand their knowledge base.
One side wants to be right, the other seeks truth.
I don't necessarily agree with how you characterize the two positions.
I would say that
One side wants to win the conversation, the other wants to be right/seek the truth. But that's nitpicking pedantry.
The second group knows that asking the right question is almost always more important than getting the right answer.
Of course - I framed the scenario because I want to be right
10 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »TicoCortez wrote: »
Dom is funny and obviously satirical but most of the guys and gals I know that are in fantastic shape follow strict "bro diets" (chicken breast and broccoli) and "bro splits" (low frequency/ high volume training).
correlation =/= casuation
I agree that a lot of it is correlation. Still, me thinks that healthy food (high fiber, high protein, low sugar) = more energy = harder training and better recovery.
And for people who have no interest in "harder training" and following bro diets and bro splits to achieve "fantastic shape"? What do you recommend for them? Still need to avoid eating whatever your definition of processed food/junk food is?
I recommend trying eating a diet full of whole foods for a month and pay attention to how it affects your cognition and energy levels. If you think eating pasta if worth it still then go for it.
Have any objective evidence supporting superiority of this practice?
Try google. Keywords: inflammation, gut micro-biome, cognition, sugar/ glucose.
I find when people are challenged they do one of two things depending on confidence. The unconfident will double down, bring up past achievements, degrees, etc. and distinctly no objective evidence. The confident will take a moment to ensure that what they believe is true is actually true and to expand their knowledge base.
One side wants to be right, the other seeks truth.
I don't necessarily agree with how you characterize the two positions.
I would say that
One side wants to win the conversation, the other wants to be right/seek the truth. But that's nitpicking pedantry.
The second group knows that asking the right question is almost always more important than getting the right answer.
Of course - I framed the scenario because I want to be right
6 -
I understand the desire for CICO not to be complete, right, or whatever term is in fashion. It's an excuse. People fear success to a greater degree than they fear failure.
For the sake of argument if digestive differentiation causes caloric intake to vary from one person to another...to what degree? If the calculated content is 200 kcals and one person intakes 199 and the other 201 is this meaningful? Same with adaptive thermogenesis - it's not so much the theories themselves, but the misapplication to suit a narrative of failure.
When you begin to take all of the reasons why CICO (and the implementation of calorie counting) doesn't work and weigh these against why it does....the margin of error involved in the totality of all the cons is insignificant by comparison.12 -
I have no idea who you are arguing with. Because literally no one here said that you can explain day to day fluctuations with CICO. We tell people not to worry about day to day fluctuations because CICO will determine success long term. So I mean, yeah, I agree with you, and you seem to agree with OP, and the veteran posters who are constantly accused of being in a CICO cult.
Who is arguing?
The title of the topic is "Why do people deny CICO?"
Answers are given.
Somehow, that's an argument?
They deny CICO because it doesn't explain what is happening in a short time quantum.
CICO CAN work in the long term and still be unable to explain to people what is happening to them in the short term, correct?
It is not inconsistent for BOTH to be true.
7 -
I understand the desire for CICO not to be complete, right, or whatever term is in fashion. It's an excuse. People fear success to a greater degree than they fear failure.
For the sake of argument if digestive differentiation causes caloric intake to vary from one person to another...to what degree? If the calculated content is 200 kcals and one person intakes 199 and the other 201 is this meaningful? Same with adaptive thermogenesis - it's not so much the theories themselves, but the misapplication to suit a narrative of failure.
When you begin to take all of the reasons why CICO (and the implementation of calorie counting) doesn't work and weigh these against why it does....the margin of error involved in the totality of all the cons is insignificant by comparison.
A related (and equally ridiculous) assertion is that any particular macro/food/medical condition (real or imagined) can make you gain weight (or make you fail to lose weight) when in a caloric deficit. If you take in 500 calories, you took in 500 calories, period. There's no way your body can turn that 500 calories into 700 calories, or even into 502 calories. If anything, people with medical issues which affect the CICO equation in any meaningful way would lose more weight if their body wasn't properly digesting/metabolizing the nutrients.
A condition where one absorbs, say, 450 calories from a 500 calorie meal is feasible. A situation where one absorbs 550 calories from a 500 calorie meal is not.20 -
I am admittedly pedantic. I'm an engineer that works face to face with customers. I have to be very careful with how I answer as some customers are quick to take one small part of something and run with it.
Others will miss every possibility but the one they want.
All the words matter, not just the ones you remember or what to hear.
