Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
garystrickland357 wrote: »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.
Honestly, I think teaching kids would be easier. I may be wrong, but they shouldn't have so much ego tied into their beliefs.14 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »
Honestly, I think teaching kids would be easier. I may be wrong, but they shouldn't have so much ego tied into their beliefs.
In general I agree.
10 -
deannalfisher wrote: »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)
People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.12 -
deannalfisher wrote: »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)
People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.
It means I only eat protein, right?????
But it's just for guys who want to get jacked up and take steroids.
10 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .10 -
deannalfisher wrote: »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)
People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.
good point!3 -
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 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Healthier than if you ate 1500kcal in raw broccoli over the course of a day.
Ergo, Mars bars are obviously healthier than broccoli.
Because #extremescience.19 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Healthier than if you ate 1500kcal in raw broccoli over the course of a day.
Ergo, Mars bars are obviously healthier than broccoli.
Because #extremescience.
I want to find the contact information for this nutritionist and ask them what kind of monodiet (other than specially crafted meal replacements) would result in robust health. I mean, if that's the standard we're using then just about every food on earth would fail.
Which is why you see everyone other than people with severe food anxieties/disturbances eating more than one food and nobody trying to make it on just candy bars.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
here you go:
1 standard size MARS bar is 449cal
69G carbs/4g protein/17g fat
so for 1500 cals = 3.5 MARS bars
241g carbs
14g protein
60g fat
honestly - aside from the extreme low protein3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »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)
People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.
It means I only eat protein, right?????
But it's just for guys who want to get jacked up and take steroids.
Nah, bruh....IIFYM obvi means you just eat whatever you wanna eat. Stuff your pie hole with donuts, pizza, candy, sugar, booze, whatevs.
Because "If It FITS YOUR MACROS" obviously isn't what the acronym stands for or anything. And it's not like your macros (if done properly) should add up to your calorie goal. Nope nope. Nosiree.6 -
deannalfisher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
here you go:
1 standard size MARS bar is 449cal
69G carbs/4g protein/17g fat
so for 1500 cals = 3.5 MARS bars
241g carbs
14g protein
60g fat
honestly - aside from the extreme low protein
Add some protein to that candy bar and you'll have...
...just about every reasonably decent tasting protein bar on the market.
But because it's a protein bar and not a candy bar, it's healthy.
(Six Snickers bars is lower carb, higher protein, lower sugar, higher fiber...or what that author might call a healthier alternative.)7 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
here you go:
1 standard size MARS bar is 449cal
69G carbs/4g protein/17g fat
so for 1500 cals = 3.5 MARS bars
241g carbs
14g protein
60g fat
honestly - aside from the extreme low protein
Add some protein to that candy bar and you'll have...
...just about every reasonably decent tasting protein bar on the market.
But because it's a protein bar and not a candy bar, it's healthy.
(Six Snickers bars is lower carb, higher protein, lower sugar, higher fiber...or what that author might call a healthier alternative.)
truth - I could get behind a MARS protein bar! probably will taste better than some of the protein bars that are on the market3 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets based on progress (or lack thereof) are an essential component of achieving their goal weight?)4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
here you go:
1 standard size MARS bar is 449cal
69G carbs/4g protein/17g fat
so for 1500 cals = 3.5 MARS bars
241g carbs
14g protein
60g fat
honestly - aside from the extreme low protein
Add some protein to that candy bar and you'll have...
...just about every reasonably decent tasting protein bar on the market.
But because it's a protein bar and not a candy bar, it's healthy.
(Six Snickers bars is lower carb, higher protein, lower sugar, higher fiber...or what that author might call a healthier alternative.)
truth - I could get behind a MARS protein bar! probably will taste better than some of the protein bars that are on the market
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
YOU WON'T BE HEALTHY, please pay attention to the wise words of Pigott-Jones and think of your family!8 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets are an essential component of achieving a reasonable goal weight?)
Someone has gone through and woo'ed a lot of posts calling out our low carbing and CICO denying friends. They are apparently very bitter their reality being questioned.8 -
deannalfisher wrote: »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)
People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.
I know exactly what it means. It means you go to IIFYM.com and stick to their exact numbers, including their ridiculous protein goal, and don't adjust anything and then eat pop tarts.
Did I get it right? Do I win a Mars bar?8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
Someone on here once ate nothing but Snickers bars for a day as an experiment. I wonder if I can find that thread again...3 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets based on progress (or lack thereof) are an essential component of achieving their goal weight?)
It can't be that baffling why it was "woo'd," can it?
C'mon, Jof, you're not exactly new around here.9 -
deannalfisher wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
here you go:
1 standard size MARS bar is 449cal
69G carbs/4g protein/17g fat
so for 1500 cals = 3.5 MARS bars
241g carbs
14g protein
60g fat
honestly - aside from the extreme low protein
Add some protein to that candy bar and you'll have...
...just about every reasonably decent tasting protein bar on the market.
But because it's a protein bar and not a candy bar, it's healthy.
(Six Snickers bars is lower carb, higher protein, lower sugar, higher fiber...or what that author might call a healthier alternative.)
truth - I could get behind a MARS protein bar! probably will taste better than some of the protein bars that are on the market
They're a thing. $47 for a box of 18 on Amazon.
6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »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)
People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.
I know exactly what it means. It means you go to IIFYM.com and stick to their exact numbers, including their ridiculous protein goal, and don't adjust anything and then eat pop tarts.
Did I get it right? Do I win a Mars bar?
no MARS bar for you! but I do have a snickers instead.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
Someone on here once ate nothing but Snickers bars for a day as an experiment. I wonder if I can find that thread again...
Found it: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10023905/my-one-day-snickers-bar-story/p16 -
diannethegeek wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
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.
Oh my god, make it stop . . .
Well in the interest of science I must test this.
Someone on here once ate nothing but Snickers bars for a day as an experiment. I wonder if I can find that thread again...
I think that eventually happened in a thread where I argued with someone that 1500 calories of Snickers was far healthier than 1500 calories of raw broccoli (in one of those typical "I don't do CICO because I care about my health and don't eat nothing but candy bars every day" threads)...where I posited that one of those approaches would almost certainly result in hospitalization...and they argued that it was Snickers approach that would.
Obviously, this was someone who had no concept of the consequences of eating nothing but 10 pounds of broccoli daily.
ETA: Ah, I see now that it was a different thread. Awesome. Looking forward to reading through that one.6 -
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?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?20 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets based on progress (or lack thereof) are an essential component of achieving their goal weight?)
It can't be that baffling why it was "woo'd," can it?
C'mon, Jof, you're not exactly new around here.
Are you questioning the sincerity of my incredulity?!?
How dare you!!
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
Even more troubling when people in the fitness industry don't grasp the concept...14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
Even more troubling when people in the fitness industry don't grasp the concept...
To be fair, a significant portion of those in the fitness industry are a little more about the industry and a little less about the fitness.14 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets based on progress (or lack thereof) are an essential component of achieving their goal weight?)
It can't be that baffling why it was "woo'd," can it?
C'mon, Jof, you're not exactly new around here.
Are you questioning the sincerity of my incredulity?!?
How dare you!!
Honestly, this is a way better fight than the other one that's going on.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions