CICO the lastest fad diet

123457»

Replies

  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Life will go on. I will encounter Snickers bars. I don't have to live without them.

    I agree with all of this, but have a slight twist to the solution. Snickers bites. Not a whole bar and I can have a few, get my fix in and not kill the calories. Same for chips. Small (30g) bags make me happy.

    I'm still eating 3-5 servings of fruits and veggies, but can fit in the small treats with no issue.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Life will go on. I will encounter Snickers bars. I don't have to live without them.

    I agree with all of this, but have a slight twist to the solution. Snickers bites. Not a whole bar and I can have a few, get my fix in and not kill the calories. Same for chips. Small (30g) bags make me happy.

    I'm still eating 3-5 servings of fruits and veggies, but can fit in the small treats with no issue.

    That's actually what I do. Sort of. I don't really care for Snickers bites because it throws off the ratio of chocolate to the filling though. Fun sized Snickers bars are okay enough. And that's usually what I do. I'm currently all about peanut M&M's. I buy a bag full of packages of the fun sized servings and they're 90 calories.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Life will go on. I will encounter Snickers bars. I don't have to live without them.

    I agree with all of this, but have a slight twist to the solution. Snickers bites. Not a whole bar and I can have a few, get my fix in and not kill the calories. Same for chips. Small (30g) bags make me happy.

    I'm still eating 3-5 servings of fruits and veggies, but can fit in the small treats with no issue.

    That's actually what I do. Sort of. I don't really care for Snickers bites because it throws off the ratio of chocolate to the filling though. Fun sized Snickers bars are okay enough. And that's usually what I do. I'm currently all about peanut M&M's. I buy a bag full of packages of the fun sized servings and they're 90 calories.

    My last trip shopping included a package of bacon, a bag of malteasers, a bag of Mars Bites and a bag of Snickers bites.

    Looked at my wife and asked her if she liked my "diet" food.

    :)
  • JillianRumrill
    JillianRumrill Posts: 335 Member
    I just wanna know where do they get the idea that this is a *FAD*. CICO has been around for ages. It's just good common sense!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2017
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues

    Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
    elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs

    So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin

    However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn

    True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!

    See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.

    So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.

    To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.

    To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.

    Right, as if someone might be eating without control vs. noticing "jeez, I'm hungry, maybe I should eat different foods." Someone who overeats because their food choices are poor is making a decision to overeat vs. changing the food.

    I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying.

    At the same time, it surprises me how frequently people - mostly outside MFP, but sometimes in - don't understand the effect of food choices on satiety. How many times do we see/hear things along the line that "you have to eat less, which makes you feel hungry, but if you keep it up your stomach will shrink, then you'll be OK "?

    Maybe they don't get that they would be less hungry if they ate more protein or some such, but you have to lack common sense entirely to be "I'm hungry and it's 4 pm and I'm not eating until 7, maybe I will have some cookies even though I am trying to cut calories" vs. "hmm, how can I tide myself over to dinner? Maybe some carrots."

    Or as my mother said when I was little and said "mom, I'm hungry." "Here, have an apple" (or whatever). Granted, apples aren't as low cal as carrots, but this idea that if you are hungry you can't decide to eat some additional low cal food is, well, strange to me.

    I've also heard LOTS of people make comments about the effect of food on them (people not trying to lose), so I think people get it. People know that they can be not hungry (stuffed) after dinner and still get dessert and eat it. People when I was a kid repeated as a truism that you'd be hungry 2 hours later if you had rice (I don't find that, but it was a really common belief). People know about sugar crashes and think turkey (and high refined carbs and fat) make them tired (common joke if we have a pasta lunch at work), and so on.
  • Rickster1967
    Rickster1967 Posts: 485 Member
    I just wanna know where do they get the idea that this is a *FAD*. CICO has been around for ages. It's just good common sense!

    I don't know because I don't read all those blogs

    However, I guess that there is a perception that weight loss and health can only be achieved by living like a monk, eating rabbit food, starving (what they call fasting), eating unpleasant food or by eating so called 'superfoods' like kale in large quantities.

    Seems to me that they want it to be painful or want to signal how virtuous they are by denying themselves 'unhealthy foods'

    Therefore, any approach which suggests you don't have to live that way can be smeared as a 'fad'.

    The whole article conflated multiple subjects and covered none in a worthwhile manner. Shoddy work
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues

    Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
    elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs

    So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin

    However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn

    True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!

    See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.

    So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.

    To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.

    To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.

    No, that's just your spin on it. Influence is not control.

    X influences how much you eat = X will change the amount of food you eat, it is not the only thing that determines how much you eat, but it will make it higher or lower regardless of your wishes.

    I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that influence will always change behavior? If not, can you clarify what you are saying?

    Yes, that's what it means.

    "the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others"

    Air pressure influences how long it takes to boil water.
    It isn't the only thing that can change the time, but a change in pressure will change the amount of time.

    That's why "X can influence Y" is not redundant.
    X influences Y = X will change Y (but isn't the only thing that does),
    X can influence Y = X could change Y, or it might not.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues

    Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
    elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs

    So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin

    However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn

    True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!

    See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.

    So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.

    To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.

    To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.

    Right, as if someone might be eating without control vs. noticing "jeez, I'm hungry, maybe I should eat different foods." Someone who overeats because their food choices are poor is making a decision to overeat vs. changing the food.

    I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying.

    At the same time, it surprises me how frequently people - mostly outside MFP, but sometimes in - don't understand the effect of food choices on satiety. How many times do we see/hear things along the line that "you have to eat less, which makes you feel hungry, but if you keep it up your stomach will shrink, then you'll be OK "?

    Maybe they don't get that they would be less hungry if they ate more protein or some such, but you have to lack common sense entirely to be "I'm hungry and it's 4 pm and I'm not eating until 7, maybe I will have some cookies even though I am trying to cut calories" vs. "hmm, how can I tide myself over to dinner? Maybe some carrots."

    Or as my mother said when I was little and said "mom, I'm hungry." "Here, have an apple" (or whatever). Granted, apples aren't as low cal as carrots, but this idea that if you are hungry you can't decide to eat some additional low cal food is, well, strange to me.

    I've also heard LOTS of people make comments about the effect of food on them (people not trying to lose), so I think people get it. People know that they can be not hungry (stuffed) after dinner and still get dessert and eat it. People when I was a kid repeated as a truism that you'd be hungry 2 hours later if you had rice (I don't find that, but it was a really common belief). People know about sugar crashes and think turkey (and high refined carbs and fat) make them tired (common joke if we have a pasta lunch at work), and so on.

    Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that I thought it was a common perspective among people eating ad libitum, so sometimes also when transitioning to managing a deficit: Part of a common learning process (along with learning, for some people, that common hormonal issues are not complete Weight Loss Doom in the way they may initially think).

    When I was fat, eating whatever, I didn't much think about what was satiating, even though I'm of course familiar with stuff like "you'll be hungry an hour after Chinese food", but I was also vaguely aware that some of those common ideas weren't true for me.

    When I was fat, if the high calorie breakfast wore off by 10AM, I just ate a snack, without too much regard to whether said snack was calorie-laden or satiating. ;)

    So, even though "cookies aren't filling" was a common idea, so was "veggies aren't filling" and "hypothyroidism dooms weight loss" and "people our age can't lose weight". Until one believes in the possibility that the common ideas could be wrong, and until one really needs to know the correct answer for one's own use, why would one run the honest n = 1 experiment?

    I try, with limited success, not to get too dug in to my thinking - to court the idea that I could be wrong. Some of my friends (whom I value nonetheless, BTW) really don't easily entertain the possibility of their own incorrect thinking. Instead, they're inclined to double down on existing beliefs. It makes trying to persuade them of alternate ideas a very interesting intellectual and interpersonal skills exercise.

    Sometimes, in some cases here, I think the same applies to ideas about common hypothroidism, how to feel satiated, etc.
  • Rickster1967
    Rickster1967 Posts: 485 Member
    Yes beliefs are an interesting subject

    20 weeks ago my beliefs were vastly different to today. You know 'lost cause', 'doesn't matter what I do'
    'there's no way I can get control of my over eating and I'm doomed to die young'

    However, those have been obliterated and quite quickly. Just by logging my food and decing to eat in a deficit.

    Curious thing is why did it take getting to 140lbs overweight to find the trigger and change those beliefs?

  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Life will go on. I will encounter Snickers bars. I don't have to live without them.

    I agree with all of this, but have a slight twist to the solution. Snickers bites. Not a whole bar and I can have a few, get my fix in and not kill the calories. Same for chips. Small (30g) bags make me happy.

    I'm still eating 3-5 servings of fruits and veggies, but can fit in the small treats with no issue.

    That's actually what I do. Sort of. I don't really care for Snickers bites because it throws off the ratio of chocolate to the filling though. Fun sized Snickers bars are okay enough. And that's usually what I do. I'm currently all about peanut M&M's. I buy a bag full of packages of the fun sized servings and they're 90 calories.

    My last trip shopping included a package of bacon, a bag of malteasers, a bag of Mars Bites and a bag of Snickers bites.

    Looked at my wife and asked her if she liked my "diet" food.

    :)

    I'm about to start killing many birds with one extra delicious stone by ordering a box of Snickers PROTEIN ADDED. This is one victim of the protein push I am 100% on board with. There are several other bars too but if I don't want to pay a small fortune it's cheaper to buy a box than find somewhere that sells singles. I'm all kinds of excited.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2017
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues

    Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
    elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs

    So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin

    However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn

    True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!

    See above, they influence how much you WANT to eat, how much you actually eat is up to you. Don't push the blame onto hormones.

    So why do people give advice to eat foods that keep you full when dieting? We both know that answer. Hunger matters. Sure, it's a personal decision to be hungry and in a deficit or to not be in a deficit and be sated. Certainly it can be and is done. But please don't be so pompous as to suggest it doesn't matter. That it doesn't make it harder.

    To make it easier to stick with it without going crazy.

    To say that "Hormones will influence how much you eat" takes the personal part completely out of it. It's saying you're a mindless eating machine at the mercy of your hormones.

    Right, as if someone might be eating without control vs. noticing "jeez, I'm hungry, maybe I should eat different foods." Someone who overeats because their food choices are poor is making a decision to overeat vs. changing the food.

    I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying.

    At the same time, it surprises me how frequently people - mostly outside MFP, but sometimes in - don't understand the effect of food choices on satiety. How many times do we see/hear things along the line that "you have to eat less, which makes you feel hungry, but if you keep it up your stomach will shrink, then you'll be OK "?

    Maybe they don't get that they would be less hungry if they ate more protein or some such, but you have to lack common sense entirely to be "I'm hungry and it's 4 pm and I'm not eating until 7, maybe I will have some cookies even though I am trying to cut calories" vs. "hmm, how can I tide myself over to dinner? Maybe some carrots."

    Or as my mother said when I was little and said "mom, I'm hungry." "Here, have an apple" (or whatever). Granted, apples aren't as low cal as carrots, but this idea that if you are hungry you can't decide to eat some additional low cal food is, well, strange to me.

    I've also heard LOTS of people make comments about the effect of food on them (people not trying to lose), so I think people get it. People know that they can be not hungry (stuffed) after dinner and still get dessert and eat it. People when I was a kid repeated as a truism that you'd be hungry 2 hours later if you had rice (I don't find that, but it was a really common belief). People know about sugar crashes and think turkey (and high refined carbs and fat) make them tired (common joke if we have a pasta lunch at work), and so on.

    Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that I thought it was a common perspective among people eating ad libitum, so sometimes also when transitioning to managing a deficit: Part of a common learning process (along with learning, for some people, that common hormonal issues are not complete Weight Loss Doom in the way they may initially think).

    When I was fat, eating whatever, I didn't much think about what was satiating, even though I'm of course familiar with stuff like "you'll be hungry an hour after Chinese food", but I was also vaguely aware that some of those common ideas weren't true for me.

    When I was fat, if the high calorie breakfast wore off by 10AM, I just ate a snack, without too much regard to whether said snack was calorie-laden or satiating. ;)

    So, even though "cookies aren't filling" was a common idea, so was "veggies aren't filling" and "hypothyroidism dooms weight loss" and "people our age can't lose weight". Until one believes in the possibility that the common ideas could be wrong, and until one really needs to know the correct answer for one's own use, why would one run the honest n = 1 experiment?

    I try, with limited success, not to get too dug in to my thinking - to court the idea that I could be wrong. Some of my friends (whom I value nonetheless, BTW) really don't easily entertain the possibility of their own incorrect thinking. Instead, they're inclined to double down on existing beliefs. It makes trying to persuade them of alternate ideas a very interesting intellectual and interpersonal skills exercise.

    Sometimes, in some cases here, I think the same applies to ideas about common hypothroidism, how to feel satiated, etc.

    I don't disagree in that of course people not watching calories don't pay attention to what's filling, but I never deluded myself into thinking I was eating a cookie after lunch or ordering dessert because I was HUNGRY or that I could not cut calories without being hungry. (I mean, I often was hungry, mental hunger anyway, but I knew I could choose to eat something filling and low cal or a cookie or whatever and if I chose the cookie it was because it was easier, I didn't bring an alternative, it tasted good, I did not care about the calories much (since who knew what I was eating overall), etc. I did have a weird idea (before I bothered) that my weight just was what it was and would not be responsive to what I ate. (I think this is because as a teen/young adult I was always not as thin as I wanted but not fat and I felt like I ate a lot so figured I was one of those people who would never be thin or fat and could eat whatever I wanted. Yes, I know that's stupid and realized it the second I actually thought about it, but it still was a deep-seated belief.) I also had this idea that weight loss required you to eat this miserable restrictive diet and be hungry (based on reading fad diets in magazines as a kid and some of the stuff my mom did). But despite this, I immediately understood -- always knew -- that if you were hungry and just needed to eat something that vegetables would do. (I did not actually realize HOW low cal vegetables were until I lost weight in my 30s, however.)

    When people say "I overate because I was choosing foods that made me hungry," I think that's a cop out. They know if eating for hunger that there are options other than the high cal foods. They were overeating because they were eating for taste and not paying attention to calories, period. So it's not the hormones that made them do it and not the food, it's their own choice.

    I guess to me it seems logical (and clearly to most people I know, as it's more common to overdo it than the alternative) to think "if I eat low cal foods mostly I will cut calories," so when dieting people eat lots of lean protein and veg. Then if hungry, they eat veg and fruit, so on.

    The "it's the hormones" person here to whom my original post was a counter to seems to be saying that he started by cutting cals and not changing anything (which I think is hard to do -- aren't you selective when cutting cals?) but then was hungry and so couldn't help but overeat, which I find odd because if hungry wouldn't you try eating lower cal foods and see what is satisfying.

    The only reason I'm going on about this is the idea that everyone focusing on calories first would fail because they are starving assumes that most people are too dumb to think "wow, I am hungry and only have X calories left, guess I'll eat something low cal and try to plan better tomorrow." I don't get how anyone WOULDN'T act logically in that situation but would just bust through the calories and then complain that focusing on calories meant they ate a stupid diet.

    Heh, I think we are both mixing some different things and sorry about this rather digressive response.
  • sgtx81
    sgtx81 Posts: 466 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    sgtx81 wrote: »
    I love watching the know-it-alls battle it out. You can't argue with stupid, but it's still fun to watch. The same ppl that shoot down certain studies when they don't support their current beliefs refer to other studies from the same aggregate sources when they do. It's a giant cluster kcuf of confirmation bias in here. At least there is some benefit to these posts... apparently you burn a few calories reading them and if you're one of the ppl arguing one point or another you burn even more calories. Participation in many of these topics does more for weight loss than the information and advice contained within them.

    Ahh, the vague slam of basically everyone participating in a thread since no one knows who you're directing this message . Always a helpful contribution to a thread and a forum community. Thanks for your insights!

    No problem!
  • HellYeahItsKriss
    HellYeahItsKriss Posts: 906 Member
    There really need not be a name attached tho.. after multiple threads with the same slam, we basically know the names.
  • sgtx81
    sgtx81 Posts: 466 Member
    There really need not be a name attached tho.. after multiple threads with the same slam, we basically know the names.

    do tell!
This discussion has been closed.