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
Options
Replies
-
@Look_Its_Kriss you need to show your whiny coworkers the link Lemur posted, that ought to shut them up!1
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
I support business... big and small. I do not fault those businesses for their drive to make a profit. I also support big and small pharma for all their valuable research... just like I support government for the same reason. I do not make judgments against everyone for the situations where greed was involved.
Having said all that, I have a doctor who is not pill crazy when it comes to basic things that can't be treated and I appreciate his unwillingness to mask my symptoms with drugs. Instead, he would rather tell me natural and free remedies to solve many of my problems so when I really do need antibiotics that my body will respond well.
And what are we in denial about? That food is just food? Does this mean that we don't care about our bodies because we dont' share the same jaded view that you hold? Do you honestly think that organic, or whatever food is somehow more beneficial to you outside of taste?
The fact is, food has much less importance to your health, than not being over weight, exercise and genetics. Even with total crap diets, if you lose weight, all metabolic markers will generally improve. That doesnt' mean that we don't believe in eating a variety of foods and adequate nutrients. This also dont' mean that we don't want to support local industry. What it means, is that we understand that the most important factor is energy balance. Macro nutrient composition and micronutrients support satiety and health.
You stated "The fact is, food has much less importance to your health". That's fact?
I mean my stance is the opposite, I think food's influence on health is tremendous, but I preface it with I think or my experience is that this happens. Even though I believe strongly in it and my experiences support that, I still won't go so far as to say "That's fact".
Filling in the blanks can lead to misinformation. But filling in the blanks conclusively can lead to immunity of information coming in.
So if you take the healthiest, most nutrient dense foods possible and gain 40 lbs, how do you think your health will be affected?
Dont' get me wrong, things like MUFA, fiber, whole grains and omega 3's can influence and improve metabolic markers, but how much compared to fat loss or exercise?
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.
There's actually quite a few here who've shared their stories of gaining weight while eating a whole foods/'clean' diet. I think at least one is participating in this thread, so maybe she'll chime in with her experience.
I think I may come close to being That Person - gosh I have to grit my teeth to even type this next part! - primarily "clean" and "whole foods". But not close enough for this thread. Yes, I've been vegetarian for 43 years, ate plenty of veggies, etc., and mostly my problems are loving rich foods & managing portion size. So I got fat. Then obese. Finally thin.
But all along while I gainedGainedLost, I ate the Evil Grainz and That Wicked Dairy, and I'm pretty sure I had some Doritos and Snickers bars somewhere in the 61 years, too (the latter as a very small percentage of my eating), so I'm not a counter example. I'm sure that eating those Bad Things caused my fat, my high BP, my high cholesterol/triglycerides, my gallbladder adenomyomatosis, etc., . . . not my overconsumption and underactivity. I sinned, so I must pay.
Only someone who is Totally Pure can be a counter example.
Despite the fact that I'm now thin, with low-normal BP and rock-solid normal blood lipids. And I still eat grain, maybe even more dairy than before, and probably still the occasional Doritos or something equally shocking.
ETA one purely personal opinion: Twinkies. Yes, I've tried them. Disgusting. Virtually any actual, real food would be better. Even lima beans, or seaweed salad. I can't imagine saying that something, anything, you could make yourself from decent ingredients might even remotely not be able to be as tasty. Hyper-palatable? No: Yuck, yuck, yuck. JMO.7 -
I also gained eating a basically WF diet, but too much. The gain started when I was in a super neurotic "natural" phase, even. Later I was more indulgent about eating at restaurants (something that I do in connection with work some, and because I'm into food and like trying things also), so like you not pure -- I certainly knew that the restaurant meals were higher cal. However, we aren't talking chains, but restaurants where they cook from whole foods, seasonal, often ones that tell you about the farm the foods are from, that sort of thing. But it's not like that was my food source most of the time I was gaining (and early on I had deluded myself that I didn't have to be mindful about amounts if I just ate all natural, whole foods, since people wouldn't overeat that way).
I don't think I would have admitted that, but I do think I was hoping that it was true and had read some books along those lines (Weston Price type stuff, nothing I would defend now).
I don't know if it was that I wasn't fat long enough or was just lucky genetically (probably a combination), but I never had a bad test result -- good BP, good fasting glucose, good cholesterol, etc.
I also ate lots of vegetables and a generally balanced diet, but just love plenty of high cal foods (and cheese, sigh). I like a good dessert, but sugar is not my weakness, I never (as an adult) cared about fast food, I'm not that into starchy junk food (chips), hate cereal and don't care about bread or rice (mostly -- if you give me naan and a good curry I will enjoy myself immensely). But I was not a large person, went through a period where I was not active enough, and -- mostly -- I enjoy food (even "clean" food, annoying as that term is) in amounts more than I need to consume to if I let myself.
When people say they can't overeat on "clean" food and have actually been doing it for a while and don't have some hugely restrictive idea of what that means (like raw vegetables and chicken breast only), I think they must eat for different reasons than I do or be more naturally focused on hunger signals and eating only for hunger. Or, and maybe this is mean, not be a very good cook or have a palate so distorted by past eating habits that nothing else feels indulgent/highly palatable to them. Seems clear to me that the claim that people can't overeat on, say, steak is not true, though -- just look at the insane sizes of meat that get sold in US restaurants.6 -
Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
1. Control: If we feel deprived, we will inevitable "fall off the wagon" and eat what we have been craving. Since this was not planned we will mentally detach ourselves and ignore our conscience because it's telling us to stop. Then, it often becomes an all out binge. To me personally, it almost felt like an out of body experience because I was not in control and the reality of the situation was too painful to acknowledge.
2. Relationship: When we tell ourselves that certain foods are "bad", "junk", and "evil" and then want them or eat them, we then turn those labels back onto ourselves and we are now "bad", "junk", and "evil". The guilt and shame that comes from losing control, does far more damage to our health and goals than the calories we splurged on.
These two truths are at the core of why I struggled with my weight for half of my life and how I was able to lose over 100 lbs and maintain and lose another 30 over the last dozen years.
There most certainly is, more to losing weight than "eat less and exercise more".
4 -
Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
^^^ This
I'm baffled by how hard this is for people to understand.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
Yep, this.
For me personally, I don't have a long, dark angsty relationship with food. I've always eaten what I wanted and have never associated guilt or other negative emotions with certain foods, (except for during my short lived paleo experiment....). I've also only lost the extra weight the one time, so no yo-yoing/falling of the wagon/jumping from one plan to the next etc.
My issue was I didn't understand how CICO worked, and more specifically- what the words 'portion size' actually meant
Once I got that sorted out though I lost the weight, improved all my health markers and now maintain while still eating all the foods I like. I never experience urgent hunger/cravings, I don't feel guilty by anything I eat and I truly enjoy how I'm doing things. 7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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.
When I tried paleo (3 yrs), physically, I felt no different. The only thing that changed was my cholesterol went up (total, HDL and LDL). Cholesterol ratios were the same so I was not all that concerned. One thing of note that did happen to me was my eating became a bit dis-ordered. I was developing a bit of orthorexia...
Ah, fair enough. Orthorexia would mean your enjoyment of the process was hindered and that certainly isn't a good thing.
Regarding cholesterol, the only real ratio I ever get concerned about is HDL/Trigs. And really, this is mostly about the trigs. Your lipid response is actually very typical for paleo primal, and that's good. LDL is virtually meaningless. LDL lipoproteins and particle size are more of a story. Usually when grains and added sugars are eliminated, average LDL particle size increases and the rise in LDL is due to the larger less dense LDL (which is innocuous). Total C usually increases more due to increases in HDL I find. New literature is even suggesting that increase LDL is protective for dementia, and 3/4 of MI (heart attack) patients have "normal" or "low" LDL. Focusing on LDL is seriously backwards (and unfortunately still popular) medicine.
Yet, the most profitable drugs in the world are statins - designed to target lowering of LDL.
