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
-
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.
Somebody was telling me about having gained 5 pounds counting calories, and lost 10 doing low carb. He summarized that counting calories doesn't work. I pointed out that what was really going on is that he was willing to break the calories rule, but not the carbs one. He shrugged and said "yeah I guess so."
Like you said, some people just need a specific approach.5 -
The title of the article bothered me too..
Keto is a method towards CICO..
The way the title is phrased suggests that in their view keto is a fad diet. Keto isnt for me but it is helping others and is something some people can successfully sustain..
Anyway.. when CICO suddenly gets stamped with the fad diet stamp it's almost systematically destroying every sustainable method of weight loss. If counting calories is a fad diet prone to more failure then success then bye bye keto... Bye bye IF... bye bye paleo or low carb or any other eating lifestyle that still hinges it's success on the math of CICO.
Suddenly all diets are supposed to what? Follow the portion sizes guesstimate? For low carb diets where fruit is limited are people supposed to live mainly on veggies then? I mean they could have extra meat if it fits into their calories but.. no.. that's a fad diet that leads to potential failure.. So if someone is stuck solely living on veggies as their main meal contributor and stick to these "Dietitian approved" portion sizes for meat.. etc. what happens if all those low calorie veggies cause them not to meet their calorie goal? I mean having multiple small meals or snacks still doesn't ensure meeting calorie needs. Or should low carb eaters just give up that lifestyle if it works for them and go back to carbs?
The idea of multiple small meals and snacks a day always bothered me.. There isn't even a set number for how many.. are we to pick our own? Would 20 be acceptable? Nuts are listed in the article as a snack that's acceptable.. could I have a serving of nuts 10 times? I mean the amount of nuts in a serving is not even likely gonna fend off hunger for more then an hour and if all I'm gonna be having for my meals is small meals it's not like I'm gonna be feeling satisfied after eating those tiny meals either. I don't like fruit.. I am also not a huge veggie fan either.. So while I would put them on my plate it's not going to be in amounts that would make any huge significance. But I do love meat.. would adding a second serving of meat make the meal not small anymore? All we are ever told is that meat should be a quarter of your plate. Is the meat allowed to be stacked on top of each other? Probably not.
So even if I had calories in my day for more meat.. I can't have it because it's now making my meals too big or some dietitian doesn't approve of me eating more meat and thinks I should be eating more veggies. Since I don't really like veggies I'm not gonna load them on my plate and I am likely not going to also use them as a snack either..
By the sounds of this lifestyle that they have decided is more sustainable then the math of CICO I am already going to fail. And rather then "obsessing about numbers".. I'm obsessing about snacks and portion sizes.. and blindly navigating my way through it without even knowing if I'm eating too much unless I gain more weight after trying it for a bit.. then I'm right back to obsessing about the sizes again if I am not losing. Of course if I'm not being calorie conscious how long before I give up the handfuls of delicious nuts?
9 -
Here is a clickbaity article that didn't have to resort to useless word stacking. It's not perfect, but at least it provided some value while managing to do clickbait.1
-
.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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).
Isn't that like saying if your continuously balance your checkbook, you'll become obsessed with it and it's not sustainable?
I find that if I'm unsure of what I think about someone's comments about the sustainability of calorie counting if I translate to how I've always handled my finances it makes a lot more sense.
Edit: Something's not working right for me this morning so my comments are in bold.3 -
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.
Um, that's because we're on a calorie counting website.
Why are people always so surprised that this group is pro CICO? Isn't it obvious?8 -
If you don't support the calories in and out process for weight loss this whole website is basically a useless diary of memories of what you ate already.13
-
I'm not sure this thread is going anywhere at this point, so I'll make this my last post, unless the general conversation shifts direction.
- This wasn't my intent when I came into this thread, but yes, I guess I am defending Cohen to some extent. Not the article as a whole, but Cohen as a perceived quack. She made about 6 points in the article, all of which have some degree of merit. They were framed poorly, but that could be somewhat or entirely because of the editing, and may or may not have anything to do with Cohen's knowledge or advice. That's good enough for me to say, "I need to hear more from her before I pass judgement." The article as a whole I think is very average/typical. I am neither impressed by it nor disappointed. It is basically what I expect from the general media.
- To me, the article framed up potential pitfalls with calorie counting. It was/is not a condemnation of CICO.
- I would have liked to see some suggestion of energy balance, but I do think, that for an article aimed at the general masses, CICO goes hand in hand with calorie counting... so the lack of distinction isn't a show stopper for me.
- Being in the debate forum, I would have thought that people would have been more aware of their own biases, and thus more open minded about debate/conversation. Perhaps I am more guilty of this than I realize.
4 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »If you don't support the calories in and out process for weight loss this whole website is basically a useless diary of memories of what you ate already.
LOL!
Dear diary. Today I ate a peach...Oh and some other stuff.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.
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.
I would assume about the same amount of people that could get out of debt without balancing their checkbooks and monitoring their finances. While possible without monitoring, tracking, and trending success is highly unlikely.
I'm biased towards systems. Well implemented systems drive success. Poorly implemented systems do not. Considering that every diet incorporates the CICO principle this article does nothing more than highlight the ignorance of the reporter.7 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Here is a clickbaity article that didn't have to resort to useless word stacking. It's not perfect, but at least it provided some value while managing to do clickbait.
Now that was good. Especially in comparison to other article.
Probably could have even made the title more sensational considering how faddish IF is becoming purely for the same thoughts she started with.0 -
I'm not sure this thread is going anywhere at this point, so I'll make this my last post, unless the general conversation shifts direction.
- This wasn't my intent when I came into this thread, but yes, I guess I am defending Cohen to some extent. Not the article as a whole, but Cohen as a perceived quack. She made about 6 points in the article, all of which have some degree of merit. They were framed poorly, but that could be somewhat or entirely because of the editing, and may or may not have anything to do with Cohen's knowledge or advice. That's good enough for me to say, "I need to hear more from her before I pass judgement." The article as a whole I think is very average/typical. I am neither impressed by it nor disappointed. It is basically what I expect from the general media.
- To me, the article framed up potential pitfalls with calorie counting. It was/is not a condemnation of CICO.
- I would have liked to see some suggestion of energy balance, but I do think, that for an article aimed at the general masses, CICO goes hand in hand with calorie counting... so the lack of distinction isn't a show stopper for me.
- Being in the debate forum, I would have thought that people would have been more aware of their own biases, and thus more open minded about debate/conversation. Perhaps I am more guilty of this than I realize.
So you've been discussing this entire matter as if CICO equates to calorie counting?
There's the problem.
You're as wrong as Cohen is.
CICO is a basic statement of energy balance. It has nothing to do with weight loss, gain, or maintenance per se, it can be applied to all of them. It merely means calories in, calories out.
HOW you go about implementing whether you gain, lose, or maintain your weight is a separate and distinct issue that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle governing how weight management works.10 -
I guess this is my response to these kinds of articles:
The general misconception these articles give is that everybody who "does CICO" (whatever that means) is doing things like eating 1960 calories a day but only eating donuts and drinking coke. Of course nobody does that because you'll just feel like junk and be nutrient-starved all the time.
Tracking caloric intake FORCES you to move towards more nutrient-dense foods because you can't stay under your calorie goals while remaining satiated and full otherwise.
In other words, tracking calories pretty much inevitably leads to choosing healthier kinds of food. Sure you could still have some "unhealthy" foods in your diet and have it be fine, that's kind of the point in the sense that you don't have to explicitly avoid any one category of food, but overall you'll be forced to eat nutrient-rich foods to feel good and have energy while on restricted calories.
On the other hand, switching to "healthier foods" does not necessarily lead to eating a healthy amount of food. You can still overeat health food.
So, the point is that when a person is trying to lose weight, the first thing they should do is track intake, and that will inevitably lead towards healthier food choices (or failure, honestly). If they simply switch to eating different foods, that will not necessarily lead anywhere.
