Differences between CICO and LCHF
Replies
-
CICO is the idea that as long as you restrict your calories, it doesn't matter what kind you eat. Burn more than you take in, blah blah. But keto people know that certain types of foods will trigger cravings and make it really hard to keep calories low enough to lose fat consistently. YMMV!
*your mileage may vary
That's a major oversimplification of a pretty complex subject. Many of us eating low carb and/or keto ALSO eat CICO (which never - for at least some of us - meant being oblivious to the fact that certain foods trigger cravings). And, as is apparent from this thread, many of us eating low carb experience cravings triggered by the absence of carbs and the presence of fats - the same combination that keep cravings away for many eating low carb diets.
That's the connotation versus the definition.
The connotation is that what you eat doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is how much you eat. As long as you eat less than you burn, you'll lose weight. This is pretty much what people in the main forums will tell you if you ask a question like "can I have X?" Yes, you can have it, as long as it doesn't put you over your calories.
The difference between the two is that the connotation stems from the definition, but the definition doesn't even address the content of the food, just the calories. This is why you'll see the things you see here -- one person doing a "CICO vs LCHF" and a response that the two are not mutually exclusive. The two people involved are working with the two different aspects of the term.
LCHF isn't mutually exclusive from CICO in the definition sense, because technically, the two are addressing two different aspects of food -- CICO addresses the calories and nothing else, and LCHF in the strict/generic sense addresses the macros and nothing else.
The problem the LCHF crowd has with the "CICO is all that matters" crowd is that that is an oversimplification of a complex subject, especially when it's used as a proverbial baseball bat and source of shame when someone fails at just watching their calories to lose weight. Templates like LCHF, Paleo, and the others that focus more on the content of food acknowledge that what you eat is at least as important as how much you eat when it comes to sustainability, weight loss, and overall health, and that failure on a calories-only template is not a personal failing (lack of discipline or willpower), but a mismatch of food content to what is best for that person.
The official stance of this group is that LCHF is independent of calories and calorie counting, and the role of calories/CICO depends on the individual. The Launch Pad has links to several discussions on the matter, including extensive threads on the pros and cons of counting calories while LCHF, and a discussion on whether or not calories actually matter on LCHF (and why or why not).
Also, the thing about cravings and the appetite suppression effects of LCHF is a generalization that comes from the fact that most of the people who come to LCHF for weight management come from a state of insulin-related metabolic dysfunction and are coming off what is essentially a "glucose-insulin rollercoaster" and the hunger/cravings that stem from that. If you're coming to it for weight management for different motives (ie - you're not dealing with insulin problems), then the same may not apply to you. There are, after all, exceptions to every generalization.0 -
So, what is the count that you strive for each day??
How many carbs?
how many Fats ?
how many protein ?
Do you have a limit you set for calories too?
Would be interesting to see what everyone is doing that works for them.
*
I had been doing no more than 20 carbs per day, but upped it to 35..now wondering if I really needed to do that? I am losing a pound every 2-3 days....I have lost 18 pounds so far....but still many to go.
I have a hard time finding veggies that I can fit in and stay under 20 carbs. I do hold on tight to my SF coffeeMate creamer....and feel it is 4 carbs well spent each day !0 -
I have found that eating 50 grams of fat at breakfast pretty much makes me nauseated at the thought of any more food until at least lunch. And since I wake up absolutely ravenous, because I'm not hungry after 6pm, even if I'm technically hungry, having that much fat at breakfast is easy. Thank heavens I don't eat at night, because, in all other respects, I'm the kind of eater who could easily mistake lack of nausea for hunger.....thus I track my calories.0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »CICO is the idea that as long as you restrict your calories, it doesn't matter what kind you eat. Burn more than you take in, blah blah. But keto people know that certain types of foods will trigger cravings and make it really hard to keep calories low enough to lose fat consistently. YMMV!
*your mileage may vary
That's a major oversimplification of a pretty complex subject. Many of us eating low carb and/or keto ALSO eat CICO (which never - for at least some of us - meant being oblivious to the fact that certain foods trigger cravings). And, as is apparent from this thread, many of us eating low carb experience cravings triggered by the absence of carbs and the presence of fats - the same combination that keep cravings away for many eating low carb diets.
That's the connotation versus the definition.
The connotation is that what you eat doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is how much you eat. As long as you eat less than you burn, you'll lose weight. This is pretty much what people in the main forums will tell you if you ask a question like "can I have X?" Yes, you can have it, as long as it doesn't put you over your calories.
The difference between the two is that the connotation stems from the definition, but the definition doesn't even address the content of the food, just the calories. This is why you'll see the things you see here -- one person doing a "CICO vs LCHF" and a response that the two are not mutually exclusive. The two people involved are working with the two different aspects of the term.
LCHF isn't mutually exclusive from CICO in the definition sense, because technically, the two are addressing two different aspects of food -- CICO addresses the calories and nothing else, and LCHF in the strict/generic sense addresses the macros and nothing else.
The problem the LCHF crowd has with the "CICO is all that matters" crowd is that that is an oversimplification of a complex subject, especially when it's used as a proverbial baseball bat and source of shame when someone fails at just watching their calories to lose weight. Templates like LCHF, Paleo, and the others that focus more on the content of food acknowledge that what you eat is at least as important as how much you eat when it comes to sustainability, weight loss, and overall health, and that failure on a calories-only template is not a personal failing (lack of discipline or willpower), but a mismatch of food content to what is best for that person.
The official stance of this group is that LCHF is independent of calories and calorie counting, and the role of calories/CICO depends on the individual. The Launch Pad has links to several discussions on the matter, including extensive threads on the pros and cons of counting calories while LCHF, and a discussion on whether or not calories actually matter on LCHF (and why or why not).
Also, the thing about cravings and the appetite suppression effects of LCHF is a generalization that comes from the fact that most of the people who come to LCHF for weight management come from a state of insulin-related metabolic dysfunction and are coming off what is essentially a "glucose-insulin rollercoaster" and the hunger/cravings that stem from that. If you're coming to it for weight management for different motives (ie - you're not dealing with insulin problems), then the same may not apply to you. There are, after all, exceptions to every generalization.
Very thorough and well said.0 -
creamcake2 wrote: »So, what is the count that you strive for each day??
How many carbs?
how many Fats ?
how many protein ?
Do you have a limit you set for calories too?
Would be interesting to see what everyone is doing that works for them.
*
I had been doing no more than 20 carbs per day, but upped it to 35..now wondering if I really needed to do that? I am losing a pound every 2-3 days....I have lost 18 pounds so far....but still many to go.
I have a hard time finding veggies that I can fit in and stay under 20 carbs. I do hold on tight to my SF coffeeMate creamer....and feel it is 4 carbs well spent each day !
If you're losing weight that fast, you're doing fine, unless you have other reasons for reducing your carbs that low. I had concerns about vegetables too, however you can subtract the insoluble fiber from vegetables that you eat from your total carbs. I've found that leafy greens, cauliflower, broccoli, peppers, and avocado are all low carb once you subtract the fiber. Some people subtract the soluble fiber too, since soluble fiber seems to lower blood sugar, not increase it. At this point, I'm eating more vegetables than I was before, and using butter, olive oil and cheese to make them yummy, and meet my energy requirement.
My diary is open. I'm aiming for <50 grams of carbs a day, about 85 grams of protein, and enough fat to fill out my calorie requirement. I intend to enjoy every gram of carb that I'm allowed, and if I find that I'm not getting the results that I want with <50 grams of carbs, I'll try staying under 30 grams.0
