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.
Is CICO the new Keto?
Replies
-
Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
Ah. I don't follow DM that closely, my contempt is too strong but I do enjoy their daily completely contradictory diet articles from various trainers and nutritionists. Nearly all of them utter nonsense.
As much dislike and contempt as I have for vocal Fat Activism, I will give FAs one thing in that there is a diet industry out there that profits from intentionally confusing the hell out of what is basically a settled issue in science.
Bugs me like crazy.
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Daily Fail love the 5:2 diet though, the "doctor" (who is a doctor but has actually been a journalist for most of his career) is on their payroll I think. So they're all about singing that particular fads' praises.
I read his blood sugar diet book and tried it for all of 2 days - found out real quick that it was not sustainable in the least. It did get me looking more into the fasting craze going on now and led to some more reasonable information on all the buzz concerning insulin levels.
The book had a few decent low calorie recipes in the back though - so I didn't throw it in the garbage just yet lol0 -
Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'
Thing is, the exact same things can be said about HER approach. The issue with this article is that, like many media pieces, it doesn't provide anything useful and doesn't "debunk" anything real. A gross misrepresentation of the issue discussed. That's why it's horrible. It's basically just words stacked next to each other that provide no value other than ad revenue. Things being "technically true" does not mean anything. Most known quacks say things that are technically true deliberately miss the context, so why would a quack be dismissed but this article not?10 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'
Thing is, the exact same things can be said about HER approach. The issue with this article is that, like many media pieces, it doesn't provide anything useful and doesn't "debunk" anything real. A gross misrepresentation of the issue discussed. That's why it's horrible. It's basically just words stacked next to each other that provide no value other than ad revenue. Things being "technically true" does not mean anything. Most known quacks say things that are technically true deliberately miss the context, so why would a quack be dismissed but this article not?
Right, but that's not really the business of media, is it? Media doesn't exist to educate. Not even the news educates any more (if it ever did).
What are realistic expectations here? Should Cohen have turned down the interview with the assumption that a internet article wouldn't serve the masses well? Should the interviewer/editor have done a more thorough piece that included context and a more well-rounded conversation of the issue(s)?
ETA -
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's a good article. But I don't think it's some horrible piece of fiction, either. I think most of the points have validity to them, but the complete lack of context makes the article largely useless.1 -
They could have made it just as sensational sounding with a lot more truth to it.
"Recent interest in CICO on Reddit underlies a dirty little secret - are you caught in the trap?!"
Some more hype in opening paragraphs about how widespread and of interest this is now.
Then at some point...
"CICO has been the basic requirement of every single diet for weight loss since the need to lose weight started".
"The old fat-free diet relied on cutting calories by eating little fat, the recent keto diets do the same but with little carbs eaten"
"Even the old adage of eat less and move more relied on this basic principle"
"Are you paying big money to merely have you eat less than normal, could you do it on your own...."
Could go on and on.
And I'd presume since DM isn't selling any diet plans, they really don't care if they nail the industry in general.7 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Daily Fail love the 5:2 diet though, the "doctor" (who is a doctor but has actually been a journalist for most of his career) is on their payroll I think. So they're all about singing that particular fads' praises.
I read his blood sugar diet book and tried it for all of 2 days - found out real quick that it was not sustainable in the least. It did get me looking more into the fasting craze going on now and led to some more reasonable information on all the buzz concerning insulin levels.
The book had a few decent low calorie recipes in the back though - so I didn't throw it in the garbage just yet lol
Sustainable is in the eye of the beholder.
If the only thing to critique about a diet is sustainablity then that is a non issue imo because sustainability for me is 5:2 or blood sugar diet NOT daily calorie restriction. But I don’t think that just because something is not sustainable for ME it won’t work wonderfully for the next person.0 -
I just saw an article repeating the same thing about CICO today on a US national news network. I couldn't read the whole thing, it was so ridiculous - the opening line basically said CICO was old fashioned.......And then at the end, recommended people shoot to control portion sizes and aim for about 1500 calories a day. Got news for them: 1500 calories a day is a deficit for me!0
-
Sustainable is in the eye of the beholder.
If the only thing to critique about a diet is sustainablity then that is a non issue imo because sustainability for me is 5:2 or blood sugar diet NOT daily calorie restriction. But I don’t think that just because something is not sustainable for ME it won’t work wonderfully for the next person.
because of course 5:2 diet or limiting yourself to 800 calories a day for 8 weeks is not in any form daily calorie restriction....
great. 5:2 works for you. Wonderful and I'm happy for you. It doesn't work for me, and I found my health taking a serious nose dive when I tried it. Sustainability is a major part of weight loss success - I know this from hard history. If I can't keep it going, I'm going to fail.4 -
Sure. Let's see...
Quotes are from the article, not from this thread.
A bit presumptuous perhaps, but not wrong.'With calorie counting, you can make many mistakes,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers.
'This can mean they end up eating junk food, provided it meets their calorie allowance for the day.'
Wrong in that it suggests a conflict between counting calories and focusing on nutrition and even suggests that someone who counts calories is less likely to pay attention and more likely to eat like a fool. To the contrary, tracking your diet, even just writing down what you eat, for many, many people makes it more likely that they will make more healthy choices and realize that less nutrient foods are too high a proportion (and cut back).
Clearly clickbaity, but not factually wrong, at least in terms of the effects of a calorie deficit on muscle mass.Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle'
It suggests this happens with calorie counting and not other ways to lose, when in fact it's a function of keeping a calorie deficit (which is necessary to lose) and time. Keeping a deficit through some other non counting method doesn't prevent it, so again the claim is wrong.
Again, a bit presumptuous, but still a valid concern for some.'It's ironic, because a diet like the CICO diet tries to encourage balance, but it really doesn't,' she explained.
'Instead you become obsessed with numbers - both the numbers of calories and foods and the numbers on the scales. You might feel guilty when you eat the wrong thing.
I'd say a minority and the same ones prone to go to extremes with other restrictive ways of eating more often than not. Hardly a hard and fast rule about calorie counting, which is how it is presented.
Again, the lack of context is the problem here. If people don't learn portion control, then yes... eating "normally" will be a problem, and lead to the high rebound rate. If people do learn as part of the process, they will be in a better position to succeed long term.CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening.
'Such an approach might work temporarily, but it's got a pretty high rebound rate.'
Same with any way of losing weight, and yet presented as specific to calorie counting, so wrong.14 -
I can't seem to get the nested quoting to work right, so I'm going to try to respond this way... hopefully it works.
- I didn't take it as suggesting of a conflict. It implies the aren't necessarily correlated, which they aren't. Yes, for some, simply being more mindful of how much they eat will lead them to being more mindful of what they eat. But that's certainly not the case for everyone.
- I don't think it's exclusive of other diets at all. Cohen was interviewed relative to CICO, so that's what her comments are about. I didn't take her comments as at all relative/relevant to other diets/approaches. About =/= exclusive to.
- Again, I didn't take her comments as exclusive to CICO, only relevant to.
- Again, not exclusive to.
Cohen repeatedly used words like "can" and "may" rather than "do" or "will". She was asked questions about CICO, not how CICO compared to other diets (as near as I can tell). Her comments were an assessment of CICO, not the pros/cons of CICO vs other diets.1 -
But the basic problem with the entire article is that CICO is NOT a diet... it is an energy formula that relates calorie intake to calorie expenditure.14
-
-
She repeatedly said if you calorie count you will do this (become obsessed with counting, for example), and it's not sustainable. I don't think a reading of "like any diet people could fall into negative habits" is really a correct reading of what she said and certainly not how it's presented. The point is that CICO is a bad way to lose weight because you will (supposedly) do all these dumb thing (like stop paying attention to nutrients).
And the article is about CICO vs. other ways to diet (Cohen's preferred way to diet is stated: don't count, fill up on fruits and veg, eat lots of small meals/snacks). I'm pro vegetables and fruits (one reason I like counting or logging is it's easy to insure you are getting plenty) but I also found counting helpful for a while and I have always hated and could not stand lots of small meals. Which is fine, since following CICO (which is not a diet plan or the same thing as counting, another dumb thing about how it was presented), one can arrange calories as one likes.7 -
Agree to disagree, I guess. I've read the article a few times and fail to see Cohen say any of those things will happen all of the time to every one. I read it as, "CICO is the new fad diet, but here are some of the potential pitfalls"... not "CICO, failure waiting to happen."
To me, reading this thread, it feels like there are some people emotionally tied to CICO which impacts how they read and react to things that question or criticize CICO.3 -
The problem is that it conflates CICO - which is a fact of physics under which all fat loss happens always for everyone regardless of how you do it - with calorie counting. And isn't even correct in most of the things it says as it's a mish-mash of two different things, to the endeffect as amusedmonkey pointed out that some of the things it claims specifically about CICO could be said equally about her approach, or any approach for that matter, because they're all governed by CICO, whether the advocate of the approach admits it or not.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The problem is that it conflates CICO - which is a fact of physics under which all fat loss happens always for everyone regardless of how you do it - with calorie counting. And isn't even correct in most of the things it says as it's a mish-mash of two different things.
Can you elaborate? I understand your point about CICO being the fundamental determinant of fat loss, but you lose me after that.0 -
She says you "often stop counting nutrients" -- I'd like to know the number of people focusing on nutrients before who stop, to support that "often." Plus, admittedly, this is a pet peeve of mine, since it's so common on MFP for people to make false claims that CICO means not caring about nutrient.
More clearly, she says: "you become obsessed with numbers." This sounds unquestionably like a claim that this WILL happen to everyone.
She then goes on to say: "it's not sustainable." Again, a broad "this will happen" kind of statement -- not it might not be sustainable for everyone, but "it's not sustainable."
She adds to that: "People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening."
No, you don't need to keep cutting calories. You can't eat like you were when gaining weight, of course, but doing calorie counting does not -- as she claims -- mean you think you can.
She's thus either an idiot or just saying what it takes to get a Daily Mail spread (which might make her worse than an idiot). My opinion, anyway.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The problem is that it conflates CICO - which is a fact of physics under which all fat loss happens always for everyone regardless of how you do it - with calorie counting. And isn't even correct in most of the things it says as it's a mish-mash of two different things.
Can you elaborate? I understand your point about CICO being the fundamental determinant of fat loss, but you lose me after that.
Edited in a bit afterwards.1 -
The only thing I can think of that makes any sense to the "people who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening" bit is that she meant that one's maintenance Calories will almost certainly be lower (provided one doesn't up his/her TDEE via movement/exercise) than they were before losing weight.
But, that's not actually what she said. And, with the other head-scratching/shaking bits, I'm not sure that's really what she meant, anyway.3 -
Sadly, it's now getting picked up by more "mainstream" sources as well:
http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/2017/11/12/most-popular-weight-loss-diet-on-reddit-would-never-be-recommended-by-nutritionists.html
Even the title just irks me to no end!2 -
-
The author is dismissive simply because she is expecting a more specific diet to accomplish her goals. She is also confusing calorie counting with the principle of CICO. Some need to be told specifically what to do. Others want the freedom of flexibility to play with calories and macros.
Overall shows a lack of understanding of CICO and overwhelming bias. Extremely poor reporting.8 -
The main problem I see is what others have said, that CICO is not calorie counting. Calorie counting is often not sustainable for many but CICO is how everyone loses weight.... of course CI<CO really isn't sustainable either in most cases. Most people regain the weight.
The title irks me. What does keto have to do with anything here? Unless she is implying her misunderstanding of CICO is like many people's misunderstanding of keto? Ignorance all around?
Dumb article.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »She says you "often stop counting nutrients" -- I'd like to know the number of people focusing on nutrients before who stop, to support that "often." Plus, admittedly, this is a pet peeve of mine, since it's so common on MFP for people to make false claims that CICO means not caring about nutrient.
More clearly, she says: "you become obsessed with numbers." This sounds unquestionably like a claim that this WILL happen to everyone.
She then goes on to say: "it's not sustainable." Again, a broad "this will happen" kind of statement -- not it might not be sustainable for everyone, but "it's not sustainable."
She adds to that: "People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening."
No, you don't need to keep cutting calories. You can't eat like you were when gaining weight, of course, but doing calorie counting does not -- as she claims -- mean you think you can.
She's thus either an idiot or just saying what it takes to get a Daily Mail spread (which might make her worse than an idiot). My opinion, anyway.
Again, sorry for my crappy quoting skills...- Here is the complete sentence: "When people calorie count, they often stop counting nutrients and instead just look at the numbers." I saw often as the key word, which is subjective. You saw stop as they key word, which barely even registered for me because of my own bias.
- The complete sentence: "CICO might be weight loss 101, but it's not sustainable. People who cut calories and lose weight think they'll be able to eat normally again afterwards, when it actual fact cutting calories means it needs to keep happening" I'll give you that one. That is more of an absolute statement. I don't disagree with what I believe her sentiment was, but it's a bad statement.
- I read it as people think they will be able to return their original ways of eating, which they can't/won't. So the way I read it, her statement made perfect sense.
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The problem is that it conflates CICO - which is a fact of physics under which all fat loss happens always for everyone regardless of how you do it - with calorie counting. And isn't even correct in most of the things it says as it's a mish-mash of two different things, to the endeffect as amusedmonkey pointed out that some of the things it claims specifically about CICO could be said equally about her approach, or any approach for that matter, because they're all governed by CICO, whether the advocate of the approach admits it or not.
Again, I didn't read her comments as exclusive of other approaches, only relevant to CICO within the context of the article/interview.0 -
The author is dismissive simply because she is expecting a more specific diet to accomplish her goals. She is also confusing calorie counting with the principle of CICO. Some need to be told specifically what to do. Others want the freedom of flexibility to play with calories and macros.
Overall shows a lack of understanding of CICO and overwhelming bias. Extremely poor reporting.
How many people with weight problems can lose weight (principle of CICO) without some degree of calorie counting? While I agree they aren't the same thing, they certainly go hand in hand much of the time.**
** full disclaimer, I'm a biased calorie counter.3 -
I dread the influx of people misunderstanding what CICO means. The willful misrepresentation of a simple energy balance equation to conflate it with a bunch of things it has absolutely nothing to do with only confounds the weight loss process and I can't help but feel that it's intentional on the part of people looking to sell their own brand of weight loss magic.12
-
The author is dismissive simply because she is expecting a more specific diet to accomplish her goals. She is also confusing calorie counting with the principle of CICO. Some need to be told specifically what to do. Others want the freedom of flexibility to play with calories and macros.
Overall shows a lack of understanding of CICO and overwhelming bias. Extremely poor reporting.
How many people with weight problems can lose weight (principle of CICO) without some degree of calorie counting? While I agree they aren't the same thing, they certainly go hand in hand much of the time.**
** full disclaimer, I'm a biased calorie counter.
(1) Many. There are other ways to reduce calories (make CO greater than CI) without counting them.
(2) If you find calorie counting helpful, I am mystified as to why you are defending Cohen, who claims it is a bad method. (And yes, I continue to think it is clear from the piece that she is claiming that CICO -- which she confuses with calorie counting -- is worse than the method she advocates, namely eating a bunch of meals, filling up on fruit and veg, and not counting calories.)5
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
- 232.6K 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