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 is overrated in my opinion
Replies
-
The effects of CICO...hmmm..weight goes up...weight goes down...weight stays the same.6
-
JerSchmare wrote: »This is dumb.
CICO is everything.
CICO is everthing, but what effects CICO?
It doesn't matter. For practical purposes, you deal with the major players and let the minors sort themselves out. Adjust as needed based on scale results. Does this really need to be gone over again and again?12 -
I know it's petty but what *affects CICO or what *effect does food have on CICO. They're not interchangeable words and in the interests of scientific discussion it irks me.23
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
And even calorie estimations on packages and calculations to estimate your TDEE take all of those things in consideration, because they were made by people who are smart. Blambo isn't the first person to think about things like absorption of the calories, though he clearly seems to think he is.
The thing that gets me is that several of us have communicated time and time again that we all know and understand exactly what he's talking about, and that these things are accounted for in the scientific understanding of energy balance.
You don't understand and neither do the authors in the paper you provided based on what they said in the paper. Food goes in, work and heat and excretion go out. We (you, me and the whole of science) totally understand what effects those things. The people in the paper you gave state so and suggest important research to understand these things.
You. Are. Delusional.
I concur. He thinks he knows more than the researchers who wrote a paper.8 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »We do NOT ever promote malnutrition.
What Wheelhouse says is evidenced by the fact that you can target and track your micros and macros. I doubt many - if any - MFP users are *only* looking at calories - they are also looking at whatever macros / micros they have set their diaries to track on a regular basis.
So so much discussion in the forums is on Protein, and on lifting weights. So I think the OP perhaps doesn't understand how MFP is promoting these things and is not just pushing solely a CICO agenda - although, if you want to loose weight/fat, then CICO must be the overriding principle.
Most of us have learned so much about nutrition, toning, whatever your goals - through using the app and through the forums.
PPS -
Woops - my comment is replying to the original OP and the discussions on page 1 ... I now see that the discussion has taken a mysterious turn ... with a heated debate about what CICO is. Um, since CICO is obvious and self-explanatory, I will stay *out* of this current who-hah. Or grab some popcorn, but let me log the popcorn first - before prepping it - to make sure it fits into my day.
8 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CI to a fat cell and CO of a fat cell is a better equation of fat accumulation in a fat cell. Not all excess calories make it to fat cells and it takes more calories out of a fat cell to produce an equivalent calorie of work the body can do (there are waste heat calories also). CI the mouth and CO of the body due to work is a worst case estimate of CI a fat cell and CO of a fat cell so if you go by CI the mouth and CO out of the body, you will lose at least as much or more than that deficit (this makes it a useful tool for predictions). Many things effect how much of excess cals make it to fat cells and how much waste heat there will be.
I'll paste this in every thread you're spamming with this nonsense.
Everything you think CICO doesn't account for, is accounted for. You're the one who doesn't understand what CICO is.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
And even calorie estimations on packages and calculations to estimate your TDEE take all of those things in consideration, because they were made by people who are smart. Blambo isn't the first person to think about things like absorption of the calories, though he clearly seems to think he is.
The thing that gets me is that several of us have communicated time and time again that we all know and understand exactly what he's talking about, and that these things are accounted for in the scientific understanding of energy balance.
You don't understand and neither do the authors in the paper you provided based on what they said in the paper. Food goes in, work and heat and excretion go out. We (you, me and the whole of science) totally understand what effects those things. The people in the paper you gave state so and suggest important research to understand these things.
You. Are. Delusional.
I concur. He thinks he knows more than the researchers who wrote a paper.
IKR? And how many times have you told him that excretion is already accounted for in the Atwater factors?
6 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »CICO is important definitely but i think it shouldn't be a priority we want to LOSE FAT not just WEIGHT because weight includes those wonderful muscles you work so hard to build (and other stuff) . Also the human body is very intelligent if you eat low calorie for a long time like i did in the past you might come to find that your body adjust to your low calorie lifestyle and you lose weight but you look unhealthy . If you want to make your body let go of fat you have to be healthy , being malnourished is not healthy or pleasant. So please promote fat loss not weight loss .
Pssst: I even eat chocolate every day and pizza on a weekly basis because I know it's not the what but the how much that matters for weight loss.
WHAAAAAT? How much you eat matters? You mean I can't make 5 trips to an all you can eat salad bar every day & lose weight? But I'm eating healthy! What kind of sorcery is this?0 -
I was raised Christian, United Methodist specifically, and my mother was a believer to her bedrock, the kindest and warmest sort, not a rigid or overbearing type. While I think my dad was at heart a deist, he was a bit more of a free thinker.
I was a strong believer into my teens, but began to struggle with doubt. I'm fundamentally rationalist at my core, and that makes faith a viscerally hard sell.
Sometime in my late teens or early twenties, I came to a realization: Whether I believed in a deity or not, my behavior would be exactly the same. I have a very strong sense of ethics and morality (maybe an idiosyncratic one, but strong, and fairly Golden Rule oriented
). To me, my actual actions seemed at least as ethically based as those of the believers around me.
At that moment - and it really was kind of just a moment - I decided I didn't care whether there was a god, and I literally stopped worrying about it.
These days, I remain a committed agnostic. I deeply respect others' faiths, and don't argue with them about metaphysics. It's faith, not logic. I expect others to respect my beliefs, too. I grow big scary metaphorical teeth if they try to convert me. And to the extent I form judgements about people - which I try to keep to a practical minimum - I judge based on actions.
I love this. Almost identical to myself, except I was raised Mormon. I've never been able to put it into words like this though.3 -
I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.1
-
Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
I think you mean calorie counting instead of CICO.9 -
Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
Curious what you mean when you say “still doing CICO”. What specifically are you doing that you’re calling CICO, because CICO isn’t a plan or a diet.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
Curious what you mean when you say “still doing CICO”. What specifically are you doing that you’re calling CICO, because CICO isn’t a plan or a diet.
I don't know, I've been doing gravity for a while now and it seems to be working out pretty well so far.28 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
Curious what you mean when you say “still doing CICO”. What specifically are you doing that you’re calling CICO, because CICO isn’t a plan or a diet.
I don't know, I've been doing gravity for a while now and it seems to be working our pretty well so far.
I think you should go cold turkey on gravity and see what happens.12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
Curious what you mean when you say “still doing CICO”. What specifically are you doing that you’re calling CICO, because CICO isn’t a plan or a diet.
I don't know, I've been doing gravity for a while now and it seems to be working our pretty well so far.
I think you should go cold turkey on gravity and see what happens.
I tried for a bit but it turns out that fundamental rules of reality exist whether or not you work at them.12 -
blasphemy
2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
Curious what you mean when you say “still doing CICO”. What specifically are you doing that you’re calling CICO, because CICO isn’t a plan or a diet.
Yep, what I meant was I am eating exactly the calories back, that I burn. Basically the other way around, lol. COCI!
But yes, I will count calories the rest of my life.0 -
Biggster not sure if you are accidentally posing on wrong thread?? - there is one going atm re whether people will count calories ongoing after reaching their goal weight
cant really see difference between COCI and CICO myself - or kilojoules in, KJ out, sounds like the difference between 2+4 and 4+2 to me - the way of counting or measuring or assessing or controlling does not change the reality.
Just like distance from A to B is the same whether I measure it in miles, kilometres, or walk, run, bicycle, travel with a fitbit or speedometer, or dont measure anything about it at all.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Biggster69 wrote: »I obsessed over CICO and eating healthy at the same time. Results were phenomenal. Now I am still doing CICO in order to keep my weight. CICO is not overrated for me.
Curious what you mean when you say “still doing CICO”. What specifically are you doing that you’re calling CICO, because CICO isn’t a plan or a diet.
I don't know, I've been doing gravity for a while now and it seems to be working our pretty well so far.
I think you should go cold turkey on gravity and see what happens.
I tried for a bit but it turns out that fundamental rules of reality exist whether or not you work at them.
https://youtu.be/Dc-m9dumEaw 7 -
Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.19 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.11 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.32 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, or maintain good health, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals, in combination with calorie counting.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
Probably being pedantic - but CICO is not application of a formula, it IS the formula. Calorie counting is the application of the formula.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate. A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.24 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
This is incorrect. CICO is just shorthand for energy balance. It doesn't matter how, when, or what you eat - as stated repeatedly on almost every page in this thread, if you eat more calories than you expend (CI>CO) you will gain weight. If you eat fewer calories than you expend (CO<CI) you will lose weight. Satiety and nutrition have nothing to do with weight management itself.
Calories aren't equivelent to anything except calories. The nutritional content of any food has nothing to do with the number of calories it contains. It's not a diet plan. If you eat too many calories of nutrient light food you will gain weight. If you eat the same number of calories of nutrient dense food food you will gain the same amount of weight, whether you're aware of the number of calories you're eating or not.
11 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”17 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
This makes as much sense as saying that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a diet plan. CICO is an observation about reality, which can be used as a tool for successful weight loss. It can also be used as a tool for successful weight gain, for body builders, or as a tool for successful weight maintenance, or as a tool for successfully fueling for a period of training, for athletes.17 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.13 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
If you Google CICO, what you seem to get on the front page is a bunch of unqualified "experts" trying to make news by being interviewed about something called "the CICO diet plan," which is not a thing, and even if it were a thing, is not the same as CICO. The sole exception seems to be Popsugar, which is alone in actually knowing what CICO means and explaining it.11 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity9 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...25 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.35
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions