You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
27 points
*

Except that the human body is way more complicated than that. Whenever you try to increase calories out by exercise, your body just finds somewhere else it can economize, because it wants to operate on a fixed budget. This can include pulling calories from your immune system, or making you subconsciously move less throughout the day, or even sleep more. You can only overcome this for a limited time. Kurzgesagt has a good video on this phenomenon. What you actually want to do is reduce calorie intake.

Exercise is good for lots of reasons, but it isn’t a good way of losing weight long term.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

What you actually want to do is reduce calorie intake.

Is that not the exact sentiment when people bring up CICO, though?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Not exactly, as it implies more exercise will get the same result as eating less, but thats not guaranteed, for a variety of reasons

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s how I’ve always interpreted it. The oft-cited saying is “you can’t outrun a bad diet”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No. The Internet is full of people who tell a commenter they’re wrong then say the exact same thing the commenter said.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not really. Lots of people talk about excecising more when it comes to loosing weight, and many of those follow CICO. Not realising that isn’t how a human body works with regards to excercise. You also see people claiming that genetics are not signficant, or that slow and fast metabolisms don’t exist. Even though we know all of these things are a factor. It’s mental what some people believe about diet, nutrition, and excercise. Likewise everyone using BMI pretty much is an idiot, even in school I was told that isn’t a good metric otherwise every athelete or body builder would be obese.

Also still not convinced CICO is even a thing. Digestion is not a 100% efficient process. Calories are measured by burning something, and human metabolism isn’t a fire.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Also still not convinced CICO is even a thing.

So… you don’t even agree with the crux of your own argument?

Maybe I’m misinterpreting CICO, as I assumed it could be taken as just it’s initialism without having to be associated with any more complex fad diet.

I understand that when people reference something, interpretation is not universal. There’s always going to be variance. I just hadn’t had that experience.

I also know it’s a very hard metric to track. It will vary depending on body type, metabolism, and even psychology. I don’t recall that being disputed, though. Just that, at it’s core, it’s more about reducing caloric intake than increasing caloric use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think you’re misunderstanding cico

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That doesn’t discredit calories in calories out? They didn’t even mention exercise or imply that you didn’t need to reduce your food intake. It works. When I am on a cut I can estimate down to within a few days how long it will take me to get where I want to be just following CICO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Reducing Calorie Intake is only the first half of CICO. Not everyone can even absorb the same amount of calories from the same piece of food, because calories are about burning stuff not about human digestion and metabolism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes there’s variation between humans but the principal is true. If you absorb less than you use you will lose weight. You might have to adjust your intake for your own body chemistry but that’s how it works.

permalink
report
parent
reply

me_irl

!me_irl@lemmy.world

Create post

All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _

Community stats

  • 4.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 519

    Posts

  • 7.3K

    Comments

Community moderators