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.
Is CICO the new Keto?
Replies
-
So I clicked through on the yahoo link posted later in the thread, and if it's any consolation, most of the comments below the article are pro-CICO and pointing out the obvious fallacies. I mean there's some derp down there of course, but the majority sound like our people.4
-
20 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »The article makes perfect sense. The "nutritionist" has something to sell, so it's basically an ad piece.
She is scarily a dietitian according to the article.1 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The article makes perfect sense. The "nutritionist" has something to sell, so it's basically an ad piece.
She is scarily a dietitian according to the article.
Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola are doctors too. Titles don't mean anything. Dietitians can be woo peddlers too (as evidenced by that article). What a load of *kitten*.
[ETA:] And I thought Intermittent Fasting was the new Keto. It has just about the same amount of magical pseudoscientific woo claims going for it.6 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The article makes perfect sense. The "nutritionist" has something to sell, so it's basically an ad piece.
She is scarily a dietitian according to the article.
Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola are doctors too. Titles don't mean anything. Dietitians can be woo peddlers too (as evidenced by that article). What a load of *kitten*.
[ETA:] And I thought Intermittent Fasting was the new Keto. It has just about the same amount of magical pseudoscientific woo claims going for it.
Daily Fail love the 5:2 diet though, the "doctor" (who is a doctor but has actually been a journalist for most of his career) is on their payroll I think. So they're all about singing that particular fads' praises.4 -
Unsurprisingly, Dave Asprey (Mr. Bulletproof Derp, errrr, Coffee) shared this on his website also, with his own take on how "CICO doesn't work". It was shared and widely mocked/derided in a couple of the evidence-based FB fitness/nutrition groups I follow.4
-
VintageFeline wrote: »RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The article makes perfect sense. The "nutritionist" has something to sell, so it's basically an ad piece.
She is scarily a dietitian according to the article.
Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola are doctors too. Titles don't mean anything. Dietitians can be woo peddlers too (as evidenced by that article). What a load of *kitten*.
[ETA:] And I thought Intermittent Fasting was the new Keto. It has just about the same amount of magical pseudoscientific woo claims going for it.
Daily Fail love the 5:2 diet though, the "doctor" (who is a doctor but has actually been a journalist for most of his career) is on their payroll I think. So they're all about singing that particular fads' praises.
@VintageFeline
When the 5:2 diet came out the Daily Mail were very much against it - well thought out editorials like ohmygodyougonna die if you don't eat for a few hours!
And then as the popularity increased they flipped their stance and were all for it and serialised the book.
It's all about headlines and readership.
As for the CICO "article" I was quite reassured they had to go all the way to the other side of the world to find a dietician quite so dopey.
The pictures were really helpful, now I know what fruit looks like!
8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The article makes perfect sense. The "nutritionist" has something to sell, so it's basically an ad piece.
She is scarily a dietitian according to the article.
Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola are doctors too. Titles don't mean anything. Dietitians can be woo peddlers too (as evidenced by that article). What a load of *kitten*.
[ETA:] And I thought Intermittent Fasting was the new Keto. It has just about the same amount of magical pseudoscientific woo claims going for it.
Daily Fail love the 5:2 diet though, the "doctor" (who is a doctor but has actually been a journalist for most of his career) is on their payroll I think. So they're all about singing that particular fads' praises.
@VintageFeline
When the 5:2 diet came out the Daily Mail were very much against it - well thought out editorials like ohmygodyougonna die if you don't eat for a few hours!
And then as the popularity increased they flipped their stance and were all for it and serialised the book.
It's all about headlines and readership.
As for the CICO "article" I was quite reassured they had to go all the way to the other side of the world to find a dietician quite so dopey.
The pictures were really helpful, now I know what fruit looks like!
Ah. I don't follow DM that closely, my contempt is too strong but I do enjoy their daily completely contradictory diet articles from various trainers and nutritionists. Nearly all of them utter nonsense.1 -
I don't see what's so horrible about the article. In many cases, it's very similar to many MFP threads (maybe THAT'S what's so horrible about the article) - most of the points made do have some merit, but the lack of context is the problem.
Yes, there are some buzzwords/clickbait/hot buttons in there to generate reaction, but that doesn't invalidate the points being made. Chances are, the people who did the interview and edited the article don't know enough about health/diet/weight loss to know (or care) when they are misleading vs misinforming vs helping vs hurting the reader.4 -
I don't see what's so horrible about the article. In many cases, it's very similar to many MFP threads (maybe THAT'S what's so horrible about the article) - most of the points made do have some merit, but the lack of context is the problem.
Yes, there are some buzzwords/clickbait/hot buttons in there to generate reaction, but that doesn't invalidate the points being made. Chances are, the people who did the interview and edited the article don't know enough about health/diet/weight loss to know (or care) when they are misleading vs misinforming vs helping vs hurting the reader.
Can you elaborate? Hard to counter/agree without specifics.0 -
Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
Ah. I don't follow DM that closely, my contempt is too strong but I do enjoy their daily completely contradictory diet articles from various trainers and nutritionists. Nearly all of them utter nonsense.
As much dislike and contempt as I have for vocal Fat Activism, I will give FAs one thing in that there is a diet industry out there that profits from intentionally confusing the hell out of what is basically a settled issue in science.
Bugs me like crazy.
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Daily Fail love the 5:2 diet though, the "doctor" (who is a doctor but has actually been a journalist for most of his career) is on their payroll I think. So they're all about singing that particular fads' praises.
I read his blood sugar diet book and tried it for all of 2 days - found out real quick that it was not sustainable in the least. It did get me looking more into the fasting craze going on now and led to some more reasonable information on all the buzz concerning insulin levels.
The book had a few decent low calorie recipes in the back though - so I didn't throw it in the garbage just yet lol0 -
Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'
Thing is, the exact same things can be said about HER approach. The issue with this article is that, like many media pieces, it doesn't provide anything useful and doesn't "debunk" anything real. A gross misrepresentation of the issue discussed. That's why it's horrible. It's basically just words stacked next to each other that provide no value other than ad revenue. Things being "technically true" does not mean anything. Most known quacks say things that are technically true deliberately miss the context, so why would a quack be dismissed but this article not?10 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'
Thing is, the exact same things can be said about HER approach. The issue with this article is that, like many media pieces, it doesn't provide anything useful and doesn't "debunk" anything real. A gross misrepresentation of the issue discussed. That's why it's horrible. It's basically just words stacked next to each other that provide no value other than ad revenue. Things being "technically true" does not mean anything. Most known quacks say things that are technically true deliberately miss the context, so why would a quack be dismissed but this article not?
Right, but that's not really the business of media, is it? Media doesn't exist to educate. Not even the news educates any more (if it ever did).
What are realistic expectations here? Should Cohen have turned down the interview with the assumption that a internet article wouldn't serve the masses well? Should the interviewer/editor have done a more thorough piece that included context and a more well-rounded conversation of the issue(s)?
ETA -
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's a good article. But I don't think it's some horrible piece of fiction, either. I think most of the points have validity to them, but the complete lack of context makes the article largely useless.1 -
They could have made it just as sensational sounding with a lot more truth to it.
"Recent interest in CICO on Reddit underlies a dirty little secret - are you caught in the trap?!"
Some more hype in opening paragraphs about how widespread and of interest this is now.
Then at some point...
"CICO has been the basic requirement of every single diet for weight loss since the need to lose weight started".
"The old fat-free diet relied on cutting calories by eating little fat, the recent keto diets do the same but with little carbs eaten"
"Even the old adage of eat less and move more relied on this basic principle"
"Are you paying big money to merely have you eat less than normal, could you do it on your own...."
Could go on and on.
And I'd presume since DM isn't selling any diet plans, they really don't care if they nail the industry in general.7 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Daily Fail love the 5:2 diet though, the "doctor" (who is a doctor but has actually been a journalist for most of his career) is on their payroll I think. So they're all about singing that particular fads' praises.
I read his blood sugar diet book and tried it for all of 2 days - found out real quick that it was not sustainable in the least. It did get me looking more into the fasting craze going on now and led to some more reasonable information on all the buzz concerning insulin levels.
The book had a few decent low calorie recipes in the back though - so I didn't throw it in the garbage just yet lol
Sustainable is in the eye of the beholder.
If the only thing to critique about a diet is sustainablity then that is a non issue imo because sustainability for me is 5:2 or blood sugar diet NOT daily calorie restriction. But I don’t think that just because something is not sustainable for ME it won’t work wonderfully for the next person.0 -
I just saw an article repeating the same thing about CICO today on a US national news network. I couldn't read the whole thing, it was so ridiculous - the opening line basically said CICO was old fashioned.......And then at the end, recommended people shoot to control portion sizes and aim for about 1500 calories a day. Got news for them: 1500 calories a day is a deficit for me!0
-
Sustainable is in the eye of the beholder.
If the only thing to critique about a diet is sustainablity then that is a non issue imo because sustainability for me is 5:2 or blood sugar diet NOT daily calorie restriction. But I don’t think that just because something is not sustainable for ME it won’t work wonderfully for the next person.
because of course 5:2 diet or limiting yourself to 800 calories a day for 8 weeks is not in any form daily calorie restriction....
great. 5:2 works for you. Wonderful and I'm happy for you. It doesn't work for me, and I found my health taking a serious nose dive when I tried it. Sustainability is a major part of weight loss success - I know this from hard history. If I can't keep it going, I'm going to fail.4 -
Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Wrong in that it suggests a conflict between counting calories and focusing on nutrition and even suggests that someone who counts calories is less likely to pay attention and more likely to eat like a fool. To the contrary, tracking your diet, even just writing down what you eat, for many, many people makes it more likely that they will make more healthy choices and realize that less nutrient foods are too high a proportion (and cut back).
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
It suggests this happens with calorie counting and not other ways to lose, when in fact it's a function of keeping a calorie deficit (which is necessary to lose) and time. Keeping a deficit through some other non counting method doesn't prevent it, so again the claim is wrong.
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
I'd say a minority and the same ones prone to go to extremes with other restrictive ways of eating more often than not. Hardly a hard and fast rule about calorie counting, which is how it is presented.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'
Same with any way of losing weight, and yet presented as specific to calorie counting, so wrong.14
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
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions