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?

12346»

Replies

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda 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.

    I do think it's harmful to deny the role that calories play in weight management. It can make people feel hopeless if they try something like IF and it doesn't work well for them (I'm in this group, I feel sick if I don't eat in the AM). It can get people focusing effort on specific strategies that don't work well for them instead of just figuring out the best way to manage their calorie intake.

    I absolutely believe that IF can be a useful strategy for some people to manage their calorie intake. Lower carbohydrate diets can be too. But if someone is focusing on both of those as an end in themselves (instead of considering them as possible tools to meet the real goal of calorie management), it can cause harm.

    And if you're denying the role that calories play in weight management while you're telling people they have to buy your book or be fat forever . . . yeah, I'm going to call that quackery even if some people have success using your methods.

    Yeah…. Since I made that comment
    I have come around some about Fung being a quack….


    Some what about Fung being a quack??
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    edited August 2021
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I see "eat less, move more" as pretty much good in the same way understanding CICO is. I mean, technically you don't have to move more, and some may not be able to, but increasing overall CO when possible can be helpful. With eat less, yes, that doesn't answer the question of HOW to eat less, but it illustrates that the issue is too many cals and gives the person the ability to figure out for themselves what would work for them.

    If someone asked for advice on HOW to eat less and said they were struggling with it, I think they'd get mostly constructive advice or ideas about what worked for others and not just "just eat less!".



    Lately, I see and hear "eat less, move more" this way:


    e959hjpswam2.png


    ETA: Sorry. I copied from a video clip, so I thought it would paste that way, but it didn't. Anyway, talk less, smile more.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda 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.

    I do think it's harmful to deny the role that calories play in weight management. It can make people feel hopeless if they try something like IF and it doesn't work well for them (I'm in this group, I feel sick if I don't eat in the AM). It can get people focusing effort on specific strategies that don't work well for them instead of just figuring out the best way to manage their calorie intake.

    I absolutely believe that IF can be a useful strategy for some people to manage their calorie intake. Lower carbohydrate diets can be too. But if someone is focusing on both of those as an end in themselves (instead of considering them as possible tools to meet the real goal of calorie management), it can cause harm.

    And if you're denying the role that calories play in weight management while you're telling people they have to buy your book or be fat forever . . . yeah, I'm going to call that quackery even if some people have success using your methods.

    Yeah…. Since I made that comment
    I have come around some about Fung being a quack….


    Some what about Fung being a quack??

    “Come around (to/some/about)”
    American idiom meaning changing one’s point of view/opinion.


    oh ok, thanks for that.

    I was reading it as you have come across some comments?, some posts? some views? some ?? about Fung

    sorry, I completely misunderstood your sentence.

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I see "eat less, move more" as pretty much good in the same way understanding CICO is. I mean, technically you don't have to move more, and some may not be able to, but increasing overall CO when possible can be helpful. With eat less, yes, that doesn't answer the question of HOW to eat less, but it illustrates that the issue is too many cals and gives the person the ability to figure out for themselves what would work for them.

    If someone asked for advice on HOW to eat less and said they were struggling with it, I think they'd get mostly constructive advice or ideas about what worked for others and not just "just eat less!".



    Lately, I see and hear "eat less, move more" this way:

    I don't actually see or hear it in the wild. I just associate it with Michelle Obama and see it as functionally the same as CICO -- how to get there is going to vary.

    Re talk less, smile more, Hamilton clearly had no interest! ;-)
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,399 Member
    edited August 2021
    CICO itself is very simple as science goes.

    How any individual person applies it varies from very simple to very complex. That is the problem with recommendations for any individual. Unless they ask a very specific question, it's hard to provide a specific answer. Everyone has differing diet (tastes) preferences, macro splits they may or may not be concerned with, motivations, severity (of lack of) urgency to weight control, self discipline, surroundings and support, etc.

    Some people just see a desire to do it, and do it. I've seen instances where some people are literally driven to tears at the thought of a snack or going out to eat and making those choices. With so many extremes of what help is needed, it's hard to hit the mark without a lot of input.


    As for the varied advice methods, it's going to be all over the map. That's the internet, and every person communicates differently.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,496 Member
    clairesimpson4 wrote: »
    You hear it all the time on diet plans, from your doctor, etc. But it's apparent simplicity is both misleading and unhelpful.

    Yes, CICO is true(ish, there are exceptions) But that's answering the wrong question. The question of why someone is overweight is, given that most dieters already know this, why do some people eat too much?

    I'm a scientist and I hate this CICO mantra being thrown around like it's something we haven't heard before. Its unhelpful. We don't tell alcoholics that they are alcoholics because they drink too much booze. The answer to the obesity crisis lies in answering the real question.

    Haven't read all the posts but my response to the bolded is most don't give a *kitten* until they are overweight enough to cause heath concerns (for some that doesn't make any difference either). Preferring some immediate gratification instead of looking at long term impact.

  • Frank19556
    Frank19556 Posts: 28 Member
    edited August 2021
    It was an example of sticking to the simplistic dogma where it didn't apply, and meaning well. The same diet not named DASH would have had longer legs. There are other examples, but that one stood out to me in my mind. Yes, most of the time the error isn't so blatant, actually, for the most part there is no "error" at all. It is more an error of omission. I also get that the posters mean well and for the most part are very helpful.

    ETA: I will put it this way. I understand that the diet industry is rife with disinformation or those that apply it wrong, and there are many posters here who spend the time to help posters see these instances and offer advice. The thing is there are instances of overreach on this, and I am sure it would not be seen by those who inadvertently do this. My post is an example of overstating, as I don't mean it as negative as it sounds. I am trying to show the balance, but I admit it is hard.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited August 2021
    This content has been removed.
  • russellholtslander1
    russellholtslander1 Posts: 285 Member
    CICO is fact.. the problem is.. we can't actually measure it.. it's TRUE, but how many calories did you consume today.

    I'm not even talking about bad nutrition data, or faulty tracking.. I'm talking about WHERE you get you calories from.

    Now your doctor speaks of DIETARY calories.. and says.. lose 1 lb. a week. Great.. you need to be 3,500 calories short.. 500 a day, right? But lets say, you cut 500 calories a day out.. you should lose that 1lb. a week, right?

    Why don't you? Well, food is not our only source of calories.. we are overweight, and have stored FAT.. Your body needs varying amounts of calories. What if you work out? What if you sleep half the day? Do you burn the same amount of calories? Is 1800 calories a day, what you actually burn? Is 2300 what you actually need to maintain ( 1800 + 500 )?

    Of course not.. if you have a calorie deficit, you are burning fat.. which means you are consuming THOSE calories.. so you decide 1200 is the most you can eat.. but you work out, and your body needs 3500 calories for the day.. don't think what your TDEE.. that means the dietary fat needed.. we burn some fat, when we are losing weight.. we eat low enough that we break down fat.. but those calories don't get vaporized.. they break down, and we USE them.. so when you drop 3,500 calories from the diet.. if you have a calorie balance.. you lose 1 lb. of weight.. because you consumed 500 less calories? NO.NO.NO.. you consumed the same amount of calories, but you got 500 less from food, SO you burned off 1 lb. of fat. Your body still needed the same amount of calories, and you can't actually not get the calories, since you have available fat, and it can just break it down.

    You used up your stored fat, to use the SAME amount of calories.. exactly what you needed, but from a different source.. stored bodyfat, instead of food.

    The problem is.. the body is a complicated system.. we don't switch from glucose burning to burning ketones ( from breaking down bodyfat ), like a switch.. other factors affect us to.. fluids for example, exercise, protein/muscle building, hot weather, metabolism.

    So yes, CICO is correct, and if we lived in a lab, monitored 24/7, it can be proven, but in the real world, you have no idea how much fat you burn, or when you start/stop, and when you are burning dietary glucose, and not losing ANY bodyfat/weight. You have physical cycles, drink different amounts of fluids, burn different amounts of calories.. all sorts of things.

    CICO is kind of like physics.. true, but only a scientist can actually use it, because the factors involved are too complicated for us to actually measure.. especially if we are only tracking ONE factor.. food calories eaten.. or maybe that, and calories burned.. and both are probably off by 10-15% anyways. Does every large egg have 70 calories? I doubt it.. does walking on the treadmill burn 250 calories an hour, every time? Did you weigh yourself at the same time of day? Did you weigh the fluids you consumed?

    CICO is true, and can be proven, the same way a scientist can explain how we went to the moon.. but CICO is like saying.. astronauts get in a rocket, and fly to the moon, and they can land in X amount of days on the surface.

    Sure, we get the idea, and we know it is true, but if we tried to fly to the moon, in a rocket, we wouldn't get there on the set day.. unless we knew the 99.9999% of the other data which goes into making it actually happen.

    CICO is great, IF you could actually measure calories in, and calories out.. which is impossible for the average person. It's true, but absolutely useless.

    Much better to look at things we can measure and control, and use those to reach a healthy weight.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,281 Member
    russel, I wont quote your long post again - but just because CICO cannot be measured exactly accurately (is anyone saying it can??) it isnt worth doing or cannot be done in any useful way ???

    is that what you are saying??

    I don't agree with that at all.

    Many things in life we cannot do accurately - hardly makes them not worth doing or not able to be done in real life ways.

    I dont budget my money down to the last cent - but I do it well enough to keep my finances in order.

    Calorie counting - in real life just needs to be done well enough.

  • hjahangiri
    hjahangiri Posts: 56 Member
    edited September 2021
    No, I don't hate it - it's helpful so long as you understand that there are other factors involved, such as RMR - mine is 1380, meaning I can be conscious, working at my desk, and only burn 1380 calories in a day. If I don't work out, build more fat-burning muscle, eat less (a lot less) than 1380+what I burn, I'll gain weight. That's ridiculous, too, right? An athletic young man may easily burn more than 2000 calories a day just laying on the couch, watching TV.

    Most of us are missing that part of the equation that tells us exactly HOW and WHY our bodies are different from the standard formula. Not the part that says 3500 calories is a pound, but the part that says how much we naturally need to sustain life and have energy to exercise vs. what's "excess."

Categories