2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I have no idea who you are arguing with. Because literally no one here said that you can explain day to day fluctuations with CICO. We tell people not to worry about day to day fluctuations because CICO will determine success long term. So I mean, yeah, I agree with you, and you seem to agree with OP, and the veteran posters who are constantly accused of being in a CICO cult.
Who is arguing?
The title of the topic is "Why do people deny CICO?"
Answers are given.
Somehow, that's an argument?
They deny CICO because it doesn't explain what is happening in a short time quantum.
CICO CAN work in the long term and still be unable to explain to people what is happening to them in the short term, correct?
It is not inconsistent for BOTH to be true.
OK, well you quoted my post both times, and it's a debate, so I assumed it was directed at me. If you were just joining the discussion of the OP, I apologize.7 -
I understand the desire for CICO not to be complete, right, or whatever term is in fashion. It's an excuse. People fear success to a greater degree than they fear failure.
For the sake of argument if digestive differentiation causes caloric intake to vary from one person to another...to what degree? If the calculated content is 200 kcals and one person intakes 199 and the other 201 is this meaningful? Same with adaptive thermogenesis - it's not so much the theories themselves, but the misapplication to suit a narrative of failure.
When you begin to take all of the reasons why CICO (and the implementation of calorie counting) doesn't work and weigh these against why it does....the margin of error involved in the totality of all the cons is insignificant by comparison.
A related (and equally ridiculous) assertion is that any particular macro/food/medical condition (real or imagined) can make you gain weight (or make you fail to lose weight) when in a caloric deficit. If you take in 500 calories, you took in 500 calories, period. There's no way your body can turn that 500 calories into 700 calories, or even into 502 calories. If anything, people with medical issues which affect the CICO equation in any meaningful way would lose more weight if their body wasn't properly digesting/metabolizing the nutrients.
A condition where one absorbs, say, 450 calories from a 500 calorie meal is feasible. A situation where one absorbs 550 calories from a 500 calorie meal is not.
Goes back to the short-term vs. long-term weight. I'm up 2 lbs because I had beer and pizza while watching the WINNIPEG JETS WIN THEIR FIRST EVER PLAYOFF GAME last night. Yeah, I was under my goal for the day (I also ran a bit), but I'm up today because of the type of food I ate. Would normally take me a couple days to flush it out.
Does nothing to say CICO is incorrect. Just says that calorie counting has issues in the short term and doesn't account for everything.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I understand the desire for CICO not to be complete, right, or whatever term is in fashion. It's an excuse. People fear success to a greater degree than they fear failure.
For the sake of argument if digestive differentiation causes caloric intake to vary from one person to another...to what degree? If the calculated content is 200 kcals and one person intakes 199 and the other 201 is this meaningful? Same with adaptive thermogenesis - it's not so much the theories themselves, but the misapplication to suit a narrative of failure.
When you begin to take all of the reasons why CICO (and the implementation of calorie counting) doesn't work and weigh these against why it does....the margin of error involved in the totality of all the cons is insignificant by comparison.
A related (and equally ridiculous) assertion is that any particular macro/food/medical condition (real or imagined) can make you gain weight (or make you fail to lose weight) when in a caloric deficit. If you take in 500 calories, you took in 500 calories, period. There's no way your body can turn that 500 calories into 700 calories, or even into 502 calories. If anything, people with medical issues which affect the CICO equation in any meaningful way would lose more weight if their body wasn't properly digesting/metabolizing the nutrients.
A condition where one absorbs, say, 450 calories from a 500 calorie meal is feasible. A situation where one absorbs 550 calories from a 500 calorie meal is not.
Goes back to the short-term vs. long-term weight. I'm up 2 lbs because I had beer and pizza while watching the WINNIPEG JETS WIN THEIR FIRST EVER PLAYOFF GAME last night. Yeah, I was under my goal for the day (I also ran a bit), but I'm up today because of the type of food I ate. Would normally take me a couple days to flush it out.
Does nothing to say CICO is incorrect. Just says that calorie counting has issues in the short term and doesn't account for everything.
I had the exact opposite experience yesterday/today. I went to an all-you-can-eat sushi bar yesterday for lunch and gorged myself - almost 2,000 calories for lunch, lots of rice and soy sauce (sodium!). I ended up over my calorie goal for the day by a couple hundred calories, but I was down 0.9 pounds on the scale at this morning's weigh-in.
The day before that, I ate pretty light (was actually slightly under my calorie goal for the day) and did both weights and cardio. The next morning I was up 1.4 pounds on the scale.
None of which means that CICO isn't true.10 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I understand the desire for CICO not to be complete, right, or whatever term is in fashion. It's an excuse. People fear success to a greater degree than they fear failure.
For the sake of argument if digestive differentiation causes caloric intake to vary from one person to another...to what degree? If the calculated content is 200 kcals and one person intakes 199 and the other 201 is this meaningful? Same with adaptive thermogenesis - it's not so much the theories themselves, but the misapplication to suit a narrative of failure.
When you begin to take all of the reasons why CICO (and the implementation of calorie counting) doesn't work and weigh these against why it does....the margin of error involved in the totality of all the cons is insignificant by comparison.
A related (and equally ridiculous) assertion is that any particular macro/food/medical condition (real or imagined) can make you gain weight (or make you fail to lose weight) when in a caloric deficit. If you take in 500 calories, you took in 500 calories, period. There's no way your body can turn that 500 calories into 700 calories, or even into 502 calories. If anything, people with medical issues which affect the CICO equation in any meaningful way would lose more weight if their body wasn't properly digesting/metabolizing the nutrients.
A condition where one absorbs, say, 450 calories from a 500 calorie meal is feasible. A situation where one absorbs 550 calories from a 500 calorie meal is not.
Goes back to the short-term vs. long-term weight. I'm up 2 lbs because I had beer and pizza while watching the WINNIPEG JETS WIN THEIR FIRST EVER PLAYOFF GAME last night. Yeah, I was under my goal for the day (I also ran a bit), but I'm up today because of the type of food I ate. Would normally take me a couple days to flush it out.
Does nothing to say CICO is incorrect. Just says that calorie counting has issues in the short term and doesn't account for everything.
I had the exact opposite experience yesterday/today. I went to an all-you-can-eat sushi bar yesterday for lunch and gorged myself - almost 2,000 calories for lunch, lots of rice and soy sauce (sodium!). I ended up over my calorie goal for the day by a couple hundred calories, but I was down 0.9 pounds on the scale at this morning's weigh-in.
The day before that, I ate pretty light (was actually slightly under my calorie goal for the day) and did both weights and cardio. The next morning I was up 1.4 pounds on the scale.
None of which means that CICO isn't true.
I agree, and thse are good examples of how CICO affect fat/muscle gain/loss but not necessarily scale weight, in the short term. As retaining water or releasing water has bigger short-term scale effects than both muscle and fat gain or loss over the short term (hours/days/even weeks) which is why so many people here urge people to look at the trends in their weight over time7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »If there is one thing I've learned from the MFP Debate forum, it's that there are a lot of people out there who aren't familiar with the concept of "debate". I guess it explains our current political climate (at least in the US) where if someone disagrees with you they are assumed to be evil, stupid, unpatriotic, criminal, and barely fit to live without a second thought.
Debate is healthy and actually necessary. Having your opinion challenged gives you the opportunity to ensure you fully understand the issue and determine how firmly you hold your opinion. And it opens the door to the idea that changing your mind when confronted with facts you weren't aware of is not necessarily a bad thing. Disagreeing with someone isn't rude, disrespectful, or an attack. It's a part of thoughtful conversation.
The demise of debate, compromise, and understanding of the scientific process are all leading us as a society down a dangerous path. This is my deep thought of the day, and it was brought to you by "Why Do People Deny CICO?". I really hope there are some ACV or starvation mode threads today, I need to lighten up a little here
I don't mind people debating what someone says. We run into problems when people either attribute something completely different, or debate based on faulty understanding.
I've seen many variations of, "I'm not saying CICO doesn't work, just it's not the complete picture."
Weight is a very course measure of health and fitness. It doesn't tell the whole story. But many seem to jump on that and suggest the person saying it is trying to say CICO doesn't work.
Odd, I didn't see that said at all. But there are those who will begin arguing that someone said just that, when they didn't.
Weight isn't meant to be a measure of health and fitness. Why are you suggesting that it is?
There are separate issues that correlate and interweave, but they are still separate. Your weight impacts your health and can impact your fitness, but it's still a separate issue.
Similarly, the people who seem to have problems with CICO have trouble separating calories from food and nutrients.
Broccoli is a food. As a food, it has properties. Some of those properties can be quantified in certain ways. One way is as a measure of the nutrients it supplies. Another is as a measure of the energy it supplies. Those measures are not the same thing. They are not the same property.
Certain foods have certain properties for certain people that make them feel certain things physiologically. This is another property that could stem from the food having either fiber, fat, starch, protein, or whatever thing it is in a particular food that works to make a particular individual get a feeling of fullness of satiety. This is not a function of the food but a reaction that varies among individuals (yes, some people are perfectly satiated by snack cakes) to the particular components of the food and has nothing to do with invalidating CICO.
