Science undecided of CICO?
Replies
-
I’m new to the dieting world.
Now 66 years old, thin as a rail for my first 45 years. But my weight crept up over 15 years. I just lost 20 pounds (my first ever) and BMI is now 23. I know maintenance may be a new challenge.
I’m a CICO zealot. BUT, reading the reader comments section on this NY Times article was an eye opener.
(More Fitness, Less Fatness. https://nyti.ms/2sZ8grQ?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
The commenters allege that the Science of CICO is far from settled.
That’s disconcerting and threatens to unseat my conviction that CICO is the gospel of weight loss.
Surely many of the readers who commented there are not rigorously tracking CI or CO.
But, what about the alleged science. Do we need to temper our zeal for CICO? Or tone it down?
The actual bariatric surgeon quoted in the article (Dr. Livingston) reportedly said this: “the common denominator for all successful diet plans is calorie reduction, irrespective of how that is achieved. . . .”
Some random anonymous doofus(es) in the public comments section allege that there's no science to CICO (whatever the heck they may think it is).
OP, you, personally, have lost 20 pounds by applying the idea that a calorie deficit causes weight loss.
I know what I'd be most likely to believe about the energy balance equation (CICO), based solely on that collection of facts . . . even if I hadn't read a good-ish number of other level-headed, expert sources who think calories are the main basis of weight management (in the technical, physical sense - other factors obviously apply to the behavioral and psychological side, as well as to overall health).
If you prefer to listen to the peanut gallery, feel free. Human beings are very influenced by what's popular, and tend to stick close to reference group behavioral norms. I'd prefer to do my best to keep my weight in the healthy zone, thanks.
10 -
I am undecided of the purpose behind this thread. Does that make me science?13
-
-
-
That's like deciding not to vaccinate your children because of Jenny McCarthy's comments. You burn more than your eat, you lose weight. It's as simple as that. Don't let opinions sway fact.16
-
The comments section is laughable, it's people who have no clue how nutrition works, failed any attempts for weight loss because they were most likely still overeating and then to make themselves feel better, they say CICO isn't real. I mean how many people do you know weigh and track their food??? I am willing to bet that it's a very small percentage. I know at my job, we are about 50+ people and apart from myself, I only one other person who track what they eat. The rest complain about not losing weight, but when you see the garbage they eat, it pretty much answers the question on why they don't lose weight.I’m a CICO zealot. BUT, reading the reader comments section on this NY Times article was an eye opener.
I hate bringing up this fact, but if CICO wasn't true, how come their were no obese people in the concentration camp where the jews were basically eating little to no food??? Or the Minnesota Starving experiment (1945) where all their subjects were reduced to bones? We all have a caloric deficit and the 2 situations I gave as an example, even though they were extreme cases proves that no one is immune to weight loss.
If CICO wasn't real, then we would have a real problem in our hands, because we wouldn't know how to lose weight.12 -
I’m a biomedical engineer. CICO must work due to the laws of the universe. If you can’t acknowledge that, we can’t have a useful conversation.
The problem with CICO is that it is somewhat challenging to estimate the CI and really hard to estimate the CO. For most people the general rules work, but I have seen people that have bodies that do all kinds of crazy things. That’s what special studies are for.22 -
stanmann571 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So you lost 20 pounds though creating a calorie deficit but some random comments on an article are making you doubt that it actually happened?
I have a friend who watched a utube video that said garlic was poisonous to your body. One video and she's on the anti-garlic crazytrain. I sent her all kinds of medical studies, articles but then she became mad. I don't want to eat something that's going to poison me.
I told her that thousands of years of eating garlic by the Greeks and Italians has not proven to be poisonous for people. She made a decision to believe one random opinion and throw everything out with the bathwater. She has not spoken to me again. History, food science did not tell her what she wanted to hear and that's where most of the food debate gets started and never ends. Sigh.
Mmmmm, more garlic for me!
You're falling further behind.
I'm trying! Without cheating...2 -
john_not_typical wrote: »I’m a biomedical engineer. CICO must work due to the laws of the universe. If you can’t acknowledge that, we can’t have a useful conversation.
The problem with CICO is that it is somewhat challenging to estimate the CI and really hard to estimate the CO. For most people the general rules work, but I have seen people that have bodies that do all kinds of crazy things. That’s what special studies are for.
Pretty much. I think that what scientists don't really agree on is how the body might use up more calories to burn some food versus others or whatnot... But it's still CICO...1 -
I'm confused. Why does it matter what an article says when you can see for yourself that CICO works?11
-
The commenters allege that the Science of CICO is far from settled.
That’s disconcerting and threatens to unseat my conviction that CICO is the gospel of weight loss.
The article itself says no such thing. There are commenters here that also say CICO is far from settled -- and others that say apple cider vinegar will cure what ails yah. Why are you letting what some random strangers commenting on a NYT article derail your efforts?6 -
CarvedTones wrote: »Most of the articles I have read that purport to show there is more to it than that are really just accomplishing the same end some other way. They point out that is nearly impossible to get counts of calories consumed and calories burned completely accurate and then propose that some other inexact method is better because keto (or whatever term they choose to insert at the end).
I think it gets contentious when the different inexact method claims some other mechanism of action. I mean, fine. If calorie counting doesn't work for you, then reduce your calorie intake by whatever means works. Just don't try to tell me that the reason your way works is something other than CICO.
When you get into straight-up claims that a strategy like "eat less, move more" NEVER WORKS -- which I've gotten more than once -- you're into the universe of nonsense.2 -
Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:
If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.4 -
lacyphacelia wrote: »Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:
If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.
Exactly. Because you aren't consuming more calories than you are putting out.1 -
lacyphacelia wrote: »Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:
If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.
It would depend on how plentiful the game, fruit, nuts, and other foodstuffs were, and how skilled you were in hunting and gathering.2 -
Coconut oil, fresh from the coconut!lynn_glenmont wrote: »lacyphacelia wrote: »Here's a question people need to answer honestly about CICO:
If you were stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere, or got lost in the woods for a month and had to subsist off of available food in both scenarios (whatever you could kill/catch/eat that wasn't poisonous)-- wouldn't you lose weight from having a restricted food supply? I've accepted that the human body has protective mechanisms for metabolism, but at some point your body adapts and you will lose weight.
It would depend on how plentiful the game, fruit, nuts, and other foodstuffs were, and how skilled you were in hunting and gathering.
2 -
-
The MFP blog is like the Dr. Oz show and a bunch of FB posts. It's put together to draw clicks, not for scientific accuracy.16 -
"A meter isn't a meter because walking a meter barefoot on broken glass has a different effect than a meter on pillows."
Does that sound like a scientific argument to you?
12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 389K Introduce Yourself
- 42.9K Getting Started
- 259K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232K Fitness and Exercise
- 340 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.3K Motivation and Support
- 7.6K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 21 News and Announcements
- 709 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions