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.
Anyone else frustrated with the CICO mantra?
Replies
-
PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »Yes, I also get frustrated with it. I get additionally frustrated with other people getting intensely pushy about it the moment you even remotely say there is something wrong with the dogmatic approach it has. I live with a scientist and she has many of the similar complaints that you have. She was also remarkably doubtful of my own methods when a few years ago I determined that CICO wasn't enough for me. I actually did more research on it than she did and I had to do a whole lot of my own homework and tests on my own body until I found something that actually did work for me. She later came to accept that I was right about my approach.
So as far as frustration goes, there is a personal frustration for both myself in that it didn't work for me. Additionally, when it didn't work, most people insisted that I was either doing it wrong or were adamant that I was lying about what I was writing down in my logs. The CICO community can be very supportive, but in this regard, remarkably toxic when it comes to people who have trouble with it. The latter frustration is on behalf of others. The frustration on behalf of others is compounded by other abusive perspectives on weight, such as hearing endless stories about women doing all that they could to get a diagnosis for their health problems and only being told that they should lose weight.
Scientifically speaking, weight loss approaches are pretty witchdoctor-y at this stage as it's actually not entirely well understood why we gain or lose weight, especially when it comes to differences between men, women, transgender folk and other genders who take HRT and have changes in their metabolism and chemical make-up. The latter two especially have next to no understanding, if any.
As far as treatment goes in medicine, most illnesses are diagnosed and prescribed a specific solution. When it comes to weight, it has one universal solution that is supposed to work for everybody and because of this, those who fall through the average do not get the proper help that they need. It does not make sense to me to think that one single solution is universal to all people. That is almost never the case for other health problems.
There is a graph posted in this thread that is a drastic oversimplification about the mathematics involved. Unfortunately, this simplistic outlook on the issue is only applicable to bodies which have healthy metabolisms to which counting calories is all that they need and ignores those who have other considerations to take in about their personal health queries. It also ignores aspects such as nutritional depletion in crops which have developed in places like the US over the decades, and this factors into malnutrition.
Calories are not nutrition. While there is a correlation between calorie-dense foods and low nutrition vs. calorie-depleted and higher nutrition and it's understandable to make note of fast foods in this instance, the point stands that conventional food has far less nutrition than it used to and this in itself causes malnutrition of a different kind than simply depending on fast food. If you are malnourished on a "healthy" diet, you're still going to feel inclined to eat more than what you probably need to. From the perspective of calories, there is only eating too much or too little in order to lose or gain weight and nutrition doesn't factor in. Nutrition should factor into food sciences when it comes to weight loss. To further back this up, let's consider the glycemic index. If you eat 2,000 calories of just table sugar, it isn't going to work. To think that only calories matter is drastically oversimplified. Our digestive system is not simply a black box that only observes inputs and outputs. Nutrients matter.
I can come up with more ways to talk about why calories are not the pinnacle of weight loss solutions.
Another point is how calories are measured. There are two ways. One is through a bomb calorimeter where they seal the food into a container, lower it into a pool of water, and then burn it and measure how long it takes to finish burning. The other method is a calculation by man named Atwater from the 19th century. While these methods provide us some insight into calories and how much energy food has, they are old and do not factor in other aspects of digestion. You can read more about it here: https://www.livescience.com/62808-how-calories-are-calculated.html
In the US and other countries, companies are required to label their products with nutritional facts as I am sure you are aware of. However, companies know that lower calorie labels sell better than higher ones, and as a result they bend their numbers in what ways they can. As a result of the above paragraph and this, calories are actually remarkably imprecise. But imprecise as they are, they are capable of giving us some guidance. However, the complaint that it is overdogmatized is legitimate.
On a personal note, I found other kinds of adjustment to my food intake which helped me in the past without needing to count calories, or calories were supplemented alongside what I did and they were far better than counting calories all by themselves. I had paths in life where I did not need to count calories at all because I adjusted my food accordingly to the guidelines of other techniques. The reason I am back to journaling was actually to start making sure I was eating enough, and balanced, rather than to restrict myself. I accept that the numbers that I have are imprecise, but put me somewhere near the ballpark of where I need to be, and that is what helps me for the time being until something better comes along.
Thank you for reading, I know this was a long post.
edited for clarification.
There are absolutely some parts of diet culture that frustrate me, I just don't prescribe them specifically to CICO. And to an extent I think you should 'meet people where they are at' if you want to be supportive. Calories aren't literally the only thing that matters, but if you have to focus on one thing: that's what I focus on.
I absolutely do think some doctors will blame weight without investigating. I feel like that part has gotten better over the last decades, or maybe I just found the right doctor.
Agreed. Meet people where they’re at to be supportive.
Struggling with weight loss, and then getting told by strangers in an online forum that you’re “lying to yourself” and other little zingers has a serious potential to turn people away from MFP, and potentially trying to lose weight and/or get fit at all.
As for your second point? I can assure you, blaming weight without investigating any other aspect of someone’s symptoms is still very much a thing for many doctors. It happens to women a bit more frequently, but it definitely happens to men also.
And classism (and other isms) also is a factor in this unfortunate behavior.
You got lucky with your doctor. And I’m glad you did. It definitely makes life easier when you have a doctor who is willing to work with you. This is not snark. I am truthfully happy for you.4 -
Do you happen to know the name of that study? I know they tested dietitians and even they were off, but not by so much. I don’t know it is all that obese people lie to themselves and others. Calorie counting can be difficult, that is the great thing about this forum, to get advice.rheddmobile wrote: »
I try to put the point as delicately as possible, but there have been studies on “diet resistant” individuals using food laced with radioactive isotopes so that the exact amount of food taken in can be tracked. One such study found that obese people who claimed not to be able to lose weight through calorie restriction were reporting on average only 1/3 of their actual intake - and this is knowing that they were being observed!paperpudding wrote: »
That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
You are right. I should have said 'presumptuous.' Sometimes people really do underestimate their calories, but it never sits well with me when someone automatically makes that pronouncement.
People who are obese have had a lifetime of learning to lie to themselves and others about food and some of them have gotten so good at it that they don’t even know they are doing it. When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
4 -
MerryFit519 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »MerryFit519 wrote: »I believe which calories you feed yourself matter. (macros, keto, high-protein, low-fat..whichever fits your needs) I also believe "when" you feed matters. (yep, I'm an IF advocate) Studies show groups simply counting calories lose less than those who follow IF eating the same calories (metabolism differences) *Not sure I'm allowed to link to the studies? will do if I can.... but at the end of the day yep, cico, kinda. (but I'd rather eat 1500 calories and lose 2 pounds a week, than eat the same amount and lose 1 pound. the food I eat and when I eat can influence the rate of loss) I'm sure other factors weigh in, like genetics, where you started, etc. (without counting all calories in/out 4 days a week....and strictly counting them 3 days a week..I'm down 34 pounds in just less than 3 months...adding that bit for the user above asking for 'scientific solution' lol)
I wouldnt, actually.
I would rather lose at a slow and steady pace than think faster is better (although I think differences acheived by IF are minimal anyway, for same calorie intake) - and do so in a way that suits my eating style long term
3 months is a good start - but hardly long term.
and 3lb per week (34 in under 3 months) is too fast for nearly everybody
And that is perfectly awesome, for you.
I truly believe everyone is different as are their macros, calories, timing, rate of loss, and ultimate goals (bmi score etc)
But I do wish it could be "ok" for me too, to have found something different from you and others that works for me without being "wrong" because I don't simply weigh/measure 7 days a week to hit a calorie number/macros. (the original topic of cico)
I didn't set out to lose 3 lbs a week but tracking nutrients and doing it with IF just sped it up beyond expectations, made me very happy with food again finally, and, freed me from being too obsessive (which drives me nuts personally)...and I look forward to the simplicity with zero feeling of missing out on anything.
As far as "3 months are a good start"..thank you! (though I know you didn't mean it as a compliment - you meant it as a slight to my success being short-term....) No worries though, kinda getting used to success from IF being downgraded, disagreed with etc..b/c If isn't "your" way.
You seem to have misinterpreted my post.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone using a different way to me and that includes "people who lose without weighing/measuring 7 days a week"
in fact it includes people who lose without weighing/measuring at all.
But it is still CICO - whether you are losing via calorie counting or any other method that results in a calorie deficit.
CICO was the original topic - weighing /measuring was not
CICO is not calorie counting.
and whatever method anyone is using, they still should be aiming for real life results of an appropriate pace and adjusting their method (ie eat more or less) according to real life results. - 3lb per week is too much for almost everybody
Fast is not better. Slow and steady and permanant is better.
Saying 3 months is a good start was not meant as a compliment or a sleight - it was meant as a neutral statement of 3 months not being long term and permanant.
IF wasnt being downgraded or disagreed with because it isnt my way - I have said over and over on this forum that IF is fine if it is a WOE that suits you
What I disagreed with was that losing 3lb per week is a good pace to go at or a thing we should rather achieve.
18 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
Overwhelming, perhaps.
But that still leaves room for some who are in fact telling the truth.
I am good friends with one such person.
They’ve been on a medically supervised inpatient diet for about four years now. And while they have lost some, they haven’t lost anything near what would get them to a normal BMI. And no. They’re not sneaking food. For a variety of reasons that’s impossible in their case.
This person is native Hawaiian. Their genetics really, honest to Pete, is having a serious impact on their weight and health.
CICO is a good rule of thumb.
I’m never going to say that it isn’t.
But there are differences between people.
And I would like to see more emphasis on learning what those differences are, and how we can help people who are the outliers.
I think it’s valid to be aware of outliers, but when someone reports hoofbeats, it’s bad practice to not at least suggest it might be a horse rather than a zebra. And I do always say that there’s a remote possibility of an outlier health issue - which can only be discovered by nailing down logging first. If the poster’s diary shows they are guesstimating portions, eating out all the time, and only logging every other day, how would anyone determine whether they were an outlier or not?
Again, studies on obese people who believed they had slow metabolisms found that most obese people have higher metabolisms than expected. On average obese people burn more than expected, not less. They just eat a ton more food than they realize. I can’t remember the number for sure but I believe it was something like 5% of obese people in the study actually had a slow metabolism. It’s a thing but it’s an uncommon thing, not nearly as common as wishful thinking would have it be.
I grew up with a friend whose sister had a health condition which I can’t remember the name of - she was developmentally delayed and had no off switch to her hunger. They had locks on all their cabinets and fridge because she would literally eat all the food in the house if allowed. That’s one example of a health condition which really does have an impact. Your friend has another. There are lots of meds which have weight gain as side effects. But honestly none of these examples invalidate the principle of CICO, they just complicate figuring out what the CI and CO are in that specific case. And the sad truth is that most people here don’t have a health condition making them fat, they are making themselves fat by overeating and being sedentary, which is easy to do in modern society.
It seems to me that it would be better if instead of being punitive, saying “You’re fat because you’re a greedy pig,” we acknowledged that in a society in which the majority of people are overweight or obese, eating too much is frequently the result of quite reasonable decision making. How about, “You gained weight because you prioritized social bonds with your friends and family, and because your work requires long hours sitting down.” Doesn’t that sound better? Most people aren’t fat because they are lazy pigs, they are fat because they come home from work tired and then have to do work around the house, and because Applebee’s for some reason offers desserts containing more calories than a middle aged sedentary female needs to eat in a week. Most of us got fat because it made sense at the time.19 -
Do you happen to know the name of that study? I know they tested dietitians and even they were off, but not by so much. I don’t know it is all that obese people lie to themselves and others. Calorie counting can be difficult, that is the great thing about this forum, to get advice.rheddmobile wrote: »
I try to put the point as delicately as possible, but there have been studies on “diet resistant” individuals using food laced with radioactive isotopes so that the exact amount of food taken in can be tracked. One such study found that obese people who claimed not to be able to lose weight through calorie restriction were reporting on average only 1/3 of their actual intake - and this is knowing that they were being observed!paperpudding wrote: »
That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
You are right. I should have said 'presumptuous.' Sometimes people really do underestimate their calories, but it never sits well with me when someone automatically makes that pronouncement.
People who are obese have had a lifetime of learning to lie to themselves and others about food and some of them have gotten so good at it that they don’t even know they are doing it. When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
I’ll see if I can find it later. If I remember it was a British study. You may be able to find it by googling some key phrases.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
Overwhelming, perhaps.
But that still leaves room for some who are in fact telling the truth.
I am good friends with one such person.
They’ve been on a medically supervised inpatient diet for about four years now. And while they have lost some, they haven’t lost anything near what would get them to a normal BMI. And no. They’re not sneaking food. For a variety of reasons that’s impossible in their case.
This person is native Hawaiian. Their genetics really, honest to Pete, is having a serious impact on their weight and health.
CICO is a good rule of thumb.
I’m never going to say that it isn’t.
But there are differences between people.
And I would like to see more emphasis on learning what those differences are, and how we can help people who are the outliers.
I think it’s valid to be aware of outliers, but when someone reports hoofbeats, it’s bad practice to not at least suggest it might be a horse rather than a zebra. And I do always say that there’s a remote possibility of an outlier health issue - which can only be discovered by nailing down logging first. If the poster’s diary shows they are guesstimating portions, eating out all the time, and only logging every other day, how would anyone determine whether they were an outlier or not?
Again, studies on obese people who believed they had slow metabolisms found that most obese people have higher metabolisms than expected. On average obese people burn more than expected, not less. They just eat a ton more food than they realize. I can’t remember the number for sure but I believe it was something like 5% of obese people in the study actually had a slow metabolism. It’s a thing but it’s an uncommon thing, not nearly as common as wishful thinking would have it be.
I grew up with a friend whose sister had a health condition which I can’t remember the name of - she was developmentally delayed and had no off switch to her hunger. They had locks on all their cabinets and fridge because she would literally eat all the food in the house if allowed. That’s one example of a health condition which really does have an impact. Your friend has another. There are lots of meds which have weight gain as side effects. But honestly none of these examples invalidate the principle of CICO, they just complicate figuring out what the CI and CO are in that specific case. And the sad truth is that most people here don’t have a health condition making them fat, they are making themselves fat by overeating and being sedentary, which is easy to do in modern society.
It seems to me that it would be better if instead of being punitive, saying “You’re fat because you’re a greedy pig,” we acknowledged that in a society in which the majority of people are overweight or obese, eating too much is frequently the result of quite reasonable decision making. How about, “You gained weight because you prioritized social bonds with your friends and family, and because your work requires long hours sitting down.” Doesn’t that sound better? Most people aren’t fat because they are lazy pigs, they are fat because they come home from work tired and then have to do work around the house, and because Applebee’s for some reason offers desserts containing more calories than a middle aged sedentary female needs to eat in a week. Most of us got fat because it made sense at the time.
I don’t disagree with any of your points. And I do believe CICO is a key metric.
I think where the split between points of view here is happening is when someone says something along the lines of “Low thyroid makes it difficult to lose weight, and easy to gain weight” and someone responds that it’s “just CICO”
Which…. Yes? Sort of? But the thyroid condition does have an impact. In my personal case it had a huge impact.
Low thyroid makes it very difficult to do anything. Especially if it’s really low. So yes, exercise and cutting down on calories definitely have an impact…. But when you can’t move without extreme effort? The calories are not leaving anywhere near as fast as even undereating (to a typical level based low activity, age, and height) brings them into the body.
Have some people done that extreme effort? One MFP member reports such a thing that I have seen. And that person is the outlier. Which is good for them. But not much help for most of the people struggling with low thyroid and weight gain.
I am a strong advocate of “meet them where they’re at”
Yes. CICO. But also encourage people who are struggling with such issues to seek help from the medical community, and from others who have been through what they’re dealing with. A wholistic approach, if you will.
To reiterate: Yes. CICO. But also in addition to CICO, acknowledging other individual factors is helpful, and will help people gain success with weight loss and better fitness.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Do you happen to know the name of that study? I know they tested dietitians and even they were off, but not by so much. I don’t know it is all that obese people lie to themselves and others. Calorie counting can be difficult, that is the great thing about this forum, to get advice.rheddmobile wrote: »
I try to put the point as delicately as possible, but there have been studies on “diet resistant” individuals using food laced with radioactive isotopes so that the exact amount of food taken in can be tracked. One such study found that obese people who claimed not to be able to lose weight through calorie restriction were reporting on average only 1/3 of their actual intake - and this is knowing that they were being observed!paperpudding wrote: »
That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
You are right. I should have said 'presumptuous.' Sometimes people really do underestimate their calories, but it never sits well with me when someone automatically makes that pronouncement.
People who are obese have had a lifetime of learning to lie to themselves and others about food and some of them have gotten so good at it that they don’t even know they are doing it. When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
I’ll see if I can find it later. If I remember it was a British study. You may be able to find it by googling some key phrases.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/
I found it. I will look for the one I mentioned with the different groups including dietitians under reporting. Got it. The dieticians were much closer but under.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12396160/
I also found this which goes towards the OPs point that weight loss is nuanced
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496172/
7 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
Overwhelming, perhaps.
But that still leaves room for some who are in fact telling the truth.
I am good friends with one such person.
They’ve been on a medically supervised inpatient diet for about four years now. And while they have lost some, they haven’t lost anything near what would get them to a normal BMI. And no. They’re not sneaking food. For a variety of reasons that’s impossible in their case.
This person is native Hawaiian. Their genetics really, honest to Pete, is having a serious impact on their weight and health.
CICO is a good rule of thumb.
I’m never going to say that it isn’t.
But there are differences between people.
And I would like to see more emphasis on learning what those differences are, and how we can help people who are the outliers.
I think it’s valid to be aware of outliers, but when someone reports hoofbeats, it’s bad practice to not at least suggest it might be a horse rather than a zebra. And I do always say that there’s a remote possibility of an outlier health issue - which can only be discovered by nailing down logging first. If the poster’s diary shows they are guesstimating portions, eating out all the time, and only logging every other day, how would anyone determine whether they were an outlier or not?
Again, studies on obese people who believed they had slow metabolisms found that most obese people have higher metabolisms than expected. On average obese people burn more than expected, not less. They just eat a ton more food than they realize. I can’t remember the number for sure but I believe it was something like 5% of obese people in the study actually had a slow metabolism. It’s a thing but it’s an uncommon thing, not nearly as common as wishful thinking would have it be.
I grew up with a friend whose sister had a health condition which I can’t remember the name of - she was developmentally delayed and had no off switch to her hunger. They had locks on all their cabinets and fridge because she would literally eat all the food in the house if allowed. That’s one example of a health condition which really does have an impact. Your friend has another. There are lots of meds which have weight gain as side effects. But honestly none of these examples invalidate the principle of CICO, they just complicate figuring out what the CI and CO are in that specific case. And the sad truth is that most people here don’t have a health condition making them fat, they are making themselves fat by overeating and being sedentary, which is easy to do in modern society.
It seems to me that it would be better if instead of being punitive, saying “You’re fat because you’re a greedy pig,” we acknowledged that in a society in which the majority of people are overweight or obese, eating too much is frequently the result of quite reasonable decision making. How about, “You gained weight because you prioritized social bonds with your friends and family, and because your work requires long hours sitting down.” Doesn’t that sound better? Most people aren’t fat because they are lazy pigs, they are fat because they come home from work tired and then have to do work around the house, and because Applebee’s for some reason offers desserts containing more calories than a middle aged sedentary female needs to eat in a week. Most of us got fat because it made sense at the time.
I don’t disagree with any of your points. And I do believe CICO is a key metric.
I think where the split between points of view here is happening is when someone says something along the lines of “Low thyroid makes it difficult to lose weight, and easy to gain weight” and someone responds that it’s “just CICO”
Which…. Yes? Sort of? But the thyroid condition does have an impact. In my personal case it had a huge impact.
Low thyroid makes it very difficult to do anything. Especially if it’s really low. So yes, exercise and cutting down on calories definitely have an impact…. But when you can’t move without extreme effort? The calories are not leaving anywhere near as fast as even undereating (to a typical level based low activity, age, and height) brings them into the body.
Have some people done that extreme effort? One MFP member reports such a thing that I have seen. And that person is the outlier. Which is good for them. But not much help for most of the people struggling with low thyroid and weight gain.
I am a strong advocate of “meet them where they’re at”
Yes. CICO. But also encourage people who are struggling with such issues to seek help from the medical community, and from others who have been through what they’re dealing with. A wholistic approach, if you will.
To reiterate: Yes. CICO. But also in addition to CICO, acknowledging other individual factors is helpful, and will help people gain success with weight loss and better fitness.
I agree with you re: the thyroid. The proper dose of meds, for me, makes the difference between my weight slowly drifting upwards about half a pound a week, and maintaining, on the same exact routine and calories. Because I log strictly, eat the same meals regularly in a rotation, and follow the same exercise protocol I know that on paper everything is the same. Yet when my meds need adjusting my weight starts floating upwards, to the point that I can tell my doctor exactly what my blood work is going to say.
Again, studies show that there’s not that much difference in metabolism with a low thyroid - it amounts to a couple hundred calories a day at most. Should be doable, right? But I think there’s a huge and largely unmeasurable difference in non-exercise activity. It’s not magic, CICO still works, it’s just that the CO half of the equation is lower.
My first advice to someone with a thyroid problem is to sort the thyroid problem. If your doctor underprescribes meds, kick the doctor to the curb and get one who doesn’t hate patients for some mysterious reason. (I don’t know why so many doctors refuse to medicate patients until they are within the recommended levels, but it’s really common.) Life is much easier with enough thyroid hormones!
I’ve got an interesting example for you - I am hypothyroid and also have lupus. My most frequent manifestation of lupus is heart inflammation, which, combined with obesity, would raise my resting heart rate into the 130s. One of the symptoms of being hypothyroid, on the other hand, is LOW heart rate, so taking my thyroid meds would make my heart rate shoot up even higher! I was unable to treat the thyroid, and an untreated thyroid condition itself causes heart stress, which created a negative feedback loop. I frequently wound up unable to get out of bed at all because my heart rate would go to like 200 when I stood up (which is scary and unpleasant.)
So, when I decided I had to lose weight anyway, I found that getting out from under obese BMI brought my heart rate down enough that I could take thyroid meds, which made weight loss even easier. These days my tsh is in range and my heart rate is 48 (from being a runner.)
The main thing though is, even though I had a rotten thyroid and was on bed rest, I did lose weight anyway. Because CICO. Because there is no human on earth who won’t lose weight if calories are sufficiently restricted.11 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »You hear it all the time on diet plans, from your doctor, etc. But it's apparent simplicity is both misleading and unhelpful.
Yes, CICO is true(ish, there are exceptions) But that's answering the wrong question. The question of why someone is overweight is, given that most dieters already know this, why do some people eat too much?
I'm a scientist and I hate this CICO mantra being thrown around like it's something we haven't heard before. Its unhelpful. We don't tell alcoholics that they are alcoholics because they drink too much booze. The answer to the obesity crisis lies in answering the real question.
I don’t think CICO’s simplicity makes it misleading and unhelpful. Misunderstanding CICO is misleading and unhelpful. CICO is a simple mathematic equation. Each individual needs to decide what they want the result of the equation to be (loss, gain, maintain). Once that is figured out each individual needs to determine the appropriate calories to plug in for CI and CO. It’s a very elementary concept… 1+2=3. 1-2=-1.
I will also argue that “we all know CICO” is inaccurate. It wasn’t until like my 5th go on MFP over 6+ years that I finally read the concept and had the “aha! moment.” I realized I had over complicated things for myself for so long when all I really had to do was follow a simple math equation. You will also see all over the forum, this thread included, where people use CICO and calorie counting interchangeably. Which is inaccurate, they are 2 different things. CICO is the foundation, that rule applies across the board for us all. Individual equations will vary, but the rule still applies. Calorie counting can be built on the foundation, actively tracking/counting the numbers in your CICO equation. This will help ensure your equation stays in the proper balance to achieve the originally identified result one is trying to achieve. IF, keto, weight watchers, eating frog heads, etc can all be built on the original CICO foundation, it doesn’t change the CICO rule.
As far as the why question… that runs a bit deeper. Those with medical issues (such as thyroid issues mentioned above) need to work with their doctor. They may have a more complicated CO number that they will have to work to identify, sometimes this may take some trial and error, adjustments over time to determine when they get the number that gets their desired results. Doesn’t make CICO wrong, there’s just a medical issue at play that makes their equation a bit skewed. Also, people here are usually pretty quick to recommend a visit with a therapist or doctor when it comes to “answering the real question.” Nobody is chanting “CICO” with their pitchforks and torches. Getting help from a therapist or doctor to rein in medical or mental health barriers will be necessary for a lot of people… still doesn’t make CICO wrong, misleading, or unhelpful.17 -
paperpudding wrote: »I'm OK with the CICO 'mantra.' What makes me cross are people who reply to a weight loss snag with a smug, 'You must not be accurately measuring your food' or a meal posting with, 'That sounds like a lot more that X amount of calories.'
I guess it depends how they say it.
That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
I agree with this. I am relatively new to MFP forums, but something I've noticed on forums in general over the past several decades as a person who leans toward being highly sensitive: rudeness is easily conflated with merely being straightforward. I used to do this all the time and still sometimes have to consciously remind myself they are not the same thing if I read a post that immediately raises my hackles. This can happen with in person conversation too, but I think it's especially prevalent on forums or in other text-based conversation.
I have a tendency to couch, qualify, or hedge a LOT to avoid being interpreted as rude. Sometimes I think there's a real usefulness to those skills to meet your audience, or provide necessary context. But sometimes it's just a function of my own heightened sensitivity that I expect everyone to speak that way to me and it's an unfair and unrealistic expectation that I need to walk back.
As I have mentioned many, many times on the forums, I'm a breastfeeding mom. Breastfeeding affects my CO, by a rather significant margin. I bring it up sometimes, when I think it might be helpful or relevant or just as part of telling my own story. But it wouldn't be appropriate for me to expect it to be immediately thought of by every other poster when discussing basic nutrition science - because it simply doesn't often apply. I'm not offended by the use of generalities that will be sufficient for most posters just because I happen to be an outlier. And the fact is that when many posters ask questions about why they aren't losing weight...most of the time it's because they've made a common mistake. And we're offering help that was at one point very useful to us that we didn't know. If a person seems kind of brusque about the advice, I try to remember that they've probably given it a thousand times before, they've whittled down their response to something quick so the poster isn't waiting forever wondering "why won't somebody respond to my thread?!" and because the asker usually isn't providing a bunch of context (sometimes they don't know what context will be useful.)
It is a pointless and frustrating exercise to expect other people to read your mind and getting mad when they can't.16 -
I have trouble reading tone in posts.7
-
paperpudding wrote: »That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
You are right. I should have said 'presumptuous.' Sometimes people really do underestimate their calories, but it never sits well with me when someone automatically makes that pronouncement.
When someone starts a thread looking for the answer to why they aren't losing weight, if it's been too long for temporary water retention to be a factor, the most likely explanation IS that they are inaccurately measuring CI and/or CO.
I don't want to presume this, so I always ask for them to make their diary public.
We've seen this SO MANY TIMES - a person swears they are logging meticulously and accurately, but a look at their diary reveals that they are not.
It would be no surprise at all if posters who have been around a while presume that the OP is inaccurately measuring CI and/or CO.
However, we don't stop there. Many of us spend an extraordinary amount of time explaining what could be going wrong and ways to fix it.11 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »@cmriverside did you read my post? I don't deny that CICO is true. I'm saying it's unhelpful to keep saying it to people over and over because we all know it. I don't have a solution, it's not my area of expertise. But the answer isn't to shrug our shoulders and dismiss the idea that it really is more complicated than that. We need more research. But you're wrong about where the problem lies. I refer to my alcoholic example again - telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit.
As an aside, a lot of medications cause weight gain, most often by increasing appetite. The opposite is also true - Saxenda for example works for weight loss partially by decreasing appetite. Hunger is part of the problem. Humans aren't designed to ignore it. It's why most diets fail.
If you changed "telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit" to "telling an alcoholic not to drink AT ALL doesn't help the person quit" I would disagree with this all day long, based on AA, Smart Recovery, and Rational Recovery.
However, your original point was "We don't tell alcoholics that they are alcoholics because they drink too much booze" which really doesn't have much in common with your second statement. Your original point is a WHY statement and the second is a HOW (to quit) statement.
I've known WHY I overeat for decades. Learning HOW to stop doing this was far more helpful.10 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »@cmriverside did you read my post? I don't deny that CICO is true. I'm saying it's unhelpful to keep saying it to people over and over because we all know it. I don't have a solution, it's not my area of expertise. But the answer isn't to shrug our shoulders and dismiss the idea that it really is more complicated than that. We need more research. But you're wrong about where the problem lies. I refer to my alcoholic example again - telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit.
As an aside, a lot of medications cause weight gain, most often by increasing appetite. The opposite is also true - Saxenda for example works for weight loss partially by decreasing appetite. Hunger is part of the problem. Humans aren't designed to ignore it. It's why most diets fail.
There have been a few times in my life when I wasn't in charge of the menu or didn't have access to American supermarkets and I did learn to ignore hunger. It is indeed more challenging when I have unlimited access to hyperpalatable food.
Regular posters do spend a lot of time addressing hunger issues, with two main points:
1. We often caution against creating too aggressive a calorie deficit and I post this graphic ad nauseam:
2. Finding the foods/macro combos an individual finds most satiating and focusing on them.
So, CICO is key to weight loss, and dialing in one's deficit and most filling foods makes compliance easier.
(There was a great weight loss graphic that had Compliance on 50% of a pyramid that I thought I bookmarked but didn't. If anyone has it, please @ me.)4 -
I had been unaware until recently of the role that insulin plays in weight loss - I had to learn that when my blood test came back with very high, diabetic level blood sugar (now successfully reversed). Once I understood that, weight loss has become easy and enjoyable (I went with a combination of intermittent fasting and very low carb/high fat diet). CICO is a hiding to nothing long term. I learned a lot from Dr Jason Fung's books - The Obesity Code, and The Diabetes Code4
-
lol Fung is a quack and has been discredited by numerous people with great credentials in the industry. But you DID fall for what he wanted you to: create a problem and HE has the solution...............................so he can get paid.HeftyLeftyNZ wrote: »I had been unaware until recently of the role that insulin plays in weight loss - I had to learn that when my blood test came back with very high, diabetic level blood sugar (now successfully reversed). Once I understood that, weight loss has become easy and enjoyable (I went with a combination of intermittent fasting and very low carb/high fat diet). CICO is a hiding to nothing long term. I learned a lot from Dr Jason Fung's books - The Obesity Code, and The Diabetes Code
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10825299/so-is-jason-fung-right-or-wrong-is-insulin-even-a-factor-in-losing-weight-and-other-issues/p1
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
13 -
HeftyLeftyNZ wrote: »I had been unaware until recently of the role that insulin plays in weight loss - I had to learn that when my blood test came back with very high, diabetic level blood sugar (now successfully reversed). Once I understood that, weight loss has become easy and enjoyable (I went with a combination of intermittent fasting and very low carb/high fat diet). CICO is a hiding to nothing long term. I learned a lot from Dr Jason Fung's books - The Obesity Code, and The Diabetes Code
Then I guess the 150 pounds I lost as a person who had blood sugar in the diabetic range simply by counting calories was an illusion. My food preferences meant I had my carbs at the higher end of moderate both while I was losing and now, and I have been maintaining the loss with relative ease for over a year. The way my weight behaved in relation to calories was textbook. I would like Fung to explain how it's not long term.12 -
If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/3 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
This isn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement.
Also, this review is not written by the American Diabetes Association. It's a review published in an ADA journal and it was written by a blogger who has diabetes and is a consumer advocate but claims no medical or scientific experience or training.Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part. Rather, consider the code Fung has unlocked in this book and his previous one as potential options for some people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, and then form your own opinion based on specific patients’ needs.This blog does not provide medical information or advice. I write about my own experiences of living with diabetes but please don’t think that you should take on board what I’m doing and apply it to you.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