Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

What to call a diet that is just based on reduced calories?

1234568

Replies

  • poldi1509poldi1509 Posts: 32Member Member Posts: 32Member Member
    I have used calorie counting, eating in moderation, but nowadays I just say I am being mindful. No one really cares anyway as all of theses things sound so boring.

    That's what I told my friends. Thinking about what and how much I stuff in my mouth lol
  • kommodevarankommodevaran Posts: 17,960Member Member Posts: 17,960Member Member
    I have used calorie counting, eating in moderation, but nowadays I just say I am being mindful. No one really cares anyway as all of theses things sound so boring.

    True. There's nothing exciting about just eating what you want, only less :D

    But I prefer boring and effective over exciting and counterproductive any day :p
  • eileen0515eileen0515 Posts: 407Member Member Posts: 407Member Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Why does it need to be called anything? Not everything needs a label. CICO isn't a woe...it's just a mathematical equation that is applicable to any WOE or any weight management objective.

    When people ask me how I lost weight I just tell them I cut back on calories.

  • eileen0515eileen0515 Posts: 407Member Member Posts: 407Member Member
    I've lost a ton of weight. I don't think of, or describe it, as dieting, or a diet. If anyone asks I simply say I eat at a slight deficit, and track the foods I eat. No fads, no eliminations, just simple common sense.
  • eyeshinebrighteyeshinebright Posts: 51Member Member Posts: 51Member Member
    When I explain it to people, I say that I've cut my portions and I watch what I eat (ie way less crap). People get all weirded out when you mention calories like there's something wrong with you. Strange really.
  • Christine_72Christine_72 Posts: 16,074Member Member Posts: 16,074Member Member
    When I was much younger and didn't know better I associated calorie counting with anorexics, I'm sure there are many people who still think like this.
  • Yisrael1981Yisrael1981 Posts: 132Member, Premium Member Posts: 132Member, Premium Member
    The question is way overcomplicating a simple matter. Eat less.
  • kingrat2014kingrat2014 Posts: 51Member Member Posts: 51Member Member
    What to call a diet that is based on reduced calories is simply a starvation diet.
  • sliminby60sliminby60 Posts: 52Member Member Posts: 52Member Member
    I just say i am doing myfitnesspal it works tell everyone to try it i just follow there plan
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    I never followed any structured diet, didn't count calories or log anything. On the occasions that I needed to call it something (which wasn't often) I called it a diet.
  • Eirlys333Eirlys333 Posts: 2Member Member Posts: 2Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    "CICO" is often stated when someone advises someone else to reduce calories in order to lose weight. I've seen it called the CICO woe, but that was corrected with statements along the lines of "CICO is not a woe".

    What should that way of eating be called, when one is not following or incorporating any other food specific woes (like paleo, LCHF, vegan) in their diet?

    If one has just cut calories, is that a SAD reduced calorie diet?

    Many around here have improved their diet from SAD; they might want to call it a healthy, balanced, or nutritious calorie reduced diet. The problem being that a LCHF or paleo or vegetarian diet that is well thought out would also be able to use the labels: healthy, balanced or nutritious. It applies to many woes.

    Plus there is the problem that some do not view others' diets as nutritious, healthy or balanced, so those terms should not be used.

    Dr Jason Fung calls a reduced calorie diet for weight loss as Calorie Reduced (or Reduction) as Primary. Shortened, that is CRaP.... I doubt many would like to claim that is the correct label.

    A calorie reduced diet is not IIFYM. That would be more of a "IIFYC" with C=calories.

    What I usually see is people calling a reduced calorie diet as CICO. Some people object to that because any diet where you have lost weight, CI<CO is true. It technically applies to all diets, but people using other woes tend to focus more so on specific foods than the underlying CI<CO aspect.

    For example, I identify myself as being LCHF, but to lose weight my CO must still be greater than CI. A greater CO is achieved through my food choices more so than focusing on cutting back my calories.

    In my mind CICO means people just cut calories (CI) and maybe exercise to increase CO. Those who I would apply the CICO label to, seem to generally not consider how foods and hormones will affect CO like some other woes do (such as LCHF). Doing so might end up being called "majoring in the minors", although other woes don't see it that way.... Which is part of the point - some other woes focus less on CI<CO and more on food choices.

    Can CICO be acceptably used as a woe lable? Is there a better label? Is CICO the best one to use? I am looking for a simple label that I can apply to people's eating without resorting to saying Joe's woe or Mary's woe when those people cut calories.

    Just reducing calories overall is simply scientifically a caloric deficit. You are putting less energy into your body than it needs to perform all of the tasks you set before it and as such it burns either muscle or fat storages. Whether it burns muscle or fat depends on you, if you are operating on a caloric deficit and doing extreme cardio without much strength training your body will burn through the muscle because it is efficient & your body is not being told it really needs that muscle; this would lead to one becoming "skinny fat" - or mostly being made up of fat even though they don't weigh much. However if one prioritizes strength training with around 3-4 cardio sessions a week - typically HIIT is best as it's quick results & less likely to eat up muscle - their body will consume fat storages & preserve, maybe even gain depending on how much fat is available to burn, muscle. So in short consuming less calories is simply scientifically a caloric deficit, consuming the exact amount of calories your body needs is caloric maintenance - the body will neither burn nor create any storages during maintenence that being said muscle will still degrade when in no use for extreme lengths of time - and a caloric surplus is when you're consuming more calories than necessary for your body to function - this is the best way to gain fat & muscle however to gain more muscle & less fat means that one's diet should be heavily revolving around protein: about 40% protein 40% carbs & the rest healthy fats , additionally one needs to again put an emphasis on strength training with cardio being around 30 mins per session about 3-4 tines a week. It's important to note that when you have muscle mass that it consumes a fair amount of calories in its own which means that your caloric surplus, caloric deficit, & caloric maintenance will be higher than what a BMI based calculation will tell you to get a better idea you need to use a calculator that accounts for your muscle mass - you can easily find these online
  • ReaderGirl3ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868Member Member Posts: 868Member Member
    rdkstar wrote: »
    The ELF Diet - Eat Less Food

    This is awesome, sooo borrowing this for my profile :)

    During my weight loss phase I did alternate day IF so if asked I said IF. Now that I've been in maintenance for a while no one asks me because my weight isn't an issue/the overweight me is a distant memory.
  • dmwh142dmwh142 Posts: 72Member Member Posts: 72Member Member
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    Has anyone actually been asked if they mean the verb or noun when they tell people they are on a diet? :huh:

    If you're on a something the something is a noun. If you said you were dieting it would be a verb ?
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    Eirlys333 wrote: »
    Just reducing calories overall is simply scientifically a caloric deficit.


    about 40% protein 40% carbs & the rest healthy fats

    Reducing calories would be calorie restriction, scientifically. If you reduced them below the body's needs it would be a hypocaloric diet.

    40% protein would be widely regarded as "excessive" as it falls outside the usual accepted macro ranges.
  • Sunny_Bunny_Sunny_Bunny_ Posts: 7,089Member Member Posts: 7,089Member Member
    The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
    Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
    A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
    It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
    It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
    Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
    We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
    So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
    We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.
  • gentlygentlygentlygently Posts: 665Member Member Posts: 665Member Member
    So broadly we are agreed that CICO works scientifically - if not emotionally. Some people need to find ways that help them restrict their CI (eg total change of what they eat, paleo or IF or whatever). Lots of people people log, but plenty of people on MFP don't. Some excercise away pounds, or to enable cake-eating in maintenance, or to have a fitter looking body, or to be super fit etc. Some people are no longer restricting calories as they as a slim/light as they wish to be, others continue to count now in 'maintenance etc etc.

    It is going to be hard to find a term that encompasses all of these personal variations

    The phrase that covers most of this for me is 'calorie aware'.. But it is not perfect by any means!

  • kommodevarankommodevaran Posts: 17,960Member Member Posts: 17,960Member Member
    The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
    Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
    A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
    It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
    It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
    Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
    We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
    So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
    We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.

    But that is not what people say when they say they struggle and the debate starts. They say they must avoid certain foods because they think certain foods are fattening. When the problem is presented as trouble moderating, there are only a few that persists that it's all about attitude (I have been in some of those and it doesn't feel good, but it's not the usual conversation in here). The overall consensus IS that moderation is great, if it works for you, don't cut out anything you like for NO GOOD REASON. Trouble moderating is a good reason. Believing it turns to fat in a calorie deficit is not a good reason.
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Posts: 1,297Member Member Posts: 1,297Member Member
    The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
    Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
    A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
    It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
    It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
    Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
    We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
    So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
    We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.

    But that is not what people say when they say they struggle and the debate starts. They say they must avoid certain foods because they think certain foods are fattening. When the problem is presented as trouble moderating, there are only a few that persists that it's all about attitude (I have been in some of those and it doesn't feel good, but it's not the usual conversation in here). The overall consensus IS that moderation is great, if it works for you, don't cut out anything you like for NO GOOD REASON. Trouble moderating is a good reason. Believing it turns to fat in a calorie deficit is not a good reason.

    and if it doesn't work, it isn't great
Sign In or Register to comment.