What is CICO?
Do you mean something like calories in calories out?
And doesn’t that disregard the fact that sugar calories are very different from non sugar ones in terms of metabolism?
Do you mean something like calories in calories out?
And doesn’t that disregard the fact that sugar calories are very different from non sugar ones in terms of metabolism?
In addition, I have successfully eaten the “correct” amount of calories for years and years and still gained weight. I admit, andcdata, but I am not the only person with this story nor am I the only one with this odd medical outcome.
>In addition, I have successfully eaten the “correct” amount of calories for years and years and still gained weight
So that means you are not eating the correct amount of calorie. But i guess you knew that since you use the word correct in quote.
I put correct in quotes because it was ineffective. I did not lose weight eating the amount of calories that the doctors calculated. Is that surprising?
Finding how many calories your body needs right now to maintain weight is another issue entirely, and one which involves estimation and uncertainties.
If you find you're not losing weight while hitting your target value, well then it's simple[1]: your target value is wrong and needs to be lowered.
[1]: Assuming your doc verified you're not gaining weight due to water retention or similar.
It’s like you’re in the middle of a marathon and someone running a 5k goes “have you considered running faster?”
Some people may find it obvious but some other people can find it helpful.
https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lac...
1. Unlike a fixed diet or meal plan, it freed me to keep eating the things I wanted to eat. Not exactly as before, but to a large degree. I really enjoy my food, so not being forced to eat stuff I didn't want or like was crucial. Instead I focused finding ways of keeping the calories per day roughly at a target value. This simplified things a lot for me, as it was a clear and very tangible goal.
2. If I failed one day, say maybe I went out with some friends or I just had to have some ice cream or whatever, it allowed me to not feel bad about it. I knew this process would take a year at least, so "calories in / calories out" meant whatever I do today doesn't matter much, it's what I do every day that matters.
I am now 3.5 years into carbohydrate recovery and I’ve lost 200 pounds eating way way way more than my “TDEE”.
I’m not saying this for any other reason than to express my gratitude.
I lean toward either butter or tallow as a cooking oil, but outside of directly eating a stick I can’t imagine using an entire one to cook a meal per person.
All 10 of them? That's fine then, because for the rest of 99% of the obese population it's fine...
What do you mean by "works" here?
Technically it is true... the same way as "atoms in, atoms out" is technically true. So why do people prefer saying "calories in, calories out" instead of "atoms in, atoms out"?
That's because "calories in, calories out" implies that there is an easy solution to being fat... you simply need to "out" more calories, while you "in" less calories, duh!
Which conveniently ignores all possible problems with trying to "in" less calories and "out" more of them. For example, that your metabolism can make you feel extremely tired, even pass out, if you don't "in" enough calories. Similarly, to "out" more calories you sometimes need more than sheer willpower; your muscles have to cooperate, and sometimes they will only if you "in" enough calories.
I would argue that CICO does not imply easy. The rendering equation really just says light in == light out but that doesn't mean writing a renderer is easy. People who say CICO doesn't work are usually trying to sell you an "easy" way to lose weight. Take this proprietary fat burning pill. Don't eat carbs. Don't eat fats. Eat 6 small meals a day. Eat 1 meal a day. Don't feed your mogwai after midnight.
If one of these strategies works for you, great. You've found a way to get calories in less than calories out.
This is the danger I see in simple slogans, that they make people automatically dismiss potential solutions. Of course, if a successful solution is found, it will be obvious in hindsight that CICO didn't actually contradict it. But no one who is happy with CICO as an answer is looking in that direction now.
EDIT: Same objection applies to "calories out". How do you spend calories? Typically by exercise or sport. But that way you can only spend calories that are currently stored in your muscles. What about calories that are currently stored in your fat cells -- how do you move them from there, into your muscles? Again, I imagine that a pill, or a change of diet, could make this more easy or difficult.
But of course if you get all your calories from simple carbs, you will be deficient in other important nutrients like vitamins.
However, deficiency of certain nutrients may cause body to slow down or increase metabolic rate.
1) It ignores the processes involved in burning fats, sugars, and proteins, which can heavily impact where your body prioritizes getting its energy (or storing it).
2) It ignores other health impacts of 'calories' such as blood glucose levels, which absolutely will depend on what it is you're eating and not just the calorie count. Sugars, fats, and carbs are also processed in different parts of your body - so you might be following a "calories in calories out" and giving yourself non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
3) It conflates calories, as measured via completely artificial process, with human digestion.
Calorie as a measure sets upper limit of maximum energy you can extract from a given food. If you want to gain 1lb of weight, you will need to eat at least 3500 calories. If you want lose 1lb, you have create deficits of at least 3500 cals.