7 -
I'm not sure this thread is going anywhere at this point, so I'll make this my last post, unless the general conversation shifts direction.
- This wasn't my intent when I came into this thread, but yes, I guess I am defending Cohen to some extent. Not the article as a whole, but Cohen as a perceived quack. She made about 6 points in the article, all of which have some degree of merit. They were framed poorly, but that could be somewhat or entirely because of the editing, and may or may not have anything to do with Cohen's knowledge or advice. That's good enough for me to say, "I need to hear more from her before I pass judgement." The article as a whole I think is very average/typical. I am neither impressed by it nor disappointed. It is basically what I expect from the general media.
- To me, the article framed up potential pitfalls with calorie counting. It was/is not a condemnation of CICO.
- I would have liked to see some suggestion of energy balance, but I do think, that for an article aimed at the general masses, CICO goes hand in hand with calorie counting... so the lack of distinction isn't a show stopper for me.
- Being in the debate forum, I would have thought that people would have been more aware of their own biases, and thus more open minded about debate/conversation. Perhaps I am more guilty of this than I realize.
Cohen conflates CICO with calorie counting. This shows first off she's a sub-par dietician. Either she doesn't actually know what CICO is, which would be tragic considering her title and assumed education, or she is purposefully going along with the general public's woefully inadequate understanding to make her click-bait article click-bait-ey-er, which is tragic for someone whose job is supposed to be educating people about nutrition.
Considering almost everyone I know IRL who discovers I count calories gives me the side eye, and has lectured me about how "a calorie isn't a calorie" and that it will likely end with me suffering from an ED or being generally malnourished, I suppose I am a little touchy on the subject. But until people with fancy titles and a soapbox (like Cohen) start actually trying to teach the basic truth to the general public instead of being satisfied to publish a new book every year with the latest fad tips & tricks, we will continue to have an obesity crisis and a lot of people desperately chasing fads while their health suffers. I guess that is a bias, but I don't think that bias disqualifies the opinion. I get questions all the time about how I stay slim, and articles like this is why no one believes me when I tell them.
ETA: After rereading my post, I have decided I've had enough caffeine for the day LOL!
12 -
I feel like "counting calories" has such a negative connotation for many people that I just say "I'm careful about how much I eat." If people inquire further I'll point them to MFP.2
-
cbohling1987 wrote: »I feel like "counting calories" has such a negative connotation for many people that I just say "I'm careful about how much I eat." If people inquire further I'll point them to MFP.
Yeah, I rarely get specific for exactly that reason. For family and friends I eat with often though I refused to flat out lie or go out of my way to hide it.0 -
which would have been fine if it had been written in a truly neutral way that also showed the pros to the method (and gave an accurate definition in the first place). But what I'm seeing here and from the so called experts in the fox news article that parroted this one is that they are trying to warn people AWAY from CICO and conflating it with being a dangerous fad diet, like a juice diet or such. That's not just framing up potential pitfalls; that blatant misinformation.To me, the article framed up potential pitfalls with calorie counting.
When an article is titled "the popular diet that no nutritionists would recommend", forgive me for assuming that the article is a condemnation of the subject matter.....And secondly, again, if it wasn't written to be a condemnation of CICO, then the writer would have also included some pros for the subject. As far as I can see, neither article presented anything positive about CICO or calorie counting.It was/is not a condemnation of CICO.
Pot and kettle here - a debate automatically means there are going to be conflicting viewpoints, meaning if you are going to post in a debate thread, be ready to have your viewpoint debated and disagreed with. And there isn't a rule that says both sides have to be balanced in viewpoint, either. Its fine and even healthy to post a dissenting view to open a conversation, even a minority view, but don't be surprised when people disagree with you and post lengthy rebuttals, and definitely don't start with the veiled accusations that the dissenters are being unreasonable or closed minded because they disagreed with you; that certainly doesn't bring credence to the point you are trying to make. That was my understanding of what "debate" is supposed to be, anyway. But as more voices speak up, I would hope that the debate would draw to a conclusion rather then just devolving into an endless argument.Being in the debate forum, I would have thought that people would have been more aware of their own biases, and thus more open minded about debate/conversation. Perhaps I am more guilty of this than I realize.
I agree here - this was true for me, anyway. I found really quickly that to maintain a feeling of fullness longer, I needed to change up what I was eating - a scrambled egg on wholewheat toast, with perhaps a little cheese, was going to last me way longer than a serving of cold cereal, and the calorie load was lower with the egg. Same for snacking on protein rich sources or fruit rather than carb heavy sweets like a donut. Counting calories did seem to reinforce my efforts to eat healthier.cbohling1987 wrote: »Tracking caloric intake FORCES you to move towards more nutrient-dense foods because you can't stay under your calorie goals while remaining satiated and full otherwise. In other words, tracking calories pretty much inevitably leads to choosing healthier kinds of food. Sure you could still have some "unhealthy" foods in your diet and have it be fine, that's kind of the point in the sense that you don't have to explicitly avoid any one category of food, but overall you'll be forced to eat nutrient-rich foods to feel good and have energy while on restricted calories.
What is very freeing with calorie counting for me, though, is that I'm not restricted like in many other diets. There isn't anything truly off limits, so when a craving hits, I can just incorporate it into my log for the day and keep going instead of feeling guilty or ashamed because I succumbed. Which is, ironically, the exact opposite of what the writer of the article was trying to convey as a consequence to CICO.....
Exactly! Portion control is the only way to maintain a healthy weight - and portion control is nothing more than another term for CICO - you have to balance what you're eating with what you're expending. Over eating on whole grains, fruits, nuts, vegetables, etc (which, especially in the case of nuts is extremely easy to do) and you'll be just as unhealthy and overweight as the same person who over-indulges in pizza, beer, and fast food.cbohling1987 wrote: »On the other hand, switching to "healthier foods" does not necessarily lead to eating a healthy amount of food. You can still overeat health food.
So, the point is that when a person is trying to lose weight, the first thing they should do is track intake, and that will inevitably lead towards healthier food choices (or failure, honestly). If they simply switch to eating different foods, that will not necessarily lead anywhere.
But it really is amazing the amount of misinformation that is floating around. I actually read in another article on the topic of misinformation that we're coming to the point where for every factual article, there will be another that directly conflicts with it, making it incredibly difficult to sift the truth from the conspiracy theories, especially as the lay people who parrots articles on topics they know nothing about and only briefly skimmed seem to have way more time on their hands than the experts who are actually doing the studies and writing up the technical papers based on the results.
I had a friend, for instance, who absolutely insisted that CICO was not in any way part of the low carb diet, and that calories didn't matter when you were doing low-carb. He actually stated that a person could eat a million calories a day, but if they were doing low carb, they'd still lose weight. I tried to refute with actual evidence (not to mention common sense) but nope, he had done his "research" and because of that and the fact he lost weight with low carb without counting calories (not understanding the CICO principle at all), he insisted that I was completely wrong. *sigh*
9 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »I feel like "counting calories" has such a negative connotation for many people that I just say "I'm careful about how much I eat." If people inquire further I'll point them to MFP.
Yeah, I rarely get specific for exactly that reason. For family and friends I eat with often though I refused to flat out lie or go out of my way to hide it.
thankfully, I haven't had that kind of reaction when folks ask me what I've been doing. Though what I DO tend to get is this look of disappointment, like they were hoping I had found some magical, easy way to lose weight or some miracle diet that wouldn't require any effort on their part at all. They don't seem to like being told it took work and discipline to stick to a calorie limit lol4 -
She's a "media dietician". I don't believe she actually hold's a dietician's license. At least it doesn't say so in her Linkin profile.RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The article makes perfect sense. The "nutritionist" has something to sell, so it's basically an ad piece.
She is scarily a dietitian according to the article.
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
7 -
Some sanity on what CICO is and isn't. I know there is a lot of preaching to the choir here.
This is for the person who keeps wooing perfectly accurate posts. And well, general lurkers and reference for the future.
https://myoleanfitness.com/cico-evidence-based-truth/8
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