And yes, I'm rambling, because I really am tired of people taking things that aren't calories and conflating them with calories. You did it here with weight. You're conflating weight with things that aren't weight. Weight isn't meant to be those things in the first place.12 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I have no idea who you are arguing with. Because literally no one here said that you can explain day to day fluctuations with CICO. We tell people not to worry about day to day fluctuations because CICO will determine success long term. So I mean, yeah, I agree with you, and you seem to agree with OP, and the veteran posters who are constantly accused of being in a CICO cult.
Who is arguing?
The title of the topic is "Why do people deny CICO?"
Answers are given.
Somehow, that's an argument?
They deny CICO because it doesn't explain what is happening in a short time quantum.
CICO CAN work in the long term and still be unable to explain to people what is happening to them in the short term, correct?
It is not inconsistent for BOTH to be true.
You haven't been around here long.
There have been plenty of posts to newbies explaining the many reasons for short term weight fluctuations, and there's even a long running thread that's stickied about it in the General Weight Loss section.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »If there is one thing I've learned from the MFP Debate forum, it's that there are a lot of people out there who aren't familiar with the concept of "debate". I guess it explains our current political climate (at least in the US) where if someone disagrees with you they are assumed to be evil, stupid, unpatriotic, criminal, and barely fit to live without a second thought.
Debate is healthy and actually necessary. Having your opinion challenged gives you the opportunity to ensure you fully understand the issue and determine how firmly you hold your opinion. And it opens the door to the idea that changing your mind when confronted with facts you weren't aware of is not necessarily a bad thing. Disagreeing with someone isn't rude, disrespectful, or an attack. It's a part of thoughtful conversation.
The demise of debate, compromise, and understanding of the scientific process are all leading us as a society down a dangerous path. This is my deep thought of the day, and it was brought to you by "Why Do People Deny CICO?". I really hope there are some ACV or starvation mode threads today, I need to lighten up a little here
I don't mind people debating what someone says. We run into problems when people either attribute something completely different, or debate based on faulty understanding.
I've seen many variations of, "I'm not saying CICO doesn't work, just it's not the complete picture."
Weight is a very course measure of health and fitness. It doesn't tell the whole story. But many seem to jump on that and suggest the person saying it is trying to say CICO doesn't work.
Odd, I didn't see that said at all. But there are those who will begin arguing that someone said just that, when they didn't.
Weight isn't meant to be a measure of health and fitness. Why are you suggesting that it is?
Because I've observed that people treat weight as an aspect of health and fitness. So I'm not sure I'm suggesting anything. Is it true or false that there are values presented that indicate healthy and unhealthy weights?
I know that, you know that. However, the topic is WHY do people deny CICO? I've offered some explanations WHY they do that.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
There are separate issues that correlate and interweave, but they are still separate. Your weight impacts your health and can impact your fitness, but it's still a separate issue.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Similarly, the people who seem to have problems with CICO have trouble separating calories from food and nutrients.
Broccoli is a food. As a food, it has properties. Some of those properties can be quantified in certain ways. One way is as a measure of the nutrients it supplies. Another is as a measure of the energy it supplies. Those measures are not the same thing. They are not the same property.
Agreed. I'm certainly not suggesting otherwise.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Certain foods have certain properties for certain people that make them feel certain things physiologically. This is another property that could stem from the food having either fiber, fat, starch, protein, or whatever thing it is in a particular food that works to make a particular individual get a feeling of fullness of satiety. This is not a function of the food but a reaction that varies among individuals (yes, some people are perfectly satiated by snack cakes) to the particular components of the food and has nothing to do with invalidating CICO.
And yes, I'm rambling, because I really am tired of people taking things that aren't calories and conflating them with calories. You did it here with weight. You're conflating weight with things that aren't weight. Weight isn't meant to be those things in the first place.
I did it, or I am observing and commenting on what people do?
I'm conflating nothing. Or at least didn't mean to. After all, I think I was saying CICO doesn't cover all those things and doesn't do a good job in the short term. Never said it was false or useless.
My explanation of WHY people deny CICO was rooted in using it to measure things it wasn't meant to measure, or at least how the scale and CICO cannot account for other factors as suggested.
I can explain WHY people (remember, others) may not buy CICO without being in the camp of not buying it.
Just because I can place myself in their shoes and describe their motivations or what MAY be happening in a short time quantum doesn't mean I buy their arguments.
6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
Or they understand that like any measurement system, it can be manipulated, and so on.
CICO is not a measurement system.In the long term, it is just CICO when it comes to weight. The problem arises when people try to apply this in the short term.
Made up example: "I didn't eat anything yesterday and I lost 5 pounds."
The question is 5 pounds of what? Water, fat, muscle, clothes, scale variation, what?
Did they really burn 17500 calories in that day? Unless they ran an ultra marathon or are training for the olympics, probably not. And if they were, they probably would need to eat something after the first 5k-7k calories burned. (Maybe sooner based on when I can "bonk" on a long bike ride.)
Agree with all this, but it's not a problem with the concept of CICO, it's that the person thinking they lost 5 lb of fat yesterday is mistaken/doesn't understand water weight fluctuations or that weight loss is not linear, etc.That's what I'm saying. CICO is good in the long term. It is not a good tool to explain short term fluctuation. People who don't understand that can draw the wrong conclusions.
But it's not a measurement tool; it's not supposed to be a tool to explain short term fluctuations (largely water). Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
Or they understand that like any measurement system, it can be manipulated, and so on.
CICO is not a measurement system.In the long term, it is just CICO when it comes to weight. The problem arises when people try to apply this in the short term.
Made up example: "I didn't eat anything yesterday and I lost 5 pounds."
The question is 5 pounds of what? Water, fat, muscle, clothes, scale variation, what?
Did they really burn 17500 calories in that day? Unless they ran an ultra marathon or are training for the olympics, probably not. And if they were, they probably would need to eat something after the first 5k-7k calories burned. (Maybe sooner based on when I can "bonk" on a long bike ride.)
Agree with all this, but it's not a problem with the concept of CICO, it's that the person thinking they lost 5 lb of fat yesterday is mistaken/doesn't understand water weight fluctuations or that weight loss is not linear, etc.That's what I'm saying. CICO is good in the long term. It is not a good tool to explain short term fluctuation. People who don't understand that can draw the wrong conclusions.
But it's not a measurement tool; it's not supposed to be a tool to explain short term fluctuations (largely water). Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands.
Again, never said it was. I said people are using it and the scale in the short term.
What is so hard to get about this? This is why debate doesn't work. People are either unwilling or unable to understand that I'm explaining WHY people deny CICO.
They are wrongly taking it as if I deny CICO.
What is the disconnect here? Have we forgotten the topic?
People deny CICO because they are using it incorrectly or have a poor understanding of what is and how to apply it.
Keep in mind the topic. It's NOT, "Why don't I believe in CICO." That's not the topic. Yet, it is my impression that when someone explains why OTHERS reject or abandon CICO, they are really saying THEY don't believe it.
Seriously?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong. But I've heard people suggest that if someone questions CICO they have an agenda.
Really?
Or maybe they are just using it incorrectly or don't understand it. Which is what I suggested.
Say focused on the topic, "Why do people deny CICO?"
It's not why do YOU deny CICO, it's why people which can very well be 3rd person here.9 -
You said:tbright1965 wrote: »Or they understand that like any measurement system, it can be manipulated, and so on.
You did not say "they THINK they understand..."
So sounds like you were the one claiming it's a measurement system that can be manipulated. And it's not a measurement system (and weight loss can only be manipulated in the short term).
That's why I responded as I did.
If someone thinks CICO means that weight loss is supposed to be linear and water weight fluctuations should not happen, that person does not understand what CICO means.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I have no idea who you are arguing with. Because literally no one here said that you can explain day to day fluctuations with CICO. We tell people not to worry about day to day fluctuations because CICO will determine success long term. So I mean, yeah, I agree with you, and you seem to agree with OP, and the veteran posters who are constantly accused of being in a CICO cult.
Who is arguing?
The title of the topic is "Why do people deny CICO?"
Answers are given.
Somehow, that's an argument?
They deny CICO because it doesn't explain what is happening in a short time quantum.
CICO CAN work in the long term and still be unable to explain to people what is happening to them in the short term, correct?
It is not inconsistent for BOTH to be true.
Is the short term relevant? This is an issue many have as results are not immediate, hence why you will also find the cultist mantra on here as well "Have patience".
We are discussing biological processes with several variables at play. The primary concern for the majority is fat loss, which is not apparent in the short term, so why focus on this? It's largely water weight fluctuation and irrelevant in terms of fat loss.
Part of understanding the application of CICO in your life is that you will not be able to detect fat loss in the short term. I have access to a full metabolics lab and even with this I cannot detect fat or muscle mass change with any degree of confidence due to the degree of error in the instruments.7 -
Also, it's already been well covered that many people misunderstand what CICO is. This is not a new idea in the conversation, and I assume most agree.
A follow up question is why, after the misunderstanding is cleared up, do some continue to deny CICO. Why cling to ideas that make no sense and that would rob you of the understanding that you do have control?7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions