CICO the lastest fad diet

Need2Exerc1se

https://medlineplus.gov/news/fullstory_169921.html

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 22, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- What if you could have your cake, eat it, too, and lose weight?

A nutritional fad called CICO -- short for "Calories In, Calories Out" -- promises just that for those looking to shed some pounds.
...

PaulaWallaDingDong

Wtaf...

That article was confusing as hell.

joemac1988

I got called a liar on another MFP discussion for saying there's people that just count calories and disregard nutrition.

liftingbro

Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person

Tacklewasher

joemac1988 wrote: »

I got called a liar on another MFP discussion for saying there's people that just count calories and disregard nutrition.

And the author of this article is as confused on the subject as you are.

" Sandon pointed out that "canned diet plans rarely work and are hard to stick with."

Instead, she advocates forgoing the "quick-fix mentality" in favor of a long-term resolution to embrace a "combination of healthy eating and exercise."

For example, Sandon said, "Reduce calories by cutting back on portion sizes or use pre-portioned foods, such as frozen meals, to cut back on total food intake.""

Pretty much the standard advice given here.

Different person quoted

""Severely restricting calories or food groups, along with rapid weight loss, are likely to backfire for many reasons, and the dieter will be left feeling frustrated," she added."

Again, this seems to be the tone of those promoting calorie counting.

livingleanlivingclean

"It is far more important to eat healthy foods like broccoli, edamame, pecans, berries, pasta and olive oil than go on some crazy weight-loss fad diet," Heller said."


Would a broccoli-edamame-pecan-berry-pasta-olive oil diet not be a crazy, nutritionally lacking, weight loss fad diet? More so than eating appropriate portions of a variety of foods...

The whole article is ridiculously confused.

g_poleman

I do firmly buy into CICO - but I have to admit I love seeing articles like this and others because it so ticks off all the right people on here.

joemac1988

liftingbro wrote: »

Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person

Yup, and different macros affect your body differently so depending on the person, their goals, etc there's more to the story than just calories.

PaulaWallaDingDong

livingleanlivingclean wrote: »

"It is far more important to eat healthy foods like broccoli, edamame, pecans, berries, pasta and olive oil than go on some crazy weight-loss fad diet," Heller said."


Would a broccoli-edamame-pecan-berry-pasta-olive oil diet not be a crazy, nutritionally lacking, weight loss fad diet? More so than eating appropriate portions of a variety of foods...

The whole article is ridiculously confused.

I was like "those foods are so random..."

liftingbro

joemac1988 wrote: »

liftingbro wrote: »

Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person

Yup, and different macros affect your body differently so depending on the person, their goals, etc there's more to the story than just calories.

Yup,leptin, insulin , testosterone and others can change the whole calories in vs calories out equation quite a bit.

joemac1988

Tacklewasher wrote: »

joemac1988 wrote: »

I got called a liar on another MFP discussion for saying there's people that just count calories and disregard nutrition.

And the author of this article is as confused on the subject as you are.

" Sandon pointed out that "canned diet plans rarely work and are hard to stick with."

Instead, she advocates forgoing the "quick-fix mentality" in favor of a long-term resolution to embrace a "combination of healthy eating and exercise."

For example, Sandon said, "Reduce calories by cutting back on portion sizes or use pre-portioned foods, such as frozen meals, to cut back on total food intake.""

Pretty much the standard advice given here.

Different person quoted

""Severely restricting calories or food groups, along with rapid weight loss, are likely to backfire for many reasons, and the dieter will be left feeling frustrated," she added."

Again, this seems to be the tone of those promoting calorie counting.

I'm not confused at all. I was just told previously "Literally no one on earth tracks CICO and ignores nutrition" and that's not true. I'm totally on board with CICO being a surefire way to lose weight; no argument there.

PaulaWallaDingDong

joemac1988 wrote: »

I got called a liar on another MFP discussion for saying there's people that just count calories and disregard nutrition.

There definitely are people like that around, but 1) just because they don't look at nutrition doesn't mean they don't eat a varied and healthy diet, and 2) anyone who lives completely on twinkies and slim jims will feel the effects and realize it's not the best way to do it. When people say CICO is what matters for weight loss they are NOT PROMOTING A JUNK FOOD DIET.

PaulaWallaDingDong

g_poleman wrote: »

I do firmly buy into CICO - but I have to admit I love seeing articles like this and others because it so ticks off all the right people on here.

You don't "buy into it." Your weight is governed by it.

jessicapk

A poorly written article... Sure, health is more than just weight loss but they basically assumed that anyone who does CICO eats junk all day and has no regard for exercise or eating good foods. Yes, there's more to it but it's a proven weight loss method that, in most cases that I know, encourages people to eat better simply because you can fit more food in when you eat less junk (e.g. a plateful of veggies is way more filling than a single cookie). AND it allows you to still splurge on goodies from time to time because, no matter what, life will throw them your way. So, I'd say that something that teaches you how to eat in a healthy way that works in real life is not just a "fad diet."

lemurcat12

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

Wtaf...

That article was confusing as hell.

It's like a weird rewrite of that Daily Mail article that was posted and discussed before.

Bry_Fitness70

livingleanlivingclean wrote: »

"It is far more important to eat healthy foods like broccoli, edamame, pecans, berries, pasta and olive oil than go on some crazy weight-loss fad diet," Heller said."


Would a broccoli-edamame-pecan-berry-pasta-olive oil diet not be a crazy, nutritionally lacking, weight loss fad diet? More so than eating appropriate portions of a variety of foods...

The whole article is ridiculously confused.

Can the author reasonably call CICO a "diet" ("crazy weight-loss fad" descriptor or otherwise) since it doesn't prescribe any particular food / drink / macros / nutrient whatsoever?

PaulaWallaDingDong

@Need2Exerc1se I'm so thoroughly impressed with the responses here already. Wonder how long before it completely pancakes.

Need2Exerc1se

joemac1988 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

joemac1988 wrote: »

I got called a liar on another MFP discussion for saying there's people that just count calories and disregard nutrition.

And the author of this article is as confused on the subject as you are.

" Sandon pointed out that "canned diet plans rarely work and are hard to stick with."

Instead, she advocates forgoing the "quick-fix mentality" in favor of a long-term resolution to embrace a "combination of healthy eating and exercise."

For example, Sandon said, "Reduce calories by cutting back on portion sizes or use pre-portioned foods, such as frozen meals, to cut back on total food intake.""

Pretty much the standard advice given here.

Different person quoted

""Severely restricting calories or food groups, along with rapid weight loss, are likely to backfire for many reasons, and the dieter will be left feeling frustrated," she added."

Again, this seems to be the tone of those promoting calorie counting.

I'm not confused at all. I was just told previously "Literally no one on earth tracks CICO and ignores nutrition" and that's not true. I'm totally on board with CICO being a surefire way to lose weight; no argument there.

I think there are more than few that track calories and ignore nutrition. Especially when just starting out. I think some add lower calorie nutrient dense foods as much for volume as they do for nutrients.

lemurcat12

Anyway, I don't know why some people assume that CICO is a "diet plan" or that focusing on calories means that one doesn't focus on nutrition or care about what you eat (especially since obviously some foods are more filling than others). It's almost too silly to even discuss.

For the record, I do (or advocate) CICO in that I think that (obviously) calories are what determines weight loss. Same with anyone who does anything to change their calorie balance (including just reducing portions or eating more filling foods or whatever, or of course adding exercise).

However, I also choose what I eat based on what works for me and of course (because I am not senseless) care about nutrition.

I cared about nutrition and ate lots of vegetables when I was obese too. That was probably good for me, but obviously not enough.

No one decides to eat poorly because they understand that CICO determines weight loss/gain/maintenance.

lemurcat12

g_poleman wrote: »

I do firmly buy into CICO - but I have to admit I love seeing articles like this and others because it so ticks off all the right people on here.

So you dislike certain posters more than you love the truth? Cool.

Btw, as one of the posters that invariably jumps into these threads, I usually find these discussions fun (if often ridiculous), that's why we participate, probably.

lemurcat12

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

livingleanlivingclean wrote: »

"It is far more important to eat healthy foods like broccoli, edamame, pecans, berries, pasta and olive oil than go on some crazy weight-loss fad diet," Heller said."


Would a broccoli-edamame-pecan-berry-pasta-olive oil diet not be a crazy, nutritionally lacking, weight loss fad diet? More so than eating appropriate portions of a variety of foods...

The whole article is ridiculously confused.

I was like "those foods are so random..."

Heh, so true. Also, I got way fat eating all of those foods but edamame. I eat fewer pecans and less pasta and olive oil now, for sure. So is it more important to eat those foods or more important to eat a calorie-appropriate diet (that is balanced and nutritious also)? Clearly, the latter, period.