NOW
THAT
IS
A
CONSPIRACY
Then you need to learn about those who have familial hypercholesterolemia . high LDLs and triglycerides can kill someone like me, I tried everything to get my cholesterol down including changing how I ate, exercise, and taking meds, in the past nothing worked. Im on a low fat diet and eat a lot of carbs including grains,and take a statin, and for the first time since I was diagnosed my triglycerides are in a normal range(LCHF raised them through the roof).
my LDL is close to being in the normal range and Im feeling better. you cannot stand there and say that LDL is virtually meaningless,.maybe in general population but not for those of us who have FH.Heart attack risk for someone like me is higher than those with just a regular cholesterol issue. many can bring theirs down with just diet and exercise. I cannot however.7 -
Maybe we can't agree on the equation because we're all looking for different sums. 1
-
Why is it easier to blame crazy conspiracy theories than to take responsibility for your own actions?
11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
Another endorsement for this. ^^^^5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
And one more endorsement!
This thread is making my head spin, it's circling endlessly around the same few egocentric concepts, regardless of science and common sense.
We all agree the only way to lose weight is to eat less than you burn (CI<CO) but
I see a lot of fat people with health problems so clearly CICO doesn't work so
Telling people to eat less and/or move more is wrong
The only way to lose weight is to eat like ME because
That's the way I eat and I'm healthy
So there
Did I miss anything?16 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
And one more endorsement!
This thread is making my head spin, it's circling endlessly around the same few egocentric concepts, regardless of science and common sense.
We all agree the only way to lose weight is to eat less than you burn (CI<CO) but
I see a lot of fat people with health problems so clearly CICO doesn't work so
Telling people to eat less and/or move more is wrong
The only way to lose weight is to eat like ME because
That's the way I eat and I'm healthy
So there
Did I miss anything?
"The people who disagree with me are passive aggressive and hostile".13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
And one more endorsement!
This thread is making my head spin, it's circling endlessly around the same few egocentric concepts, regardless of science and common sense.
We all agree the only way to lose weight is to eat less than you burn (CI<CO) but
I see a lot of fat people with health problems so clearly CICO doesn't work so
Telling people to eat less and/or move more is wrong
The only way to lose weight is to eat like ME because
That's the way I eat and I'm healthy
So there
Did I miss anything?
You forgot:
"sure if all you care about is weight loss, CICO will work, but if you want to be healthy, there is more to it than that"8 -
The CICO equation applies whether you losing weight, gaining weight or maintaining weight. HABITUAL BEHAVIOR is how whether or not someone follows the actual equation for any of those.Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
1. Control: If we feel deprived, we will inevitable "fall off the wagon" and eat what we have been craving. Since this was not planned we will mentally detach ourselves and ignore our conscience because it's telling us to stop. Then, it often becomes an all out binge. To me personally, it almost felt like an out of body experience because I was not in control and the reality of the situation was too painful to acknowledge.
2. Relationship: When we tell ourselves that certain foods are "bad", "junk", and "evil" and then want them or eat them, we then turn those labels back onto ourselves and we are now "bad", "junk", and "evil". The guilt and shame that comes from losing control, does far more damage to our health and goals than the calories we splurged on.
These two truths are at the core of why I struggled with my weight for half of my life and how I was able to lose over 100 lbs and maintain and lose another 30 over the last dozen years.
There most certainly is, more to losing weight than "eat less and exercise more".
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
Maybe it's time to go back to the abacus.tabletop_joe wrote: »Maybe we can't agree on the equation because we're all looking for different sums.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
annaskiski wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
^^^ This
I'm baffled by how hard this is for people to understand.
Yes! CICO is the basic black and white answer, of course, it is! I completely agree that ultimately losing weight comes done to the CICO formula.
Yet if it was truly that simple, why are getting bigger and bigger? Why do 95% of us who lose weight gain it all back?
Sometimes you have to be able to think a bit deeper than what's on the surface. If you only go as far as CICO, you'll fail to comprehend the complexity of why losing weight is so difficult. Understanding the "big picture" is how you can go from a lifetime of obesity to forever fit. That is what I accomplished. But, it only happened after I stopped sacrificing to the CICO god by trying to sweat and willpower my way to success.0 -
even a person like me with a metabolic disorder loses weight with CICO,I just have to find out how many calories I lose at, and how many I need to maintain. right now eating 1712 calories ,Im maintaining my weight.
I lost weight counting calories though and thats what helped me. I lost some weight before coming here,started eating healthier and gained back half my weight. came here and starting counting calories and weighing my food and it came off and then some.
In almost 5 years I have not gained any back except for water weight.so CICO works for even people with my health issue3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions