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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
CICO is overrated in my opinion
Replies
-
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.19 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then?
Why bring what up?8 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then?
Why bring what up?
Why bring up that you are scientist if you don't consider it to be important or relevant? If you think it is relevant then could you expand on that a bit more and explain what your expertise is specifically?11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.15 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then?
Why bring what up?
Why bring up that you are scientist if you don't consider it to be important or relevant? If you think it is relevant then could you expand on that a bit more and explain what your expertise is specifically?
See my previous reply.9 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Ah okay, that makes sense then.
I thought you were bringing it up as some sort of argument from authority that you have expertise in biochemistry and therefore you know more about what you are saying than most people with regards to thermodynamics and energy balance. Is that your area?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Ah okay, that makes sense then.
I thought you were bringing it up as some sort of argument from authority that you have expertise in biochemistry and therefore you know more about what you are saying than most people with regards to thermodynamics and energy balance. Is that your area?
No, is it yours?6 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
13 -
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
They use it as a means of dieting. So, in fact, engage in a cico diet.
Was that a no to the question of your field being thermodynamics?19 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Ah okay, that makes sense then.
I thought you were bringing it up as some sort of argument from authority that you have expertise in biochemistry and therefore you know more about what you are saying than most people with regards to thermodynamics and energy balance. Is that your area?
No, is it yours?
Well since you asked, yes. Is that particularly important to you?15 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
They use it as a means of dieting. So, in fact, engage in a cico diet.
Was that a no to the question of your field being thermodynamics?
Calorie counting isn't the same as CICO anymore than lifting weights is the same as gravity. Someone who decides that they don't believe that weight lifting is the way to get strong and instead does calisthenics is not somehow disproving gravity, they are just employing a different strategy (calisthenics instead of weight lifting) that is governed by the exact same concept (moving a mass against the force of gravity). If they then start talking about how gravity is an outdated concept because they do calisthenics then it is pretty clear that they don't know what the terms they are using actually mean.
If you lose or maintain your weight without calorie counting that isn't somehow a negation of the existence of energy balance (CICO). That just means you didn't employ a particular strategy (calorie counting).21 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
They use it as a means of dieting. So, in fact, engage in a cico diet.
Was that a no to the question of your field being thermodynamics?
Everyone "uses" it as a means of dieting. Literally everyone who ever lost weight or gained or maintained weight "uses" CICO.11 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
They use it as a means of dieting. So, in fact, engage in a cico diet.
Was that a no to the question of your field being thermodynamics?
CICO is not a diet. It's how all diets work. It's how all weight/fat loss works. Or are you saying you can lose weight without eating less calories than your body burns?9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
And yep, I am nameless , but I am not to change any one else’s views on the topic.10 -
This is how I understand CICO to be (excuse the laymans terms)
CICO is an equation or formula like Albert Einsteins formula E = mc2 it cannot be disputed, it just is.
CALORIE COUNTING - is whatever weight loss method or plan a person chooses to lose weight. The common denominator that ties them altogether is they involve a CALORIE DEFICIT to enable weight loss to happen.
@PiperGirl08 for a Scientist its puzzling that you are having trouble understanding these terms.14 -
Which brings us back to where we started, I.e. the definition of cico when used here. The equation or the diet. I am using it to mean the diet per my search results and also what I’ve seen from the majority of the posters here.
I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Woo away!32 -
CICO IS NOT A DIET21
-
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Which brings us back to where we started, I.e. the definition of cico when used here. The equation or the diet. I am using it to mean the diet per my search results and also what I’ve seen from the majority of the posters here.
I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Woo away!
You mean calorie counting.14 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Which brings us back to where we started, I.e. the definition of cico when used here. The equation or the diet. I am using it to mean the diet per my search results and also what I’ve seen from the majority of the posters here.
I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Woo away!
Since the majority of posters here are clearly using it not to mean a diet, you're just taking the piss at this point.19 -
Never mind
1 -
soufauxgirl wrote: »This is how I understand CICO to be (excuse the laymans terms)
CICO is an equation or formula like Albert Einsteins formula E = mc2 it cannot be disputed, it just is.
CALORIE COUNTING - is whatever weight loss method or plan a person chooses to lose weight. The common denominator that ties them altogether is they involve a CALORIE DEFICIT to enable weight loss to happen.
@PiperGirl08 for a Scientist its puzzling that you are having trouble understanding these terms.
She's a scientist that doesn't understand the first law of thermodynamics
15 -
annaskiski wrote: »soufauxgirl wrote: »This is how I understand CICO to be (excuse the laymans terms)
CICO is an equation or formula like Albert Einsteins formula E = mc2 it cannot be disputed, it just is.
CALORIE COUNTING - is whatever weight loss method or plan a person chooses to lose weight. The common denominator that ties them altogether is they involve a CALORIE DEFICIT to enable weight loss to happen.
@PiperGirl08 for a Scientist its puzzling that you are having trouble understanding these terms.
She's a scientist that doesn't understand the first law of thermodynamics
A pseudo-scientist.12 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Which brings us back to where we started, I.e. the definition of cico when used here. The equation or the diet. I am using it to mean the diet per my search results and also what I’ve seen from the majority of the posters here.
I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Woo away!
So...are you trying to talk with people or just trying to be right in your own little bubble with your own definition of terms that really no one else in here is using....because if it is the latter then I'm not sure what the point is.
If you call calorie counting CICO then what do you call the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed so that if you track the input and output of energy in a system you can track the net change in energy within that system?
Keep in mind that all a calorie is is a unit of measure for energy....same as a kilogram is a measure of mass and a kilometer is a measure of distance. So when someone says that the change in calories contained in a system can be determined by accounting for all of the calories entering that system subtracting all calories leaving that system they are literally just quoting the first law of thermodynamics. Saying CICO is just shorthand for that. Really hard to see how you aren't getting that. Maybe you choose to call it something else but then it is just semantics and who cares?18 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Which brings us back to where we started, I.e. the definition of cico when used here. The equation or the diet. I am using it to mean the diet per my search results and also what I’ve seen from the majority of the posters here.
I’ll save the topic of whether all calories have the same impact on the body, irrespective of source, for a different day.
Woo away!
Relevant recent topics where this has been discussed ad nauseum:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621903/cico-what-does-it-mean/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10654872/why-do-people-deny-cico/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
But since you only read the OP here and not the rest of the thread where the difference between the fundamental energy balance that CICO describes and people's misinterpretation that CICO is a diet or is synonymous with calorie counting - I'm not optimistic that you will read through these threads either.
10 -
Sees 67 new replies in the thread.
Discovers that it's just another person who hasn't read the entire thread and has no idea what CICO actually is.
20 -
I do have to say, though, it's pretty impressive that the OP currently has 112 "woo" votes. That might be an MFP record!9
-
-
Making up your own definition of "CICO" and then making claims about why it's misguided and refusing to engage with others who point out that the things you are claiming are misguided are not, in fact, part of how they understand the term is classic strawmanning.
It's like going into a thread on the Bill of Rights and claiming that the First Amendment means that people can't make fun of opinions they disagree with and then insisting it's a terrible idea and anyone who supports it is against opposing viewpoints.
Since no one has said that CICO is a diet, let alone a diet where you totally ignore nutrition and where what you want to eat is pretty much all not nutrient dense (which strikes me as a weird want, but whatever), claiming it is and then slamming it is eh, pointless and uninteresting.
I'd be curious if there's actual disagreement with other points made by actual posters, and not some made-up diet, as at this point in the thread there's mostly agreement, but if the poster is not interested in engaging, that's cool. People enjoy different things, and if proclaiming one disapproves of a made-up definition of something sends a frisson of enjoyment, well, there are even weirder things to get off on.19 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
They use it as a means of dieting. So, in fact, engage in a cico diet.
Was that a no to the question of your field being thermodynamics?
You don't "engage" in CICO. CICO happens all on it's own regardless of the diet one chooses.10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions