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
-
What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
11 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.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 fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
15 -
Go to work and this *babysloth* thread blows up!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.
Thank you for this post. I was just wondering about the calories in fuel. Unfortunately the cost of gas here has gone up that I'm fairly certain I can't afford to add it to my diet.11 -
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.
If It Fits Your Mouth. Come on now...10 -
i did eat a huge piece of chocolate mud cake the other day that falls into that definition of IFYM
5 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Just the stuff posted by you and your ilk.
Are you ever going to post any evidence?
11 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
My guess is that with carbs you didn't see quick results so you gave up too soon and you switched to cutting carbs and voila, you saw an immediate scale loss because you dropped water weight so you stuck with it. Carbs don't create extra energy from thin air and they don't slow your metabolism. Please understand, you're wrong.
20 -
Reposting this from the other thread:
This has two major implications. The first is that scale weight will go down faster if skeletal muscle LBM is lost due to the differences in how much energy it contains. I actually strongly suspect that the reason that many rapid weight loss centers recommend against exercise as it limits the loss of LBM while dieting. By deliberately allowing LBM loss to occur, the number on the scale will drop more quickly than if muscle were not lost even if body composition is not improving as much as it should be. If that approach is combined with a low-carbohydrate diet, the weight losses that are achieved can be extremely large due to the amount of water loss that will occur. The number on the scale will drop rapidly although the changes that are actually occurring are irrelevant (water) or negative (LBM loss).
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2915-2920). Lyle McDonald.11 -
It appears to me that there needs to be more emphasis on vetting sources on the education system as it is a skill that seems to be lacking in some of the posts.13
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »Go to work and this *babysloth* thread blows up!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.
Thank you for this post. I was just wondering about the calories in fuel. Unfortunately the cost of gas here has gone up that I'm fairly certain I can't afford to add it to my diet.
Just for chuckles and grins, here are some items with their potential energy expressed in Calories:
*note* Calories in food are "big C" calories = calories*1,000. Food Calories (1 kilocalorie) contain 1,000 calories. More confusion...
1 gallon of gasoline = 31,000 Calories (A 4 oz juice glass of gasoline would contain about 970 Calories)
AA Battery = .24 Calories
generic candy bar = 239 Calories
Pound of Uranium-235 = 8.8*10^9 Calories
Source: https://ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf
13 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »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.
If It Fits Your Mouth. Come on now...
well I failed epically last night -my burger was definitely wayyy bigger than my mouth - and it also just plain sucked! I can't believe I wasted valuable calories on that crap
3 -
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...
Back when I was in HS, I considered becoming a math teacher. One of my teachers had me tutor a couple of kids. The lack of effort was astounding. I commend you for following through.
6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
It is really difficult for me to believe that we actually fundamentally disagree here and aren't just talking past one another.
Would you agree with this:
It can be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories you get (calories your body actually gets from ingesting a given food). That different people might get a different number of effective calories received from the same foods. It can also be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories your body is using, as different people may get a different number of effective calories expended from the same activities. No current methods for estimating this are 100% accurate and the estimates are largely based on population averages that are unlikely to apply exactly the same to everyone. Me eating a bag of bread and going for a run might end up with a very different calorie surplus/deficit than you eating that exact same bag of bread and going for that exact same run. That said, if you have the actual accurate effective calorie intake and expenditure for a given person then you can from that calculate the amount of caloric surplus or deficit they are in. That if they are in caloric surplus over time they will gain weight by putting on fat and if they are in caloric deficit that they will lose weight by losing fat. That this weight loss might be masked by other factors such as water retention but overall over time the amount of fat you lose is directly related to your calorie intake and expenditure.
Is there anything there you disagree with? If not then our difference of opinion is just semantic. You think people who "believe in CICO" believe that all foods that list calories on their box give that exact number of effective calories when anyone eats them and that the amount of calories burned on your treadmill is 100% accurate where when I say I "believe in CICO" I just mean that if we are able to somehow someway get an actually accurate estimate of our calorie intake and calorie expenditure (like the actual value not what is written on a box) then that could be used to calculate the weight we would be gaining or losing. As in accordance to the first law of thermodynamics.
If you eat 2000 "written on the box" calories of bread or 2000 "written on the box" calories of chicken and you gain weight with the bread but not with the chicken (and I mean fat weight not water weight) all that means is that the way your body digests and processes the bread you are getting more effective calories from it (say 1800) than when your body processes the chicken (say 1300). It doesn't mean that CICO somehow doesn't apply. The amount of fat your body retains or gets rid of is, I hope rather obviously, tied to the total energy you actually get from foods minus the total energy you actually expend in your daily activity. Do you really have a fundamental problem with that concept?
Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.12 -
From what I see there are two major concepts that many people confuse...
1. CICO = Calorie Counting
2. Calories = Food
I posted this in another thread but seems to apply to this one as well...8 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
It is really difficult for me to believe that we actually fundamentally disagree here and aren't just talking past one another.
Would you agree with this:
It can be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories you get (calories your body actually gets from ingesting a given food). That different people might get a different number of effective calories received from the same foods. It can also be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories your body is using, as different people may get a different number of effective calories expended from the same activities. No current methods for estimating this are 100% accurate and the estimates are largely based on population averages that are unlikely to apply exactly the same to everyone. Me eating a bag of bread and going for a run might end up with a very different calorie surplus/deficit than you eating that exact same bag of bread and going for that exact same run. That said, if you have the actual accurate effective calorie intake and expenditure for a given person then you can from that calculate the amount of caloric surplus or deficit they are in. That if they are in caloric surplus over time they will gain weight by putting on fat and if they are in caloric deficit that they will lose weight by losing fat. That this weight loss might be masked by other factors such as water retention but overall over time the amount of fat you lose is directly related to your calorie intake and expenditure.
Is there anything there you disagree with? If not then our difference of opinion is just semantic. You think people who "believe in CICO" believe that all foods that list calories on their box give that exact number of effective calories when anyone eats them and that the amount of calories burned on your treadmill is 100% accurate where when I say I "believe in CICO" I just mean that if we are able to somehow someway get an actually accurate estimate of our calorie intake and calorie expenditure (like the actual value not what is written on a box) then that could be used to calculate the weight we would be gaining or losing. As in accordance to the first law of thermodynamics.
If you eat 2000 "written on the box" calories of bread or 2000 "written on the box" calories of chicken and you gain weight with the bread but not with the chicken (and I mean fat weight not water weight) all that means is that the way your body digests and processes the bread you are getting more effective calories from it (say 1800) than when your body processes the chicken (say 1300). It doesn't mean that CICO somehow doesn't apply. The amount of fat your body retains or gets rid of is, I hope rather obviously, tied to the total energy you actually get from foods minus the total energy you actually expend in your daily activity. Do you really have a fundamental problem with that concept?
Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.
You are reading too much into it...
“I am only responsible for what I say, I am not responsible for what you hear…”
–Don Miguel Ruiz21 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.
There have been countless metabolic ward studies proving that fat loss comes down to CICO. That fat loss is exactly the same given equal protein and calorie intakes. Not one has found a special person that has trouble losing fat because of carbs. Why do you believe that you're the exception? If you just happen to be 1 in 7 billion, you could be famous. I don't know who you should contact but you definitely should!
18 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.
There have been countless metabolic ward studies proving that fat loss comes down to CICO. That weight loss is exactly the same given equal protein and calories intakes. Not one has found a special person that has trouble losing fat because of carbs. Why do you believe that you're the exception? If you just happen to be 1 in 7 billion, you could be famous. I don't know who you should contact but you definitely should!
I think you have it there... "fat loss" is the same. They may lose less scale weight due to bloating and water retention from having issues with carbs/gluten, and think that refutes CICO, when in fact it does not. Scale weight changes do not show the full picture of muscle retention and fat loss. CICO is a fact for fat loss.10 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.
There have been countless metabolic ward studies proving that fat loss comes down to CICO. That weight loss is exactly the same given equal protein and calories intakes. Not one has found a special person that has trouble losing fat because of carbs. Why do you believe that you're the exception? If you just happen to be 1 in 7 billion, you could be famous. I don't know who you should contact but you definitely should!
My GI system is extremely abnormal in both motility and structure (I have severe gastroparesis and Crohn's and don't have any GI tract left below my ileum) and CICO still applies to me.14 -
More reposting since its relevant to this convo too:
In addition to all of the issues discussed above, there is an arguably even more important factor, one that is critical for the understanding of the dynamics of weight/ fat loss or gain. This is that both sides of the energy balance equation can and do change in response to changes in food intake, activity levels and the actual changes in weight or body composition. I can't tell if this fact is unknown or simply ignored by those who deny the energy balance equation but it is critical to both understand and accept. As I will discus thoroughly in the next chapter, in response to weight/ fat loss, the body will adapt and both increase hunger/ appetite (in an attempt to get people to eat more) while it decreases TDEE. This also occurs in response to weight gain although it seems that the body is better at defending weight/ fat loss than weight and fat gain under most conditions.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2959-2964). Lyle McDonald.5 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.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 fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
Do you know the concept of "Water weight"?
Glad I kept reading before posting as I was going to make a similar observation. CICO determines true weight changes, but not transient.
As an extreme and (hopefully) illustrative example, if you weigh yourself, drink a gallon of tap water, and then weigh yourself again, you can’t (or shouldn’t) claim “CICO doesn’t work for me” because the scale weight increased 8.36 pounds.
OMG! You're both right! I didn't realize that eating a low carb diet and drinking plenty of water would result in a 24 lb weight loss over the past 10 weeks that's purely water weight! Thank you for enlightening me.
You missed the point (again). No doubt that some of that 24 pounds of loss was from a sustained net caloric deficit. (Good job!) But a component of it that was *not* from that was water weight. (And that has nothing to do with whether or not you are "drinking plenty of water" either.) That it was a low carb diet almost guarantees that to be true.
The "enlightenment" I was hoping to trigger is that not all scale weight change is from fat (or muscle). The amount that is not from these is simply not a consequence of CICO. Note, this does not invalidate CICO, but explains common temporary changes to the scale that could lead someone to conclude that "CICO doesn't work for them."
(And to be clear, I'm not trying to persuade you. The above is for the benefit of others. I'm quite certain you are either unwilling or unable to grasp this distinction at this time.)16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions