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.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
I'm not sure why you think this would be a provocative question...
It doesn't make a lot of sense, to begin with. Why would a CEO of a company like Nabisco "like" any of us? Do we know them? Do we care whether they "like" us or not?
From an economic perspective, CEO's want to please consumers and thus sell more of their products at a higher profit margin. If you choose not to purchase their products, that is your choice. You are a demographic that is not in their current market share. They can decide whether to try to develop products/marketing tools that does appeal to you as a consumer, or they can ignore you and focus on consumers that they feel they can sell more products at a higher margin too.
I'm not sure what conclusion you thought would be drawn from this scenario?
I admire your level of trust. You don't think that on such a scale, many of these people have "sold their soul"??
In what way? Because they have a product to sell and consumers buy it? That's called capitalism.
It certainly is. And on a cold level, I admire the capitalism genius behind it. I also value the ability to look at one's self in the mirror every morning, and I don't know how they do it.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
There may be many reasons. Perhaps it's the gym subculture, and/or or a sort of anti-intellectualism. Surely it shows a lack of interpersonal skills. Being able to remain civil while expressing disagreement requires a certain level of education.
1 -
"Praise the God of all, drink the wine, and let the world be the world…”4
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who do people which care about the environment and people in developing countries who need access to cheap sources of food which do not perish easily like better?
You
or
Me.
I'll give you a clue.
It's not you.14 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
There may be many reasons. Perhaps it's the gym subculture, and/or or a sort of anti-intellectualism. Surely it shows a lack of interpersonal skills. Being able to remain civil while expressing disagreement requires a certain level of education.
How much education does one require for this level of passive aggressiveness?12 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who do people which care about the environment and people in developing countries who need access to cheap sources of food which do not perish easily like better?
You
or
Me.
I'll give you a clue.
It's not you.
^ Dude, beard is looking solid. 10/10.8 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who cares? If you have ethical issues with where the food comes from, of course you should follow your beliefs. It doesn't apply to a debate over whether CICO is valid. Whether small farm or"big food" (SMH) sourced, food is food.
Ok. I'll reword the question.
WHO DO CEO's of BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER TO MAKE THEIR BUSINESS PLAN WORK???
People who think some foods are healthy and other foods are not?
or
People who think food is food
?????
Again, not applicable to a debate over CICO. Why are you so hung up on "big food"'s marketing strategies? It's really a topic for a separate debate.
I don't see how it isn't applicable to CICO. "Food is Food" seems to be a synonym for "it's all about CICO".
Because that is the case for weightloss. Health and nutrition are a different thing and should absolutely be accounted for but CICO is the overriding fact for weightloss.
All this, plus the insistence that nutrients derived from foods that are sold by "big food" are not the same as derived from other sources. Of course some foods are more nutrient-dense than others, no one's debating that except you.3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »
I'll let you do the worrying...
“Worriers are people, who think of all the variables beyond their control, and what might happen.”
–Alan Watts1 -
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who do people which care about the environment and people in developing countries who need access to cheap sources of food which do not perish easily like better?
You
or
Me.
I'll give you a clue.
It's not you.
^ Dude, beard is looking solid. 10/10.
He isn't lying ^^^ plush.4 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
There may be many reasons. Perhaps it's the gym subculture, and/or or a sort of anti-intellectualism. Surely it shows a lack of interpersonal skills. Being able to remain civil while expressing disagreement requires a certain level of education.
I think it is because there are some whole food only eaters who are very judgemental and write with a holier than thou tone.11 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who do people which care about the environment and people in developing countries who need access to cheap sources of food which do not perish easily like better?
You
or
Me.
I'll give you a clue.
It's not you.
^ Dude, beard is looking solid. 10/10.
Thanks man.
I don't intend trying my luck with US border officials looking like this though
15 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who do people which care about the environment and people in developing countries who need access to cheap sources of food which do not perish easily like better?
You
or
Me.
I'll give you a clue.
It's not you.
^ Dude, beard is looking solid. 10/10.
Thanks man.
I don't intend trying my luck with US border officials looking like this though
lmao
can't say I blame you there, sadly =(2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who do people which care about the environment and people in developing countries who need access to cheap sources of food which do not perish easily like better?
You
or
Me.
I'll give you a clue.
It's not you.
^ Dude, beard is looking solid. 10/10.
He isn't lying ^^^ plush.
Ta!3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who cares? If you have ethical issues with where the food comes from, of course you should follow your beliefs. It doesn't apply to a debate over whether CICO is valid. Whether small farm or"big food" (SMH) sourced, food is food.
Ok. I'll reword the question.
WHO DO CEO's of BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER TO MAKE THEIR BUSINESS PLAN WORK???
People who think some foods are healthy and other foods are not?
or
People who think food is food
?????
Again, not applicable to a debate over CICO. Why are you so hung up on "big food"'s marketing strategies? It's really a topic for a separate debate.
I don't see how it isn't applicable to CICO. "Food is Food" seems to be a synonym for "it's all about CICO".
Because that is the case for weightloss. Health and nutrition are a different thing and should absolutely be accounted for but CICO is the overriding fact for weightloss.
Hey, I don't disagree with what you just wrote. I do like your use of the word "overrriding", implying that it is not a simple black box equation (biological system vs physical). That is in line with my first statement.
Health and nutrition are absolutely a different thing, which is why I included statement 2.
Which brings us to the fact that you technically are at least somewhat congruent with some of the things I said, but because of statement number 3, your response tends to be somewhat non warm and non fuzzy. (My responses aren't warm or fuzzy either, but I tend to be snarky in response to snarkyness, not in response to the subject matter).0 -
The only thing CICO adherents want is for people to stop conflating nutrition and weight loss. If you eat too much of the healthiest, cleanest foods, you will not lose weight. In order to lose weight, you need to eat less food energy than your body is using on a daily-ish basis.
To say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body is utterly ridiculous. It's akin to saying that we can't measure the distance a car has driven in kilometres because a car is a complex machine with hundreds of moving parts and half a dozen or more onboard computers. A kilometre is a kilometre just like a calorie is a calorie. We do not create energy out of nothing despite being incredibly complex organisms.
CICO is important for people to understand so that they are not frustrated, discouraged or overwhelmed. If you tell someone they can eat all the same foods, just less of them, they are more likely to be successful in their WEIGHT LOSS than if you tell them they have to follow a strict, restrictive food plan, not eat the things they enjoy and eat a whole bunch of things they don't enjoy all while eating less food than they are used to. Baby steps.
I suspect a lot of people's journey mirrors my own: first I reduced my calorie intake. Then, when I found I was not full enough or satiated on the foods I was used to eating due to the smaller portions, I explored nutrient rich, healthier food options that filled me me up for longer periods of time within my reduced calorie budget. Due to necessity, my diet has changed gradually, in a manageable way that I am comfortable with and now includes healthier options than it used to but it all started by altering nothing other than food quantities. Nutrition came after weight loss. I tried your prescribed method for 20 years but weight loss did not follow when I focused on "clean eating" and I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience.14 -
The only food I have trouble moderating are avacados. Doesn't mean I think the avacado industry is out to get me.
1. Wow. I love avocados, but one avocado sends me right to the toilet (in a good way) and gives me an enormous satiety level. Although I can't possibly relate to what you just said given my experience, I do respect that you and I probably have a massive difference in our bodies reaction to food (which I think reinforces my point number 1 about complexity of biological systems, which includes tremendous diversity in response to environment).
2. I did not mean to imply that corporate corruption behind a food was absolutely inversely proportional to the food's satiety level, although some correlation certainly does exist on a grand scale.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
There may be many reasons. Perhaps it's the gym subculture, and/or or a sort of anti-intellectualism. Surely it shows a lack of interpersonal skills. Being able to remain civil while expressing disagreement requires a certain level of education.
Good point. But even in my colleagues who aren't active, boy do their temperatures rise when talking about food.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Who cares? If you have ethical issues with where the food comes from, of course you should follow your beliefs. It doesn't apply to a debate over whether CICO is valid. Whether small farm or"big food" (SMH) sourced, food is food.
Ok. I'll reword the question.
WHO DO CEO's of BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER TO MAKE THEIR BUSINESS PLAN WORK???
People who think some foods are healthy and other foods are not?
or
People who think food is food
?????
Again, not applicable to a debate over CICO. Why are you so hung up on "big food"'s marketing strategies? It's really a topic for a separate debate.
I don't see how it isn't applicable to CICO. "Food is Food" seems to be a synonym for "it's all about CICO".
Because that is the case for weightloss. Health and nutrition are a different thing and should absolutely be accounted for but CICO is the overriding fact for weightloss.
Hey, I don't disagree with what you just wrote. I do like your use of the word "overrriding", implying that it is not a simple black box equation (biological system vs physical). That is in line with my first statement.
Health and nutrition are absolutely a different thing, which is why I included statement 2.
Which brings us to the fact that you technically are at least somewhat congruent with some of the things I said, but because of statement number 3, your response tends to be somewhat non warm and non fuzzy. (My responses aren't warm or fuzzy either, but I tend to be snarky in response to snarkyness, not in response to the subject matter).
Yes, CICO is a broken down equation. How one gets to the simplified equation is individual of course. Not a single one of us who use moderation eat the exact same diet. So no, CICO isn't a simple black box, it's the simplified answer to an equation... Our debate lies in what role certain foods play in the overall equation I suppose.4 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »The only thing CICO adherents want is for people to stop conflating nutrition and weight loss. If you eat too much of the healthiest, cleanest foods, you will not lose weight. In order to lose weight, you need to eat less food energy than your body is using on a daily-ish basis.
To say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body is utterly ridiculous. It's akin to saying that we can't measure the distance a car has driven in kilometres because a car is a complex machine with hundreds of moving parts and half a dozen or more onboard computers. A kilometre is a kilometre just like a calorie is a calorie. We do not create energy out of nothing despite being incredibly complex organisms.
CICO is important for people to understand so that they are not frustrated, discouraged or overwhelmed. If you tell someone they can eat all the same foods, just less of them, they are more likely to be successful in their WEIGHT LOSS than if you tell them they have to follow a strict, restrictive food plan, not eat the things they enjoy and eat a whole bunch of things they don't enjoy all while eating less food than they are used to. Baby steps.
I suspect a lot of people's journey mirrors my own: first I reduced my calorie intake. Then, when I found I was not full enough or satiated on the foods I was used to eating due to the smaller portions, I explored nutrient rich, healthier food options that filled me me up for longer periods of time within my reduced calorie budget. Due to necessity, my diet has changed gradually, in a manageable way that I am comfortable with and now includes healthier options than it used to but it all started by altering nothing other than food quantities. Nutrition came after weight loss. I tried your prescribed method for 20 years but weight loss did not follow when I focused on "clean eating" and I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience.
If the laws of thermodynamics were so EASILY applied (of course they can be applied, just not EASILY) to the human body, there is a good chance I will have to find another line of work. I am employed because in practice, the application of these laws of thermodynamics are not translating to a reduction in obesity NOR ARE THEY TRANSLATING TO A REDUCTION OF DISEASE. We are a results oriented profession. We do what works for our patients. Telling them to eat less and move more only seems to translate to REAL WORLD RESULTS in a minority, which is not good enough given the scale of these problems. So we instead switch to what works.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »The only thing CICO adherents want is for people to stop conflating nutrition and weight loss. If you eat too much of the healthiest, cleanest foods, you will not lose weight. In order to lose weight, you need to eat less food energy than your body is using on a daily-ish basis.
To say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body is utterly ridiculous. It's akin to saying that we can't measure the distance a car has driven in kilometres because a car is a complex machine with hundreds of moving parts and half a dozen or more onboard computers. A kilometre is a kilometre just like a calorie is a calorie. We do not create energy out of nothing despite being incredibly complex organisms.
CICO is important for people to understand so that they are not frustrated, discouraged or overwhelmed. If you tell someone they can eat all the same foods, just less of them, they are more likely to be successful in their WEIGHT LOSS than if you tell them they have to follow a strict, restrictive food plan, not eat the things they enjoy and eat a whole bunch of things they don't enjoy all while eating less food than they are used to. Baby steps.
I suspect a lot of people's journey mirrors my own: first I reduced my calorie intake. Then, when I found I was not full enough or satiated on the foods I was used to eating due to the smaller portions, I explored nutrient rich, healthier food options that filled me me up for longer periods of time within my reduced calorie budget. Due to necessity, my diet has changed gradually, in a manageable way that I am comfortable with and now includes healthier options than it used to but it all started by altering nothing other than food quantities. Nutrition came after weight loss. I tried your prescribed method for 20 years but weight loss did not follow when I focused on "clean eating" and I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience.
If the laws of thermodynamics were so EASILY applied (of course they can be applied, just not EASILY) to the human body, there is a good chance I will have to find another line of work. I am employed because in practice, the application of these laws of thermodynamics are not translating to a reduction in obesity NOR ARE THEY TRANSLATING TO A REDUCTION OF DISEASE. We are a results oriented profession. We do what works for our patients. Telling them to eat less and move more only seems to translate to REAL WORLD RESULTS in a minority, which is not good enough given the scale of these problems. So we instead switch to what works.
Which methods are these? From what I have researched, all weightloss attempts only work for the minority?7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »The only thing CICO adherents want is for people to stop conflating nutrition and weight loss. If you eat too much of the healthiest, cleanest foods, you will not lose weight. In order to lose weight, you need to eat less food energy than your body is using on a daily-ish basis.
To say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body is utterly ridiculous. It's akin to saying that we can't measure the distance a car has driven in kilometres because a car is a complex machine with hundreds of moving parts and half a dozen or more onboard computers. A kilometre is a kilometre just like a calorie is a calorie. We do not create energy out of nothing despite being incredibly complex organisms.
CICO is important for people to understand so that they are not frustrated, discouraged or overwhelmed. If you tell someone they can eat all the same foods, just less of them, they are more likely to be successful in their WEIGHT LOSS than if you tell them they have to follow a strict, restrictive food plan, not eat the things they enjoy and eat a whole bunch of things they don't enjoy all while eating less food than they are used to. Baby steps.
I suspect a lot of people's journey mirrors my own: first I reduced my calorie intake. Then, when I found I was not full enough or satiated on the foods I was used to eating due to the smaller portions, I explored nutrient rich, healthier food options that filled me me up for longer periods of time within my reduced calorie budget. Due to necessity, my diet has changed gradually, in a manageable way that I am comfortable with and now includes healthier options than it used to but it all started by altering nothing other than food quantities. Nutrition came after weight loss. I tried your prescribed method for 20 years but weight loss did not follow when I focused on "clean eating" and I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience.
If the laws of thermodynamics were so EASILY applied (of course they can be applied, just not EASILY) to the human body, there is a good chance I will have to find another line of work. I am employed because in practice, the application of these laws of thermodynamics are not translating to a reduction in obesity NOR ARE THEY TRANSLATING TO A REDUCTION OF DISEASE. We are a results oriented profession. We do what works for our patients. Telling them to eat less and move more only seems to translate to REAL WORLD RESULTS in a minority, which is not good enough given the scale of these problems. So we instead switch to what works.
Which methods are these? From what I have researched, all weightloss attempts only work for the minority?
Indeed. And telling people to eat as much good food as they want simply because it's good food is almost certainly going to have less success than telling people to eat less and move more. Based on my REAL WORLD RESULTS, you'll have to provide some evidence to the contrary in order to convince me this is not the case.
9 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »The only thing CICO adherents want is for people to stop conflating nutrition and weight loss. If you eat too much of the healthiest, cleanest foods, you will not lose weight. In order to lose weight, you need to eat less food energy than your body is using on a daily-ish basis.
To say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body is utterly ridiculous. It's akin to saying that we can't measure the distance a car has driven in kilometres because a car is a complex machine with hundreds of moving parts and half a dozen or more onboard computers. A kilometre is a kilometre just like a calorie is a calorie. We do not create energy out of nothing despite being incredibly complex organisms.
CICO is important for people to understand so that they are not frustrated, discouraged or overwhelmed. If you tell someone they can eat all the same foods, just less of them, they are more likely to be successful in their WEIGHT LOSS than if you tell them they have to follow a strict, restrictive food plan, not eat the things they enjoy and eat a whole bunch of things they don't enjoy all while eating less food than they are used to. Baby steps.
I suspect a lot of people's journey mirrors my own: first I reduced my calorie intake. Then, when I found I was not full enough or satiated on the foods I was used to eating due to the smaller portions, I explored nutrient rich, healthier food options that filled me me up for longer periods of time within my reduced calorie budget. Due to necessity, my diet has changed gradually, in a manageable way that I am comfortable with and now includes healthier options than it used to but it all started by altering nothing other than food quantities. Nutrition came after weight loss. I tried your prescribed method for 20 years but weight loss did not follow when I focused on "clean eating" and I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience.
If the laws of thermodynamics were so EASILY applied (of course they can be applied, just not EASILY) to the human body, there is a good chance I will have to find another line of work. I am employed because in practice, the application of these laws of thermodynamics are not translating to a reduction in obesity NOR ARE THEY TRANSLATING TO A REDUCTION OF DISEASE. We are a results oriented profession. We do what works for our patients. Telling them to eat less and move more only seems to translate to REAL WORLD RESULTS in a minority, which is not good enough given the scale of these problems. So we instead switch to what works.
Which methods are these? From what I have researched, all weightloss attempts only work for the minority?
Some do work far better than others, but the research is only a part of the story (because the study designs are horrible in all diet research). By far the most effective ones in practice are LCHF, real food based diets, and work even better with IF. But, this isn't applicable to all. Some do in fact respond to a simple reduction in calories with increased activity, and often these people do get even better results with whole foods. With others it seems to be more complex, ie dairy casein gets in the way, or they seem to get way better progress with FODMAP elimination. Every person is a bit of a trial and error.
But no physician who is informed about preventative medicine ever JUST focuses on weight loss or EVER separates weight loss and health/nutrition. The goal is always to treat a patient's overall health which INCLUDES their weight. Several patients exhibit "side effects" of whole food diets such as getting off meds for many conditions (especially autoimmune, lipid and BP meds) that these patients did not exhibit with "pure CICO" in prior stints of weight loss success.
Like I said, we don't know why these things work, we just do what works because that's what's best for the patient.2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
1. Both CICO and the first law of thermo are applications of the law of conservation of energy. The complexity of the system has no influence on the underlying laws of physics. Everything that exists in the universe obeys these laws, including all organic matter. Please feel free to rebut by providing an example of a biological system that does not obey the laws of physics (this is a rhetorical request, please do not put a lot of effort into searching for such an example). As a trained and experienced scientist, yes, I am dogmatic about the laws of physics. Note that the laws of physics do not make any statements about your health. Developing a better understanding of biochemistry and nutrition is great, but you will not find any magic loopholes hiding in there that invalidate fundamental physics.
2. I disagree with your conclusion. I observe that the most vocal proponents of CICO are often the most educated and accomplished in their fitness and nutrition goals. They are the most likely to recommend the same advice you would get from a registered dietitian. If you are going to state that CICO is a marketing conspiracy, at least provide some evidence.
3. It is very difficult to assess emotion through text. What is my emotional state right now? There is always a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in all Internet forums, whatever the topic is. That is just humans being human. It is not a coincidence that you perceive favorable traits in those who agree with your opinions.geneticexpectations wrote: »Ok. I'll reword the question.
WHO DO CEO's of BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER TO MAKE THEIR BUSINESS PLAN WORK???
People who think some foods are healthy and other foods are not?
or
People who think food is food
?????
Not sure where you live, but in my country the marketing of large food companies has always directly addressed current public opinion, whether that be low-fat, gluten-free, no added sugar, or whatever the trend du jour happens to be. Yesterday I saw a Panera ad that stated that their food is 100% clean, whatever that is supposed to mean. Fast food chains have been increasingly adopting "healthy" marketing bulletpoints for many years now.10 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »The only thing CICO adherents want is for people to stop conflating nutrition and weight loss. If you eat too much of the healthiest, cleanest foods, you will not lose weight. In order to lose weight, you need to eat less food energy than your body is using on a daily-ish basis.
To say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body is utterly ridiculous. It's akin to saying that we can't measure the distance a car has driven in kilometres because a car is a complex machine with hundreds of moving parts and half a dozen or more onboard computers. A kilometre is a kilometre just like a calorie is a calorie. We do not create energy out of nothing despite being incredibly complex organisms.
CICO is important for people to understand so that they are not frustrated, discouraged or overwhelmed. If you tell someone they can eat all the same foods, just less of them, they are more likely to be successful in their WEIGHT LOSS than if you tell them they have to follow a strict, restrictive food plan, not eat the things they enjoy and eat a whole bunch of things they don't enjoy all while eating less food than they are used to. Baby steps.
I suspect a lot of people's journey mirrors my own: first I reduced my calorie intake. Then, when I found I was not full enough or satiated on the foods I was used to eating due to the smaller portions, I explored nutrient rich, healthier food options that filled me me up for longer periods of time within my reduced calorie budget. Due to necessity, my diet has changed gradually, in a manageable way that I am comfortable with and now includes healthier options than it used to but it all started by altering nothing other than food quantities. Nutrition came after weight loss. I tried your prescribed method for 20 years but weight loss did not follow when I focused on "clean eating" and I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience.
If the laws of thermodynamics were so EASILY applied (of course they can be applied, just not EASILY) to the human body, there is a good chance I will have to find another line of work. I am employed because in practice, the application of these laws of thermodynamics are not translating to a reduction in obesity NOR ARE THEY TRANSLATING TO A REDUCTION OF DISEASE. We are a results oriented profession. We do what works for our patients. Telling them to eat less and move more only seems to translate to REAL WORLD RESULTS in a minority, which is not good enough given the scale of these problems. So we instead switch to what works.
Which methods are these? From what I have researched, all weightloss attempts only work for the minority?
Indeed. And telling people to eat as much good food as they want simply because it's good food is almost certainly going to have less success than telling people to eat less and move more. Based on my REAL WORLD RESULTS, you'll have to provide some evidence to the contrary in order to convince me this is not the case.
Well, hold on, I didn't say that people should "eat as much good food as they want". I'm not at all against the (good!) idea that eating less in general is good for weight loss and longevity (which some literature certainly supports). I have just found that quality is the most important variable because... well you get better quality, but in many cases (not all, as the avocado guy pointed out) quality regulates quantity.
And like I said, some do get weight loss results from "eat less move more", but my concern (which is why I am commenting) is that in those with risk factors (or those who take the eat whatever junk food you want as long as it's less a little too literally), simply losing weight does not protect you from the big ticket diseases that fill my pockets at the end of the day.
So yes, I'm happy for your weight loss results, and those of many on this forum, but in good conscience I do want to share info that could help people take preventative health to another level.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »It's odd as I have never noticed number 2 a single time in these boards...
Maybe I worded it badly. Let me try again. I seem to notice on these boards that many (not all, but many) who claim "it's all about CICO" seem to use this as justification to be able to include any food that can be purchased at a store within their diets.
I don't understand what's wrong with this. You can certainly get in your macros and micros eating any food that can be purchased at a store, it's not necessary to eat "clean", or remove "junk food" (whatever those words even mean) in order to lose weight and stay healthy. This argument continues to baffle me - it's as though people are saying if you eat "processed" food (again whatever that means) all the nutrients are sucked out of it.
Sounds more like someone needs justification on why not to eat it rather than the folks who apparently understand there is nothing wrong with any foods and have no reason to justify eating it, no?
ooooo zing!
Then..... why are you here?
Perhaps @Hornsby is here to monitor his cut or bulk cycles? Because I somehow don't think he just woke up one morning with a physique as incredible as his is.
7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions