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 -- what does it mean?

Options
13

Replies

  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    CyberTone wrote: »
    raefon wrote: »
    CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.

    Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.

    It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.

    The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."

    The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.

    The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."

    http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf

    Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.

    Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.

    That and they don't actually have a working understanding of the thing they're trying to argue so use a "source", usually from a blog or some such, of the theories they've bought into but are unable to articulate themselves.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    CyberTone wrote: »
    raefon wrote: »
    CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.

    Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.

    It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.

    The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."

    The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.

    The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."

    http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf

    Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.

    Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.

    Cherry picking is a vital strategy to crackpots like Fung, Taubes, Mercola, et al. It's the only way they can make their silly arguments appear even halfway valid. "If the facts don't fit the theory, they must be discarded!".
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    CyberTone wrote: »
    raefon wrote: »
    CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.

    Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.

    It is customary to provide a link to the source when copying and pasting.

    The above appears to be either from an article or podcast referencing the underlying source or possibly from the conclusion of the original source, which is a "commentary" published in 2014 in "Public Health Nutrition."

    The full commentary article can be found at the link provided below.

    The authors did a survey of published articles and authored a "commentary [that] discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types."

    http://www.thehealthedgepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lucan-et-al-PHN-calories-quantityquality.pdf

    Thanks for this. I don't understand why people do that.

    Usually because when taken in the broader context, the paragraph doesn't quite say what it appears to when wrenched out of context.

    Cherry picking is a vital strategy to crackpots like Fung, Taubes, Mercola, et al. It's the only way they can make their silly arguments appear even halfway valid. "If the facts don't fit the theory, they must be discarded!".

    Which is complete *kitten* backwards, in science the facts are what we measure the theory by not vice versa and if the theory doesn't fit the facts then the theory must be discarded. In practise, bad science never dies.
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    Options
    raefon wrote: »
    CICO hocus pocus, its not that easy really and people just want an easy answer.

    Focusing quantitatively, particularly on the calories available from specific foods, fails to recognize the broader metabolic effects of foods themselves. Foods that are highly processed and comprised mostly of rapidly absorbable sugars and starches may be of greatest concern. Such carbohydrates may induce neurohormonal changes that might, in turn, help produce the overeating and inactivity often interpreted as causative for obesity. In other words, unhealthy foods may make double victims of their consumers, who may not only become obese by eating them but also receive harsh criticism for their substantial appetites and apparent laziness that result.

    It really is that easy and many people actually don't want an easy answer. The fact that so many ridiculous theories continue to try to argue the law of thermodynamics proves it.

    But even if whatever the above plagiarized quote means is true, it's still 100% CI-CO regardless if evil carbs, neurohormones, processed foods or whatever today's demon is magically make changes to your CO.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,223 Member
    Options
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Here is everything wrong with what you post.

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/

    That link shows CICO. Not as you understand it and go on about it, but as science explains it.

    Any garbage you are spewing about wasted heat and whatever is nonsense.

    Have you ever had a thermodynamics course?

    And CICO is a reflection of The First Law of Thermodynamics. Doesn't change the fact that you are getting definitions confused.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    So now (I think!) we all agree that CICO and calorie counting is different.

    From a practical perspective, there are many ways to adjust CICO so that you lose weight. Calorie counting is one. Other methods also may work (I've lost weight twice in my life, years apart, maintained for years, and the first time and the beginning of the second time I did not count, so obviously it is possible). Some of the common methods that people use are changing their diets in a way that increases satiety from fewer calories FOR THEM or makes casual overeating harder (again, for them -- for me this might be a bigger effect). Examples of this are keto, WFPB, paleo, etc. Other methods are changing eating patterns (which has the same two effects). While IF is an example of this, so is my preferred method (3 meals, no snacking). The thing with all these methods is that they assume the person will not overeat while using the method, and of course plenty who do IF or keto or my no snacking thing will still overeat. But also some won't be able to log well or will hate it too much to sustain it.

    Whatever method you use, I do think that focusing on things like TEF and trying to "waste" calories is pretty much a waste of time (although worth knowing about, sure). That's because (among other things) you don't get any particular benefit from eating more "on the label" calories, especially if the way you do so is less satisfying to you. If it IS satisfying for you, do it for that reason.

    I am somewhat a volume eater, not as much as some -- I did fine during my experiment with keto, although I still ate a decent amount of vegetables. I eat volume because I find it satisfying and enjoyable, not because I think it's inherently beneficial to eat the greatest volume you possibly can. Similarly, if including more protein in your diet is satiating to you (it is for many), do that, but NOT because the TEF is higher. Eating 2000 estimated calories that end up being 1600 when everything is taken into account is not inherently more satisfying or enjoyable or "optimal" than eating 1750 estimated calories that are 1600 when everything is taken into account.

    The idea that it's optimal to eat as much as possible more than you actually digest is really puzzling to me. Might as well say the optimal thing is that icky gadget that lets you remove food after you eat it, and, well, ick. But if YOU PERSONALLY find that eating in a particular way is more satisfying (having one big meal rather than 3 smaller ones), that's totally reasonable. People will differ on what they find satisfying, though, and it's not based on maximizing label calories. I would HATE eating a bunch of mini meals or grazing in lieu of meals, but some love that and find it far more satisfying than other ways of eating. Some find apples make them hungry and bread is satisfying, I am (usually) the opposite. That's why preaching OMAD or whatever as optimal is wrong (optimal for you, sure, but it wouldn't work for me -- I can't eat that much at one meal if it has sufficient protein and vegetables and I dislike feeling overstuffed, it would ruin the pleasure not increase it).