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
-
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 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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 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.
Cognitive dissonance can be hard to handle.
The best part is 'woo'ing a picture of a Mars bar. Who can 'woo' a Mars bar? I mean, that's almost like 'woo'ing bacon.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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 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.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.24 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable scientific fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
13 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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 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.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.
sorry - Dr's in general have less than 4hrs of nutrition training during their medical careers, the vast majority of them provide horribly bad nutrition advice. I prefer to listen to a PhD who studies metabolic disorders and the interaction with nutrition on a daily basis who can provide up to date/relevant research8 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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 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.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.
Your endocrinologist can provide objective evidence of this?
There is one reality. If you have to frame this on an individual level, then it's fantasy.13 -
nellypurcelly 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.
CICO is NOT calorie counting...
Clearly. I should have said, "tracked calories and exercised diligently with a deficit." I apologize for thinking that was implied.
That still isn't CICO, that is calorie counting and exercise. CICO is the principle that the change in energy in a system is equal to the input of energy subtracted by the expenditure of energy. It is a law of thermodynamics.
If you lose weight by tracking calories and exercising the weight lost is due to CICO.
If you don't lose weight by tracking calories and exercising then that lack of weight lost is due to CICO
If you lose weight by a different method, say you decide to only eat vegetables and chicken breasts and not bother with calorie counting and exercise then the weight lost is due to CICO.
Calorie counting and exercise are strategies for health or weight loss. CICO isn't a strategy, it isn't a method, it isn't a plan....it is a law of nature.11 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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 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.
I think it's the other way around. I'm very happy for you that you can eat a lot of carbs and maintain your weight. I never said that anyone else should change over to my eating plan. To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall." I think you're the ones who became bitter when I said that the same eating plan doesn't work for everyone. Some foods cause inflammation in some people and not others. Some people have autoimmune conditions, and so on. I don't know why it angers you when what works for you doesn't work for someone else. If my eating plan didn't work for someone else, I wouldn't get mad at them and imply that they're stupid.
I'm not going to dignify all of the previous ridiculous snide questions with responses, but I'll answer a few of them. Of course I used a reputable website (MFP) to calculate calories, as I have been for years. In fact, I always err on the side of overestimating in order to avoid the mistake of underestimating. I calculated my calories with a personal trainer and a nutrition coach, and I adjust them as necessary, along with making other adjustments to my exercise and nutrition plans. I may not be a serious bodybuilder, but I understand the basic concepts of nutrition and fitness. I'm not bitter that my reality is being questioned. I'm dumbfounded that it provokes people so much when my reality is different from theirs.
I'm not going to dignify this ridiculous snide response with a response, so I'll just leave this here.
11 -
I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.8 -
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.
In terms of weight loss yes, all that matters is the energy balance between the calories you take in and the calories you expend or CICO. That said CICO says nothing about what strategies might work for you in order to lose weight or what methods are going to be accurate for you in terms of estimating CI or CO.4 -
I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
If you don't understand that ALL weight management comes down to it, then you deny CICO - at least on some level.12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions