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.

Anyone else frustrated with the CICO mantra?

1235789

Replies

  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,570 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    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

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.

    While the review in the ADA journal (which I think is different from an official ADA review) doesn't say Fung is a quack, lines like "Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part" seem to make it clear that they have serious concerns with his approach.

    And some people have had success with the approach.
    Which is why I said “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”

    Here come a bunch more disagree reacts.

    I don't think anyone denies that people have had success with Fung's approach. The truth is that any eating style that creates weight loss tends to improve the chronic diseases associated with excess weight.

    The issue is whether or not the people touting a particular diet are correct when they make claims that they've found the ONLY way to control weight.

    Some people have also had success with John McDougall's high carbohydrate plant-based diet when it comes to chronic disease control and weight management, but this doesn't mean he's found the only way to control weight. To the extent that he (or Fung) make claims that weight control requires eating according to their plan, they're being quacks.

    From what I know of Fung's plan, it's a healthy way to eat. It's just not (IMO) the ONLY healthy way to eat and that's where I think he crosses the line.

    My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.

    And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.

    "Mendacious shyster" is better. Now let's do Mercola! 🙂

    I like "flim flam man" and I'm doing my best to bring it back.

    Can the flim flam man sell s'moreos?

  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,113 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    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

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.

    While the review in the ADA journal (which I think is different from an official ADA review) doesn't say Fung is a quack, lines like "Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part" seem to make it clear that they have serious concerns with his approach.

    And some people have had success with the approach.
    Which is why I said “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”

    Here come a bunch more disagree reacts.

    I don't think anyone denies that people have had success with Fung's approach. The truth is that any eating style that creates weight loss tends to improve the chronic diseases associated with excess weight.

    The issue is whether or not the people touting a particular diet are correct when they make claims that they've found the ONLY way to control weight.

    Some people have also had success with John McDougall's high carbohydrate plant-based diet when it comes to chronic disease control and weight management, but this doesn't mean he's found the only way to control weight. To the extent that he (or Fung) make claims that weight control requires eating according to their plan, they're being quacks.

    From what I know of Fung's plan, it's a healthy way to eat. It's just not (IMO) the ONLY healthy way to eat and that's where I think he crosses the line.

    My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.

    And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.

    "Mendacious shyster" is better. Now let's do Mercola! 🙂

    I like "flim flam man" and I'm doing my best to bring it back.

    Thing is, some people have success with his method. Unlike something like laetrile, which absolutely is quackery.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,113 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    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

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.

    While the review in the ADA journal (which I think is different from an official ADA review) doesn't say Fung is a quack, lines like "Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part" seem to make it clear that they have serious concerns with his approach.

    And some people have had success with the approach.
    Which is why I said “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”

    Here come a bunch more disagree reacts.

    I don't think anyone denies that people have had success with Fung's approach. The truth is that any eating style that creates weight loss tends to improve the chronic diseases associated with excess weight.

    The issue is whether or not the people touting a particular diet are correct when they make claims that they've found the ONLY way to control weight.

    Some people have also had success with John McDougall's high carbohydrate plant-based diet when it comes to chronic disease control and weight management, but this doesn't mean he's found the only way to control weight. To the extent that he (or Fung) make claims that weight control requires eating according to their plan, they're being quacks.

    From what I know of Fung's plan, it's a healthy way to eat. It's just not (IMO) the ONLY healthy way to eat and that's where I think he crosses the line.

    My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.

    And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.

    What would you describe this sales pitch as?

    "Everything you believe about how to lose weight is wrong. Weight gain and obesity are driven by hormones—in everyone—and only by understanding the effects of the hormones insulin and insulin resistance can we achieve lasting weight loss."

    This is the beginning of the item description of "The Obesity Code" on Amazon.

    The truth is that thousands and thousands of people are able to manage their weight long-term without giving thought one to insulin and insulin resistance.

    This is the essence of quackery. Only I have the information that can help you. Everyone else is wrong. You're doomed without me.

    Doctors disagree frequently.
    In my opinion what makes someone a quack is intentional dishonesty just to make a buck.

    Like Andrew Wakefield.
    Or psychics who milk Grandma for every dime she has in hopes of speaking to Grandpa.

    Fung is controversial. And, obviously not everyone’s cup of tea. But I haven’t yet seen any evidence that his methods are harmful.
    Although If such evidence turns up? Especially if he doesn’t back off in light of such evidence? Then ya. I’ll call him a quack at that point.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,113 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    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

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.

    While the review in the ADA journal (which I think is different from an official ADA review) doesn't say Fung is a quack, lines like "Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part" seem to make it clear that they have serious concerns with his approach.

    And some people have had success with the approach.
    Which is why I said “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”

    Here come a bunch more disagree reacts.

    I don't think anyone denies that people have had success with Fung's approach. The truth is that any eating style that creates weight loss tends to improve the chronic diseases associated with excess weight.

    The issue is whether or not the people touting a particular diet are correct when they make claims that they've found the ONLY way to control weight.

    Some people have also had success with John McDougall's high carbohydrate plant-based diet when it comes to chronic disease control and weight management, but this doesn't mean he's found the only way to control weight. To the extent that he (or Fung) make claims that weight control requires eating according to their plan, they're being quacks.

    From what I know of Fung's plan, it's a healthy way to eat. It's just not (IMO) the ONLY healthy way to eat and that's where I think he crosses the line.

    My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.

    And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.

    "Mendacious shyster" is better. Now let's do Mercola! 🙂

    Yes. Let’s. Please.

    Mercola’s name is a frequent find on Quackwatch
    https://quackwatch.org/?s&_sf_s=Mercola

    I am limited to my phone, but I was unable to find Fung mentioned even once. Maybe it’s there?
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,113 Member
    "Weight loss is hormones not calories" is lying to make a buck. Doctors saying false things like that is probably part of why everybody doesn't know CICO, to bring this full circle.

    Hormones aren’t involved? 🤨
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,113 Member
    "Weight loss is hormones not calories" is lying to make a buck. Doctors saying false things like that is probably part of why everybody doesn't know CICO, to bring this full circle.

    Hormones aren’t involved? 🤨

    Clothes are involved. It's it clothes not calories that cause weight gain?

    It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I say CICO is an important metric.

  • NVintage
    NVintage Posts: 1,463 Member
    CICO is an excellent start to a healthy lifestyle. Keeping a food diary and learning proper quantities of food required for health is important! However, it's way to easy to get obsessed with it and it is known to be associated with the misunderstanding that lack of willpower causes obesity, which is the basis of a slew of stigma against overweight people. Health is this extremely complex thing involving so much more than just counting calories. There was even a study, sometime back, showing that nutrients are actually absorbed better when we enjoy what we're eating. And managing stress has a huge impact on health, I think way more than calories.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,113 Member
    hdeulv6lxot7.jpeg
    Quack

    bl5wti1thawt.jpeg
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,451 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    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

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.
    No I said the ADA would endorse Fong than a high carb diet plan.

    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

    9285851.png

  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,113 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
    Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.

    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

    9285851.png


    I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.
    No I said the ADA would endorse Fong than a high carb diet plan.

    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

    9285851.png

    The ADA specifically says low carb diets are not appropriate for people on certain diabetic medications.

    It really isn’t that simple. 🤷🏼‍♀️