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.
What to call a diet that is just based on reduced calories?
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.
In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"
Yes. Exactly.
Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.
A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.
I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.0 -
LOL
Say this: Get that poison out of my face! I don't eat it! How many times do I have to tell you? If you ask me again, I'll throw it on the carpet and stomp on it and let your dog eat it. That's why I look this good and feel like a million bucks, by not eating that carbage! You do eat it and wear a size 6? How wonderful for you! Enjoy it and enjoy yourself and get the eff away from me with your taco chips and chocolate frosted cream puffs. It's okay. I know you didn't mean to offend me or upset me. People like you just can't help being annoying. I understand. Okay. No offense taken. Enjoy the party. See you later.
When someone asks what I'm doing to lose weight, I say "eating less". I didn't realize I needed a fancy-schmancy name for it.
And dip is often the best part for a low carber... Broccoli or celery is just the delivery vehicle. Spoons are better.
0 -
I really don't understand the need to call the way you eat anything special. I was doing a paleo diet for a while (usual disclaimer: I was curious whether cutting out grains and the rest would make me feel better or differently, it did not, and I decided I thought most of the foods I was cutting out like legumes and dairy and whole grains were healthy for me), and didn't actually tell anyone I was. Even after I stopped I continued to not eat rice or most bread, because I'm not really into those foods so thought they were a waste of calories. I'd go to work lunches and if they were sandwich-based (not uncommon), I'd try to remove the bread in a subtle way. I've been not eating meat or dairy again for a while to try that out (with some deviations, since I consider myself in a learning process and knew I'd be eating lamb on Easter anyway, and certainly dairy too) and haven't mentioned it (if people notice they think it's a Lent thing anyway).
I suspect a bit that this need to explain how you eat comes from a desire to evangelize, which is why I guess I don't get it.
And thank the Lord no one I know uses the term "carbage" or for that matter pushes any foods on people. I have friends who will offer me some of their fries or ask if I want to share (I normally don't get fries since with good fries I tend to be tempted to overeat -- although I'd blame the salt and fat as much as the carbs), and I say no, and if they think it's because they were assumed to just be offering to be polite they will say "no, go ahead, have some," but I don't take that as them pushing them on me (and I typically don't get into the dieting thing either although when I was actively losing weight people had to suspect that was a reason).
Just different approaches, I guess.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.
In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"
Yes. Exactly.
Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.
A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.
I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.
In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"
Yes. Exactly.
Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.
A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.
I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.
I think she means she followed IIFYM.0 -
nvmomketo, I think many of us have had the experience of trying to lose weight and failing. It doesn't necessarily follow that the fault lies with the strategies that we used unsuccessfully.
Sometimes, the fault lies with us. We aren't prepared to do the necessary work for some reason. Perhaps we lack necessary knowledge or we are looking for a quick fix. The truth is that any eating plan that results in a calorie deficit is sufficient to cause weight loss. Yet very few dieters achieve long term success. Perhaps that is because success depends on more than just making the right food choices.
Personally, I had to finally acknowledge that my perfectionism was leading me to some cognitive distortions that made maintaining a weight loss nearly impossible. Once I became aware of my faulty thinking and actively worked at replacing those thoughts, I was finally able to maintain an 80 pound weight loss.
There is nothing about calorie counting that stipulates that you should eat whatever you want. I imagine very few people would be successful taking that approach. Finding foods that are tasty, satisfying, and provide your body with necessary nutrients is essential to making it work.
I am glad that you found success with LCHF. I found success with a very different approach, and others have used strategies different to either of us. I believe I found success not because I found The Magical Correct Formula. I was successful because I committed myself to becoming healthy and found ways to overcome any obstacles. I suspect that is true of most people who achieve long term success with weight loss.
As to what anyone calls their plan or anyone else's plan, I don't think it matters. I tend to just call it calorie counting, but I can see how that could be misleading to some people because there is more than just calories to consider.0 -
The ELF Diet - Eat Less Food3
-
-
I call it making better choices.0
-
-
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I really don't understand the need to call the way you eat anything special. I was doing a paleo diet for a while (usual disclaimer: I was curious whether cutting out grains and the rest would make me feel better or differently, it did not, and I decided I thought most of the foods I was cutting out like legumes and dairy and whole grains were healthy for me), and didn't actually tell anyone I was. Even after I stopped I continued to not eat rice or most bread, because I'm not really into those foods so thought they were a waste of calories. I'd go to work lunches and if they were sandwich-based (not uncommon), I'd try to remove the bread in a subtle way. I've been not eating meat or dairy again for a while to try that out (with some deviations, since I consider myself in a learning process and knew I'd be eating lamb on Easter anyway, and certainly dairy too) and haven't mentioned it (if people notice they think it's a Lent thing anyway).
I suspect a bit that this need to explain how you eat comes from a desire to evangelize, which is why I guess I don't get it.
I don't quite see how a label leads to evangelizing but I suppose it could be possible. I would like a label to apply to others so I can better understand where they might be coming from, and to avoid unnecessary arguments over semantics, which is how I often view them.0 -
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.
In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"
Yes. Exactly.
Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.
A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.
I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.
And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.
Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.
This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.
In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"
Yes. Exactly.
Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.
A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.
I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.
And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.
Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.
This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.
It's not semantics, that's the point. If you are losing weight, it's because of CICO. You may not be counting calories, but you are in a calorie deficit. That is CICO.0 -
Eating less calories than you burn = being on a diet.
I don't see what's so different about counting calories that it wouldn't be called a diet....0 -
Eating less calories than you burn = being on a diet.
I don't see what's so different about counting calories that it wouldn't be called a diet....
Semantics again
English isn't my first language, but I think Norwegian has an equivalent to diet - dieting, so this is what I "feel": a diet is the way you eat, including special eating plans to treat ailments (including overweight). Dieting is eating less than you burn to lose weight. I think many people mix up diet and dieting and think you need a special diet to diet 
(I'm assuming a lot here.) I think the differentness is that calorie counting is dieting without any bells or whistles, aka not a special diet, and naming something that has no special features is difficult. Plus, we humans usually like to have name tags on things, it makes the world less messy. 0 -
I usually say "eat less move more" when people ask me but if we need a named diet then I like "flexible dieting" the best.I say "flexible dieting" if someone asks. If they want details, I say that I eat the foods I like in moderation and log/weigh so that I can stay near my calorie goal.
0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Eating less calories than you burn = being on a diet.
I don't see what's so different about counting calories that it wouldn't be called a diet....
Semantics again English isn't my first language, but I think Norwegian has an equivalent to diet - dieting, so this is what I "feel": a diet is the way you eat, including special eating plans to treat ailments (including overweight). Dieting is eating less than you burn to lose weight. I think many people mix up diet and dieting and think you need a special diet to diet (I'm assuming a lot here.) I think the differentness is that calorie counting is dieting without any bells or whistles, aka not a special diet, and naming something that has no special features is difficult. Plus, we humans usually like to have name tags on things, it makes the world less messy.
I think you're onto something with the noun v. verb usage of "diet." Well done. 0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.
In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"
Yes. Exactly.
Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.
A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.
I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.
And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.
Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.
This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.
It's not semantics, that's the point. If you are losing weight, it's because of CICO. You may not be counting calories, but you are in a calorie deficit. That is CICO.
I never said weight loss is not due to CI<CO. In fact, I said that I lost weight because of it. It was just not the focus of my diet. You are paraphrased what I said.
This is where the labelling semantics come in because CICO is often applied to calorie reduced diets where nothing was changed except caloric intake.
Conversations go like this:
"CICO didn't work for me so I switched to paleo and lost a bunch of weight."
"You lost because of CICO. Not paleo."
"I never would of lost the weight without paleo."
"You never would of lost weight without CICO..."
It seems clear to me that the first person tried counting calories/a reduced calorie diet/ELF/whatever and was not successful. I think most people realize that lower calories are needed to lose weight but just reducing calories won't work for everyone just like vegan or ketogenic diets do not work for everyone.
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.
In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"
Yes. Exactly.
Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.
A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.
I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.
And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.
Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.
This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.
It's not semantics, that's the point. If you are losing weight, it's because of CICO. You may not be counting calories, but you are in a calorie deficit. That is CICO.
I never said weight loss is not due to CI<CO. In fact, I said that I lost weight because of it. It was just not the focus of my diet. You are paraphrased what I said.
This is where the labelling semantics come in because CICO is often applied to calorie reduced diets where nothing was changed except caloric intake.
Conversations go like this:
"CICO didn't work for me so I switched to paleo and lost a bunch of weight."
"You lost because of CICO. Not paleo."
"I never would of lost the weight without paleo."
"You never would of lost weight without CICO..."
It seems clear to me that the first person tried counting calories/a reduced calorie diet/ELF/whatever and was not successful. I think most people realize that lower calories are needed to lose weight but just reducing calories won't work for everyone just like vegan or ketogenic diets do not work for everyone.
It's still not semantics.0 -
The perpetual hunger diet?0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »The perpetual hunger diet?
That would be low carb for me, so it's not very accurate0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »The perpetual hunger diet?
Contrasts nicely with the fact that people that believe CICO technically believe the human body is a perpetual motion machine.0 -
Have we come up with a sexy and marketable brand name for eating a bit less than you burn yet? We also need to come up with one of those websites which is full of exciting quotes about how this will change your life and seems to require you to scroll forever and ever to read all of it. I'd recommend a price of $89.99.0
-
I'd just call that eating.
I don't think everything needs to have a label, probably because I don't see the value in applying labels to another person's way of eating (and I refuse to call that "woe", that's a terrible, negative word!). When you need to apply a label, it's usually to point out that "Mary's woe" is much worse that "my extra special, only way, best diet".0 -
In French, we call it "hypocalorique", WordReference tells me it simply translates to "low-calorie diet" but I don't really agree with that word? As you can eat less calories but not have your diet be really LOW calorie, you know what I mean? So I'll probably go with a diet where I eat fewer calories than before.0
-
HealthyGinny wrote: »In French, we call it "hypocalorique", WordReference tells me it simply translates to "low-calorie diet" but I don't really agree with that word? As you can eat less calories but not have your diet be really LOW calorie, you know what I mean? So I'll probably go with a diet where I eat fewer calories than before.
I bet German's got a great word for eating less.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions