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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
I stand corrected, this is an excellent analogy!4 -
IzzyFlower2018 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
That's actually a really good example. Someone with no clue of how gravity works may think that gravity doesn't apply to birds. Just like there's people that count calories for a week, don't see the results they expect for one of the billion reasons that we tell them about every time they come to these forums, and think CICO doesn't work as it should.
Yes, but just as gravity does not prevent birds from flying, CICO may not prevent someone in a slight caloric deficit or surplus from losing or gaining weight, because other mechanisms are at work that alter the equation
What? Gravity doesn't even prevent YOU from flying as said gravitational constant equals centripetal acceleration . Are you saying this is not always the case? ... please reference physics citations ... A plane at either pole doesn't require the same velocity as a plane at the equator ... the both still fly and if it is the same airline both have the same baggage charges because the equation accounts for the extra 500m/s needed to keep the equator plane in the air. So it is not like there is an extra force in the equation and suddenly the rules don't apply.
These analogies are getting worse as this thread continues.
That will happen as people realize their arguments are poor and they begin grasping at straws. It's very telling that they make an analogy that they think supports their argument... and then everyone tears it apart (as they should because, like you said, they're terrible analogies). It's like they think if they just explain it a different way... maybe it will make sense. ...
7 -
For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
That's a completely different discussion and not relevant in any way to CICO itself being valid or not.
Which is why I never discredited CICO, just said that the execution of CICO is vastly simplified for most people. Most understand that CICO is the way to lose weight, there is not much understanding or sympathy for those who struggle to execute it or choose to execute in their own way via other diet plans.
And I will challenge you, as I challenged other posters earlier in this thread, to find some actual examples of threads where people are dismissive of individuals and their approaches when it is presented as "this is how I like to eat in order to achieve my calorie deficit". The only time people tend to push back is when there are wild claims that a particular way of eating has benefits for CICO, ie "when I eat keto, I can eat more calories and still lose weight".
Personally I ALWAYS say that CICO is simple in principle, but not necessarily easy to implement. But again, if you've got examples of people who are dismissive or mean when someone expresses their personal challenges - I'd love to take a look. It's Friday after all, so timing is good.
18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
The difference is that I am talking about directions that simply say "take the pieces out of the box and put them together." Those instructions, while some may be able to figure out how to put the bookshelf together, others may not. The way that CICO is presented on this site and the way people are judgmental of others who are trying to lose weight is not a step by step that you would get when putting a bookcase together.
You and I are I guess reading different threads. I never see a struggling newbie just told to eat less. I mean one poster might say that, but there will be multiple other posts that go into rather great detail. I've seen multiple OPs who come back to reveal they have an ED told to consult their treatment team rather than count calories right now. I have seen threads that go for pages and pages as OP continues to ask questions and reveal more data, and posters hang in there patiently explaining all the different factors involved.
I started spending my spare time posting here because I saw other posters doing so when I started and I learned so much from them. I guess that's why I through my little fit. I see so many generous and patient volunteers here spend more time with an OP than any "professional" ever has until they get there issue figured out and it bothers me to see all that effort ignored and devalued.
If you see posts that are only being told to eat less, please feel free to chime in with more info, or heck even tag one of the many folks posting in here asking them to help the OP.17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
The difference is that I am talking about directions that simply say "take the pieces out of the box and put them together." Those instructions, while some may be able to figure out how to put the bookshelf together, others may not. The way that CICO is presented on this site and the way people are judgmental of others who are trying to lose weight is not a step by step that you would get when putting a bookcase together.
I think we're talking about two different groups of people. There are people who literally don't understand the "bookshelf instructions." They're the people coming here and asking questions like "Can I still lose weight if I eat bread once a week?" or "Help -- I want to lose weight but I can't exercise at all!" They don't get it, they need help with the instructions.
Then there are people who completely get the instructions, but they don't understand how to apply them in their own life. They're like me, knowing I need a ten inch board but feeling unsure how to really know if my board is ten inches. Or the instructions say to spread all the pieces on the living room floor to count them but they live in a studio and they can't do that. Or they were doing great but now they've dropped the hammer on their foot and they can't stop yelling at their husband. They understand what to do, they just don't know how to do it within the context of their skills, apartment, and marriage.
I'm straining the example here, I'm sure. The point is that I personally see help and sympathy for both types of people here. I see threads where people try to help others understand how weight loss happens, I see threads where people share what they are struggling with (how to accurately measure, how to make their schedule work, how to avoid exceeding their calorie goal, etc). You don't see those threads, we've had really different experiences here. I don't know if there is a bridge for that. May I suggest that you try to provide the type of help that you feel the veterans here are failing to provide?14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
I understand that CICO is an energy balance. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying the ability for a person to execute eating less calories is compromised by other outside factors.
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
(I'm not trying to minimize EDs, they're serious and do impact weight loss. I'm just trying to make the point that basic instructions to do things or basic descriptions of how processes work aren't supposed to take all our individual variations into account, nor can they predict every stumbling block we may have along the way and somehow remove them).
The difference is that I am talking about directions that simply say "take the pieces out of the box and put them together." Those instructions, while some may be able to figure out how to put the bookshelf together, others may not. The way that CICO is presented on this site and the way people are judgmental of others who are trying to lose weight is not a step by step that you would get when putting a bookcase together.
I want my awesome button back! Qft19 -
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
However, what I'm seeing when I read through the forums isn't so much people insisting that CICO (though calorie counting is what usually meant) is the only way to lose weight; what I see is rather the opposite: it's the keto crowd and the IF crowd and the clean eating crowd and the macros crowd that are shrilly insisting that their way is the only way, not the folks who understand the principles of CICO and their application. And even if you CAN get a keto evangelist to even agree that perhaps a person CAN lose weight and still have more than 10% carbs in their daily diet, they are quick to claim that the person would still feel so much better and lose so much more weight and be so much more healthier if they'd do keto because everyone knows its superior to everything else!
The point that many of these respondents are trying to make is to help the OPs of those various threads understand that there isn't only one method that works, and that they don't have to give up anything or have to eat keto or have to give up sugar or whatever if they really don't want to, which for most people who are starting out is a relief - it makes changing their lifestyle a little easier by not having to drastically change everything at once (unless, of course, they are one of those folks who responds best to such changes). I don't see the respondents bashing these people if they want to try low carb diets or intermittent fasting or any other reasonable diet plan; what I see the rational, knowledgeable respondents trying to do is get the person to understand the basic mechanism behind losing weight so they can actually open up their options and gain more tools in losing the weight they want to achieve, instead of just being handed a hammer and a straight blade screwdriver and told they have to climb Mt. Achievement with only those tools because those are the only tools that work, which is what I hear from the other activists for whatever their favorite diet flavor is.
25 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
However, what I'm seeing when I read through the forums isn't so much people insisting that CICO (though calorie counting is what usually meant) is the only way to lose weight; what I see is rather the opposite: it's the keto crowd and the IF crowd and the clean eating crowd and the macros crowd that are shrilly insisting that their way is the only way, not the folks who understand the principles of CICO and their application. And even if you CAN get a keto evangelist to even agree that perhaps a person CAN lose weight and still have more than 10% carbs in their daily diet, they are quick to claim that the person would still feel so much better and lose so much more weight and be so much more healthier if they'd do keto because everyone knows its superior to everything else!
The point that many of these respondents are trying to make is to help the OPs of those various threads understand that there isn't only one method that works, and that they don't have to give up anything or have to eat keto or have to give up sugar or whatever if they really don't want to, which for most people who are starting out is a relief - it makes changing their lifestyle a little easier by not having to drastically change everything at once (unless, of course, they are one of those folks who responds best to such changes). I don't see the respondents bashing these people if they want to try low carb diets or intermittent fasting or any other reasonable diet plan; what I see the rational, knowledgeable respondents trying to do is get the person to understand the basic mechanism behind losing weight so they can actually open up their options and gain more tools in losing the weight they want to achieve, instead of just being handed a hammer and a straight blade screwdriver and told they have to climb Mt. Achievement with only those tools because those are the only tools that work, which is what I hear from the other activists for whatever their favorite diet flavor is.
^ Hit the nail right on the head.11 -
So just so we are clear, with every post we are supposed to add the following disclaimers:
Calories are what matter for weight loss! (annotated reference to detailed discussions about nutrition and overall health).
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! (detailed discussion of every possible way of eating and dietary preference that may be chosen, along with detailed discussion of every possible rare metabolic disorder that may be a factor even though the OP didn't disclose any medical issues in his/her post)
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (with the caveat that no one can know precisely what their own calorie burn is to the decimal since we are not bomb calorimeters and there are a host of external variables that don't matter in the big picture but nevertheless need to be mentioned to appease some posters).
Gotcha.21 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So just so we are clear, with every post we are supposed to add the following disclaimers:
Calories are what matter for weight loss! (annotated reference to detailed discussions about nutrition and overall health).
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! (detailed discussion of every possible way of eating and dietary preference that may be chosen, along with detailed discussion of every possible rare metabolic disorder that may be a factor even though the OP didn't disclose any medical issues in his/her post)
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (with the caveat that no one can know precisely what their own calorie burn is to the decimal since we are not bomb calorimeters and there are a host of external variables that don't matter in the big picture but nevertheless need to be mentioned to appease some posters).
Gotcha.
Whelp. So I guess in other words, unless you have advanced degrees in physiology, molecular biology and psychology/behavioral sciences, and are willing to write a detailed dissertation in each and every post, don't even bother responding.
That oughta cut down the amount of discussion in the forums.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
@dangerousdashie CICO is confusing only if it is applied to humans which was never the intent of the concept.
For humans at best CICO is a guessing game devoid of real science. It does not explain why people are driven to over/under eat and other causes of human disease and premature deaths.
No one posting here can even produce their own verifiable lab results proving they even know their own CICO so as human health/weight goes CICO is more mystical than anything else since counting calories is no long term protection against obesity.
When I found macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that worked for me then the binging stopped being an eating problem and over time I lost 50 pounds with no weight loss goal. I have maintained that loss for three years with no counting/measuring but just eating the ratio of carbs, protein and fats that work best to recover my health. Now at 67 my health is better than 30 years ago.
What macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that you need to eat can ONLY be determined by your own personal experimenting with different rations. NO one here can tell you how to eat because they do not know you and your health facts.
As a side note I do post under my real name with real profile info on MFP as well as various other non health forums as Google will show you. Currently I am binging on buying and rehabbing Ford tractors from mid 60's and up. This form of binging has not changed my weight either but keeps me moving.
Best of success.
Gosh, I'm glad that macro ratios worked for you. I tried that after I read 'The Zone' decades ago ... but it was difficult to track in the age before personal computers. Now, with MFP being so handy at giving me that information I have been tracking my macro ratios as well as my caloric intake ... and guess what I found out ... my macro's tend to stay the same within a very small 1-2% variable regardless how of how high or low my calories go ... and that's because I eat, basically, the same 70 or so foods on a recurring basis. However, one day I might eat 1500 calories and on another day it might be 2000 or even more ... but the macros stay basically the same.
So for me, macro ratio's, based on the foods I choose to ingest, does not lead to weight loss. However, keeping my calories at a deficit does.19 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So just so we are clear, with every post we are supposed to add the following disclaimers:
Calories are what matter for weight loss! (annotated reference to detailed discussions about nutrition and overall health).
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! (detailed discussion of every possible way of eating and dietary preference that may be chosen, along with detailed discussion of every possible rare metabolic disorder that may be a factor even though the OP didn't disclose any medical issues in his/her post)
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (with the caveat that no one can know precisely what their own calorie burn is to the decimal since we are not bomb calorimeters and there are a host of external variables that don't matter in the big picture but nevertheless need to be mentioned to appease some posters).
Gotcha.
Whelp. So I guess in other words, unless you have advanced degrees in physiology, molecular biology and psychology/behavioral sciences, and are willing to write a detailed dissertation in each and every post, don't even bother responding.
That oughta cut down the amount of discussion in the forums.
I say, let’s get rid of the forums all together. Nor better yet, enact term limit on posters, like anyone with post count higher than 100 should be blocked. Peace8 -
No again
"Calories are what matter for weight loss but for overall health you should look at the quality of the foods that you are eating.
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! How you achieve this is up to you and different for everyone. Take some time to trial and error what works for you. For some, it is everything in moderation. For others, they may need to avoid foods that derail them from their goal. You have to find what works for you.
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (you can go on bout this as much as you want)"
It's not that hard. The thing is that no one has the definitely answer that will work for everyone so telling someone to eat whatever they want is not usually helpful.17 -
No again
"Calories are what matter for weight loss but for overall health you should look at the quality of the foods that you are eating.
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! How you achieve this is up to you and different for everyone. Take some time to trial and error what works for you. For some, it is everything in moderation. For others, they may need to avoid foods that derail them from their goal. You have to find what works for you.
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (you can go on bout this as much as you want)"
It's not that hard. The thing is that no one has the definitely answer that will work for everyone so telling someone to eat whatever they want is not usually helpful.
Here’s the thing, no one says eat food without regard to nutrition.14 -
No again
"Calories are what matter for weight loss but for overall health you should look at the quality of the foods that you are eating.
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! How you achieve this is up to you and different for everyone. Take some time to trial and error what works for you. For some, it is everything in moderation. For others, they may need to avoid foods that derail them from their goal. You have to find what works for you.
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (you can go on bout this as much as you want)"
It's not that hard. The thing is that no one has the definitely answer that will work for everyone so telling someone to eat whatever they want is not usually helpful.
And as @WinoGelato asked earlier, it would be great if you could provide a list of links to all of these posts where after getting several replies, all the OP is told is - eat whatever you want, it's all calories, with no nuance. It should be easy, since you're saying that's what always happens. Please and thank you.17 -
No again
"Calories are what matter for weight loss but for overall health you should look at the quality of the foods that you are eating.
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! How you achieve this is up to you and different for everyone. Take some time to trial and error what works for you. For some, it is everything in moderation. For others, they may need to avoid foods that derail them from their goal. You have to find what works for you.
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (you can go on bout this as much as you want)"
It's not that hard. The thing is that no one has the definitely answer that will work for everyone so telling someone to eat whatever they want is not usually helpful.
OK--so don't eat whatever you want. That's fine too. I find your view of the forums distorted, and so I disagree with you. There are people that give unselfishly of their time to help newcomers. I've noticed through the years that the critics hardly ever give of their time to help out the newbies. I will be looking forward to reading your advice in the future. Good luck with your goals.20 -
So after 32 pages, I think the clear answer to the question posed in the title is:
Because they don't know what it is.
20 -
No again
"Calories are what matter for weight loss but for overall health you should look at the quality of the foods that you are eating.
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! How you achieve this is up to you and different for everyone. Take some time to trial and error what works for you. For some, it is everything in moderation. For others, they may need to avoid foods that derail them from their goal. You have to find what works for you.
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (you can go on bout this as much as you want)"
It's not that hard. The thing is that no one has the definitely answer that will work for everyone so telling someone to eat whatever they want is not usually helpful.
Pics or it didn't happen. This is internet rule #1. Know it. Live it.12 -
No again
"Calories are what matter for weight loss...
...CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! How you achieve this is up to you and different for everyone. Take some time to trial and error what works for you. For some, it is everything in moderation. For others, they may need to avoid foods that derail them from their goal. You have to find what works for you...
...CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (you can go on bout this as much as you want)"...
Well, at least we've gotten that far.
But it sounds suspiciously identical to the advice most of us actually give to people in the forums, so I don't see what the beef is.16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions