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
-
deannalfisher wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:
For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.
once again that is NOT CICO - that is calorie counting or macro make-up!
The concept of CICO implies that all that matters is calories in, calories out, and all calories are the same and calories are all that matters. Or am I reading the meaning of this thread wrong? Please explain to me. I'm receptive.4 -
CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...7
-
deannalfisher wrote: »CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...
Okay then we're not talking about the same thing. I wasn't talking about whether eating 300 calories of this will make you hungry so you eat 300 more calories of that. I'm talking about a closely-monitored diet where you're restricting yourself to, say, 1500 calories of garbage food, versus 1500 calories of reasonable food. I have experimented with this myself. I took in the same number of calories under both circumstances, ignoring any extra cravings the crappy eating regimen would cause. The energy being consumed was identical regardless. I still lost more weight on the healthier regimen.20 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »TBH - and I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I've done a lot of long-term dieting over the last 12 years:
For me, minding your CICO works better than total disregard of calories (of course and by far), but in my experience it's not the whole picture, because for sure I lose more weight when taking in less of those calories from carbs (especially garbage carbs like from a bag of chips or a Hot Pocket), or from highly processed foods. All else being equal.
once again that is NOT CICO - that is calorie counting or macro make-up!
The concept of CICO implies that all that matters is calories in, calories out, and all calories are the same and calories are all that matters. Or am I reading the meaning of this thread wrong? Please explain to me. I'm receptive.
You're reading it wrong. CICO is an energy equation - Calories In vs Calories Out. It's been repeated endlessly in this thread. Calories are all that matter for WEIGHT MANAGEMENT. CALORIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A MEASURE OF ENERGY. Calories don't have attributes, they are just a measure of energy.
Nutrition matters for health and sustainability, and different foods with the same number of calories have different nutritional profiles. Before we spiral back into the bottomless vortex of oreos vs broccoli.6 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
The article that is linked here refers to the CICO diet... which is calorie counting... please understand that CICO is not a diet, it is an equation that dictates weight loss or gain. IT IS NOT A DIET, it is an equation9 -
9
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?
Do you want to know how we know you didn't read a single post of this thread?
I read enough. No, I didn't read all 51 pages.
This is a debate thread. More than on the other forums here, these threads are pretty analytical and very difficult to jump into mid-stream. Your points have been debated numerous times in this very thread by those who have read and participated in the 51 pages.
The whole CICO <> calorie counting has, also, been discussed several times in this very thread.
Hence the head-banging gifs.
Check out the more general forum areas and you will get a somewhat warmer reception.
I note it only took one post for the thread to get back to conflating the two.10 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
The article that is linked here refers to the CICO diet... which is calorie counting... please understand that CICO is not a diet, it is an equation that dictates weight loss or gain. IT IS NOT A DIET, it is an equation
Quoting from the article:
"Pigott-Jones gives the examples of Mars bars - you could consume 1500kcal in Mars bars alone over the course of a day thus creating a calorie deficit for yourself, but you won’t be healthy."
Because God forbid if people understand that weight management is governed by energy balance, all they'll eat is Mars bars. And oreos, of course. If you shield them from this fact they'll eat a nutritious diet.
edited for clarity8 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...
Okay then we're not talking about the same thing. I wasn't talking about whether eating 300 calories of this will make you hungry so you eat 300 more calories of that. I'm talking about a closely-monitored diet where you're restricting yourself to, say, 1500 calories of garbage food, versus 1500 calories of reasonable food. I have experimented with this myself. I took in the same number of calories under both circumstances, ignoring any extra cravings the crappy eating regimen would cause. The energy being consumed was identical regardless. I still lost more weight on the healthier regimen.
did you read any of the 54 pages of this discussion...your comment has been hashed out several hundred times already7 -
Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?22
-
I admit that I jumped in mid-thread, and if there's astral projection or narwhal physiognomy informing it then I better just jump back out. You guys are clearly in the middle of something and I'm out of my element. :-)12
-
TitaniaEcks wrote: »I admit that I jumped in mid-thread, and if there's astral projection or narwhal physiognomy informing it then I better just jump back out. You guys are clearly in the middle of something and I'm out of my element. :-)
Or, you know, you could actually read the thread before you follow after Leroy Jenkins.
It's crazy to think that, in 50-some pages of debate, maybe your assertions have been covered already, and you might benefit from the knowledge that actually reading through the thread would give you before you post.
Wait ... Isn't that how forums are supposed to work?10 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?
the only people I know who mix up CICO and calorie counting are those that say if you follow IIFYM you eat only twinkies (hyperbole, but you get the point)10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?
Can you tell us specifically the genetics differences and specific medical conditions you have that defy the principles of energy balance and the mechanism by which they do so?
Can you name the chemical additives the food industry puts in food to generate greater profit margins and what they have to do with your argument?
What eating plan have you been following? How did you track calories before? Did you use a food scale? Did you use a website like MFP and verify that you were using correct calorie data for the foods you were eating? How did you calculate how many calories you should be eating to create a calorie deficit at that point?
Lastly, just what do you think CICO is?
Also, assuming consistent tracking, adherence, and confirmed good data, when weight loss didn't occur as predicted after a reasonable period of time, did you adjust your target downward by a reasonable amount and resumed consistent tracking and adherence...and continued this refining process until satisfactory progress?
Because no website can determine an individual's TDEE and also guess correctly their inevitable error biases in tracking.10 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »CICO is the energy equation - energy in (CI) and energy out (CO)...no one said all calories were the same - different types of foods with satiate people differently and have different nutritional make-up but that doesn't negate the CICO equation...
Okay then we're not talking about the same thing. I wasn't talking about whether eating 300 calories of this will make you hungry so you eat 300 more calories of that. I'm talking about a closely-monitored diet where you're restricting yourself to, say, 1500 calories of garbage food, versus 1500 calories of reasonable food. I have experimented with this myself. I took in the same number of calories under both circumstances, ignoring any extra cravings the crappy eating regimen would cause. The energy being consumed was identical regardless. I still lost more weight on the healthier regimen.
Yet another medical miracle joins the discussion.12 -
I just want to say this thread makes me feel so much better about my daily struggle. I teach high school physics. If y'all have this much trouble explaining this concept to adults, think about teaching concepts to adolescent, distracted students, lol.
I have found that most people see a "calorie" as being very food specific. They don't get that you can express the energy contained in gasoline in terms of calories - or joules. The units of joules are kg*(m/s)^2 - N*m - work... It has NOTHING to do with the nutritional content of the item containing the calories. We can pour a glass of gasoline with 250 Calories - I think we all know it would be unwise to consume it.
Sometimes well known ideas are the most misunderstood. For example, Newton's Laws are something some of my students struggle with. Why? Because they have a deeply ingrained mental model that is WRONG - they just think they understand. Getting them to unlearn - and reconstruct a new mental model is challenging for many. Some are just unwilling to admit they misunderstand - they would rather not commit the effort to change their thinking. I see the same thing going on here.
Kudos to those here that patiently try to help folks understand.36 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Congratulations. You're the 1000th contestant who doesn't know what CICO actually means.13 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Idiotic reporting at it's finest.9 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »...Why? Because they have a deeply ingrained mental model that is WRONG - they just think they understand. Getting them to unlearn - and reconstruct a new mental model is challenging for many. Some are just unwilling to admit they misunderstand - they would rather not commit the effort to change their thinking...
You just summed up this entire thread (and every other one like it) perfectly.13 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »I'm glad that simple CICO works for you. I've tracked calories and exercised diligently for extended periods of time with very minimal results. I'm sorry, but everyone's health is not the same, and everyone doesn't have the same genetics. Also, the processed food industry works against us with all of the chemical additives they use to create greater profit margins.
I've recently been following an eating plan that works for me, and I've lost 24 lbs in 2.5 months eating the same number of calories that I did before with no specific eating plan. In addition, now that I'm getting the nutrition and energy that I need, I never feel hungry or have any cravings. Therefore, it's much easier to stay on my plan. It's not as simple as CICO, but it still has that as one of its elements. Why do you want to criticize people who find something that works better for them, just because it's different from what works for you?
Do you want to know how we know you didn't read a single post of this thread?
I read enough. No, I didn't read all 51 pages.
This is a debate thread. More than on the other forums here, these threads are pretty analytical and very difficult to jump into mid-stream. Your points have been debated numerous times in this very thread by those who have read and participated in the 51 pages.
The whole CICO <> calorie counting has, also, been discussed several times in this very thread.
Hence the head-banging gifs.
Check out the more general forum areas and you will get a somewhat warmer reception.
I note it only took one post for the thread to get back to conflating the two.
No *kitten*.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 392 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
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions