Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in

And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.

I wish more people understood that.

My sister and I grew up in the same house, eating the same foods. We are 18 months apart and even went to the same college and lived together later in life. CICO for me isn't the same for her. She's much bigger than me and always has been.

+1

Also, controlling calories in is mediated in part by things outside of a person's control, e.g., levels of leptin and ghrelin. The CICO crowd seem to assume that every aspect of CICO is under a person's control, and it's absolutely not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

I think it's because a lot of people who use the concept do so in a manner that suggests - if not necessarily saying so outright - that fat people are fat because they are more gluttonous than skinny people. I think there would be less resistance to the concept if advocates were more forthright about metabolisms being all over the map and that consumption amounts aren't a matter of morality or virtue.

It’s not all over the map by the orders of magnitude that people want to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in

And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.

I wish more people understood that.

My sister and I grew up in the same house, eating the same foods. We are 18 months apart and even went to the same college and lived together later in life. CICO for me isn't the same for her. She's much bigger than me and always has been.

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

I think it's because a lot of people who use the concept do so in a manner that suggests - if not necessarily saying so outright - that fat people are fat because they are more gluttonous than skinny people. I think there would be less resistance to the concept if advocates were more forthright about metabolisms being all over the map and that consumption amounts aren't a matter of morality or virtue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

Because that insinuate that the choices people made in regards to their diet, portions, and lifestyle is what landed them into their weight predicament.

I see. It seems obviously true that choices people make do heavily influence weight loss, even if there is variation in level of food cravings or in baseline calories burned across individuals. Does anyone have the view that eating 100 fewer calories per day would not result in weight loss (or slower weight gain), if calories burned were held constant?

Yes I have that view. What matters to many people is the glycemic impact. Calories are not a proxy for blood glucose.

Um that was the point I was trying to make. People do differ in their caloric needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

Because that insinuate that the choices people made in regards to their diet, portions, and lifestyle is what landed them into their weight predicament.

I see. It seems obviously true that choices people make do heavily influence weight loss, even if there is variation in level of food cravings or in baseline calories burned across individuals. Does anyone have the view that eating 100 fewer calories per day would not result in weight loss (or slower weight gain), if calories burned were held constant?

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

Because that insinuate that the choices people made in regards to their diet, portions, and lifestyle is what landed them into their weight predicament.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is calories in, calories out. But people don't like to count because it's a huge pain to keep track off. We cook from scratch and I've counted calories before. I don't do it now because I can guesstimate, from all the calories-counting I did before.

Low carb, low sugar and/or low fat is an easy, more general way of... reducing calories. Carbs are very caloric. If you eat the fish and the broccoli but don't eat the rice on your plate, then that cuts maybe half the calories, and you don't even need to weigh and count! So that's why these methods are popular.

That's all. You do it the hard way or the easy way, but it's always calories in and calories out.

I completely disagree with you. I’ve always counted calories. While pregnant I ate the exact same amount of calories, gained 30lbs. After pregnancy I ate more but I was breastfeeding. Continued breastfeeding but ate the exact same amount and lost weight.

It’s about when you eat and I do think it’s about carbs not calories

During pregnancy you gained a baby, extra blood and fluid, breast tissue and a placenta. Also breastfeeding burns a ton of calories.

I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is calories in, calories out. But people don't like to count because it's a huge pain to keep track off. We cook from scratch and I've counted calories before. I don't do it now because I can guesstimate, from all the calories-counting I did before.

Low carb, low sugar and/or low fat is an easy, more general way of... reducing calories. Carbs are very caloric. If you eat the fish and the broccoli but don't eat the rice on your plate, then that cuts maybe half the calories, and you don't even need to weigh and count! So that's why these methods are popular.

That's all. You do it the hard way or the easy way, but it's always calories in and calories out.

I completely disagree with you. I’ve always counted calories. While pregnant I ate the exact same amount of calories, gained 30lbs. After pregnancy I ate more but I was breastfeeding. Continued breastfeeding but ate the exact same amount and lost weight.

It’s about when you eat and I do think it’s about carbs not calories

Are you serious?! That’s because calories OUT when breastfeeding are a lot!! It is well known that you burn a lot of calories by making milk, that is why many people lose their baby weight more quickly if they breastfeed. So yes, the calories in were the same but you lost weight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people with any basic knowledge of diet and nutrition don't believe in CICO

Most people with any basic knowledge of thermodynamics and closed loop systems do…

Biology isn’t physics. No one who understands biology would say something as stupid as this. But many people can’t tell the difference.

IME most people who understand physics understand biology, and most people who understand biology do NOT understand physics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in

And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.

This really captures the stupidity of CICO. Every body is different, and responds differently to a host of factors - including diet. There is no one size fits all.

CICO is meant to be applied on an INDIVIDUAL basis. No one who says CICO works thinks that every person needs the same CI or has the same CO as every other person…

Larla A. and Larla B. each weigh 140 pounds. They each get around the same amount of physical activity per day. Larla A. consumes approximately 1800 calories per day and maintains her weight. Larla B. consumes approximately 1600 calories per day to maintain her weight.

Larla B. starts eating like Larla A. (1800 calories per day) and begins to slowly gain weight. Larla B. decides that because they have the same general lifestyle and were about the same size, CICO “doesn’t work” because she gains and Larla A. doesn’t when consuming the same number of calories.

But Larla B. is wrong. For whatever reason, Larla B.’s calories OUT variable is lower than Larla A.’s, therefore Larla B. is overeating (CIb > COb) and Larla A. is eating at maintenance (CIa = COa), despite the fact that they are eating the same thing.

With wegovy who cares?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in

And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.

This really captures the stupidity of CICO. Every body is different, and responds differently to a host of factors - including diet. There is no one size fits all.

+1
The problem with most discussions claiming "it's just CICO" is that they assume that individual people have identical metabolic processing. A "calorie" is the amount of energy that is theoretically available for your body to absorb. How much is actually absorbed depends on many physical, chemical, and metabolic factors related to both the person and food consumed. The amount of energy a person expends as part of their base metabolic rate and as part of exercising also varies. It's very aggravating to listen to people who are insistent that their exact meal plan and exercise routine will work for someone else "because CICO!" when those of us on the BTDT side of things know it doesn't work for them personally.

The other annoying thing is that people love to toss various scientific studies or personal anecdotes around as proof of various claims. But really when you examine a lot of studies, they have confounding variables that combine both calorie restriction and some other change. Until there are very large population studies that also account for body composition, microbiomes, genetics, hormonal variations (daily & over time), in addition to food types consumed and exercise, we won't have the information to provide individuals with personalized guidance around how to maintain a healthy weight.

I don't think most pushing CICO are pushing this. I know a lot of people in the diet/fitness industry who will not post what they eat in a day because they acknowledge that not every one has the same calories needs. There are many factors that impact caloric needs. But just because I need 2500 cal a day to maintain my current weight and you need 1800 doesn't mean that CICO isn't true. If either of us were to eat below what we need we'd burn fat or energy and lose weight. Now maybe i have overall lower hunger levels and could cut calories whiteout noticing/feeling too hungry and you feel ravenous if you reduce calories. Then as someone mentioned above people feel differently/respond different to various ways of eating (low carb, high fat, keto) and yes, this will impact how easy or difficult it is for someone to cut calories, but fat loss still comes down to calories.