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?
Options
Replies
-
Different people resonate with different communication styles, from blunt tough love to gentle hints, and beyond.
In any given thread of sufficient duration, there'll be a range of styles.
Those who can skip the replies that don't suit them, or who can read past style/tone to get to the meat, are well served, IMO.
I agree that it's a problem, for those for whom one or a few replies can be so distressing that they're turned off and away, maybe even emotionally hurt. I regret that: I'm not suggesting that's just their problem.
I also don't know what to do about it. I think most of us are speaking in a communication style that would speak to us personally, and doing the best we can. We're doing it for free, mostly with an intent to help. I think most people who post often do refine their replies over time, based on feedback.
Yelling at people about calories (as they may perceive it) doesn't work, yeah. But neither does yelling at people about their communication style.
8 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »I'm saying it's unhelpful to keep saying it to people over and over because we all know it.
I disagree. From experience on this forum, "we" don't all know it, many people deny it or don't believe it, and think there's something wrong if they "eat healthy" and don't lose. I myself managed to gain eating pretty healthy (and in a somewhat neurotic way for some time similar to what is called "clean" by some).
Once one understands that CICO is what determines weight gain/loss/maintenance, one can figure out how one is not doing what one wants (usually how one is getting excess cals or too little movement or both) and if there's a why other than not thinking about what one eats, can identify that and come up with a strategy.I refer to my alcoholic example again - telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit.
As a first step it can. Often alcoholics refuse to believe they cannot control their drinking and will keep trying and trying. When I briefly did AA, a member told me "the main thing is, don't drink." That was actually helpful. There are also other things that help, and it varies person to person (as does weight loss strategy), but having a clear idea of what you need to do (for weight loss, to eat below X calories) is helpful.Hunger is part of the problem. Humans aren't designed to ignore it. It's why most diets fail.
I don't believe it's why most diets fail (I think humans eat plenty when not really hungry). If hunger is an issue often changing what you eat or when can help.
I have a sibling that's a nurse and denies CICO (and Covid-19 vaccines, unfortunately). People's emotions and myths get in the way of weight loss more than anything else.15 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »penguinmama87 wrote: »ccindicane2 wrote: »@clairesimpson4
I didn't read all of the responses, so if this has already been pointed out, my apologies.
CICO is merely an explanation of HOW to lose weight. You are asking a WHY question. You cannot answer a WHY question with a HOW answer. As a scientist, I would think you would know that.
I think this is really the key thing. I think there's also an embedded assumption that when explaining the how, there's a passing of moral judgment. I'm not denying that obese and overweight people are subject to unfair moral judgments of their character because they absolutely are and I've experienced that myself, but actual nutrition science and the functioning of the digestive system does not pass judgment. It simply is what it is.
People who are overweight or obese have habitually consumed more calories than their bodies actually needed. Why that is can be simple or complicated. It doesn't lessen their inherent dignity or worth as people. If they want to lose the excess weight they need to eat less than their bodies need, also habitually. Depending on circumstances it might require some really careful troubleshooting to figure out the math, and people who find it very difficult to do that should be treated with compassion. But it doesn't do anybody any favors to say that the math isn't going to apply at all, because it just isn't true.
Exactly.
And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well
The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.
Like, if someone says they are low thyroid and it’s hard to lose weight, I’d suggest they see an endocrinologist to get their thyroid meds fixed.
This removes one complication.
Same with any other complicating factor.
Eating disorders, emotions around partners who show love through food, PCOS, disability that makes it impossible to exercise…. All of these things have an effect on how easy or hard it is to lose weight. And this needs to be acknowledged Which, frequently, it is not.
For me, and this is just one person's opinion but it's food for thought too, is that this is a give a person a fish / teach them to fish thing. Like, understanding how calories work means knowing if you're not able to exercise - I broke a rib and collapsed a lung a couple years ago - that your food choices and portion sizes are more important. Right now I know that if I'm feeling hungry or deprived or whatever, I know I can go over my calories, and I know how to equate food with hours on the bike and with miles walked. When I was injured, I knew that wasn't a strategy I could take. I had to pay a lot of attention to what made me feel satiated. I had to eat more frequently such that I never got really hungry and lost it. I had heard things like don't eat anything with sugar, don't eat after 8 pm, you've heard them all, that stuff can be confusing when well meaning people are trying to help with the bro science they've heard. Knowing how it works allows people to make informed decisions about their unique circumstances. 🙂
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. And, speaking as a person who is more and more disabled as the years go by, I completely get it. Right now, on my good days, I can exercise on exactly one piece of specialized rehab equipment.
That said, when some newbie comes on the forum and says they can’t understand why they’re not losing weight, especially when they’re “eating healthy”, sometimes the replies can get pretty heavy handed. And those responses can be very dogmatic too.
Ultimately that’s the part I disagree with. That behavior.
Yes. Teach a man to fish. But don’t beat him over the head with the bait box while you’re doing it. Lead him to the water first.
**Editing to add that even I will silently roll my eyes at anyone who says they can’t lose weight because they’re physically disabled.
But I do it silently.
And, then I feel them out to see what they’ve tried. And maybe suggest ideas that could help them.
If they don’t want to listen? Yelling at them won’t solve it.
I think there’s a cycle that forum members often go through. People who have been around a while and seen five hundred “I’m eating healthy / doing IF / drinking apple cider vinegar” yet not losing weight posts get impatient and abrupt sometimes. Best to step away from the keyboard for a while and let fresher members step in. The number of posters of this sort of question who actually have a real metabolic problem which can’t be solved by manning up and logging properly is so small that I can count them on one finger of one hand in four years of being here, but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
Funny thing, the ones who get most offended at the notion that they should maybe count their calories and log accurately aren’t ever the people who are already doing it and want help. The posters who cry and rage quit are the people who know they AREN’T logging accurately and don’t really want to know how much they are eating because then they would have to stop. As long as it’s a magic problem because they are magical unicorns who absorb nutrients through the air, no one can blame them for being fat. When their weight is shown to be something that can be controlled through their behavior, suddenly it’s their responsibility.14 -
Less frustration with CICO, since it's a formula to explain energy expenditure, simple as it is.
More frustrated with "eat less, move more" as a mantra because it's too simplistic, often thrown at people with derision or absent-mindedness in online communities (more in other communities than I see here, honestly). It's usually a throwaway response that doesn't get to the root of the poster's problem with the "eat less" part of the mantra.
Many folks know they need to eat less and move more to sustainably lose weight, but they find it difficult to maintain that calorie deficit for long lengths of time. It's helping them (myself included) learn to adapt and be okay with eating less, more healthful foods that benefit them in the long run. For many, it's overturning decades of poor food choices or even cultural norms for their region of the world or dealing with emotions or mental health struggles. So to just throw the answer of "eat less, move more" their way as though it's the answer to all their issues is kinda.. lazy and disingenuous.
Most of what I see here (with rare exception) is not that. Most of the posters here want to help others achieve their goals or help them fine tune their diaries and food choices without being too preachy about it.
I will admit that seeing that flow chart thrown around every time a person asks a question about losing weight here is pretty old and irks me, BUT.. I also understand why it's thrown out as a first resort every time a (mostly new) person here posts their frustrations with not losing weight.7 -
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!".8 -
I think a lot of people who have been here for a long time can actually come across as sort of... patronizing and overwhelming at times, and that includes me, to be honest.
The reality is, we've been doing it a while now - me just a year, other people decades - and it's easy to forget that what we do and all the information we have NOW is just... too much to take onboard when you're standing on ground zero.
My life now is basically unrecognizable from a year ago.
And that's starting as someone who was active and eating a not terrible (though way too low in protein) diet.
7 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »penguinmama87 wrote: »ccindicane2 wrote: »@clairesimpson4
I didn't read all of the responses, so if this has already been pointed out, my apologies.
CICO is merely an explanation of HOW to lose weight. You are asking a WHY question. You cannot answer a WHY question with a HOW answer. As a scientist, I would think you would know that.
I think this is really the key thing. I think there's also an embedded assumption that when explaining the how, there's a passing of moral judgment. I'm not denying that obese and overweight people are subject to unfair moral judgments of their character because they absolutely are and I've experienced that myself, but actual nutrition science and the functioning of the digestive system does not pass judgment. It simply is what it is.
People who are overweight or obese have habitually consumed more calories than their bodies actually needed. Why that is can be simple or complicated. It doesn't lessen their inherent dignity or worth as people. If they want to lose the excess weight they need to eat less than their bodies need, also habitually. Depending on circumstances it might require some really careful troubleshooting to figure out the math, and people who find it very difficult to do that should be treated with compassion. But it doesn't do anybody any favors to say that the math isn't going to apply at all, because it just isn't true.
Exactly.
And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well
The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.
Like, if someone says they are low thyroid and it’s hard to lose weight, I’d suggest they see an endocrinologist to get their thyroid meds fixed.
This removes one complication.
Same with any other complicating factor.
Eating disorders, emotions around partners who show love through food, PCOS, disability that makes it impossible to exercise…. All of these things have an effect on how easy or hard it is to lose weight. And this needs to be acknowledged Which, frequently, it is not.
For me, and this is just one person's opinion but it's food for thought too, is that this is a give a person a fish / teach them to fish thing. Like, understanding how calories work means knowing if you're not able to exercise - I broke a rib and collapsed a lung a couple years ago - that your food choices and portion sizes are more important. Right now I know that if I'm feeling hungry or deprived or whatever, I know I can go over my calories, and I know how to equate food with hours on the bike and with miles walked. When I was injured, I knew that wasn't a strategy I could take. I had to pay a lot of attention to what made me feel satiated. I had to eat more frequently such that I never got really hungry and lost it. I had heard things like don't eat anything with sugar, don't eat after 8 pm, you've heard them all, that stuff can be confusing when well meaning people are trying to help with the bro science they've heard. Knowing how it works allows people to make informed decisions about their unique circumstances. 🙂
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. And, speaking as a person who is more and more disabled as the years go by, I completely get it. Right now, on my good days, I can exercise on exactly one piece of specialized rehab equipment.
That said, when some newbie comes on the forum and says they can’t understand why they’re not losing weight, especially when they’re “eating healthy”, sometimes the replies can get pretty heavy handed. And those responses can be very dogmatic too.
Ultimately that’s the part I disagree with. That behavior.
Yes. Teach a man to fish. But don’t beat him over the head with the bait box while you’re doing it. Lead him to the water first.
**Editing to add that even I will silently roll my eyes at anyone who says they can’t lose weight because they’re physically disabled.
But I do it silently.
And, then I feel them out to see what they’ve tried. And maybe suggest ideas that could help them.
If they don’t want to listen? Yelling at them won’t solve it.
For me, personally, I'm not very invested in strangers' outcomes. I think knowledge is important, and unfortunately it's hard to come by because there's a lot of misinformation and getting to the truth can be like a needle in a haystack. I feel like giving people knowledge will allow them to figure things out for themselves. 🙂7 -
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!".
I've seen a lot of threads like that. They get replies like make sure you're eating plenty of protein, try eating more fiber, some people don't drink enough so pay attention to that because sometimes ginger and thirsty can get mixed up, have you tried eating more and less frequently? This one is harder because there can be as many answers as there are people, and then one person could have different challenges on different days.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »
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.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/
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
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….
12 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »clairesimpson4 wrote: »@cmriverside did you read my post? I don't deny that CICO is true. I'm saying it's unhelpful to keep saying it to people over and over because we all know it. I don't have a solution, it's not my area of expertise. But the answer isn't to shrug our shoulders and dismiss the idea that it really is more complicated than that. We need more research. But you're wrong about where the problem lies. I refer to my alcoholic example again - telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit.
As an aside, a lot of medications cause weight gain, most often by increasing appetite. The opposite is also true - Saxenda for example works for weight loss partially by decreasing appetite. Hunger is part of the problem. Humans aren't designed to ignore it. It's why most diets fail.
There have been a few times in my life when I wasn't in charge of the menu or didn't have access to American supermarkets and I did learn to ignore hunger. It is indeed more challenging when I have unlimited access to hyperpalatable food.
Regular posters do spend a lot of time addressing hunger issues, with two main points:
1. We often caution against creating too aggressive a calorie deficit and I post this graphic ad nauseam:
2. Finding the foods/macro combos an individual finds most satiating and focusing on them.
So, CICO is key to weight loss, and dialing in one's deficit and most filling foods makes compliance easier.
(There was a great weight loss graphic that had Compliance on 50% of a pyramid that I thought I bookmarked but didn't. If anyone has it, please @ me.)
@kshama2001
I found that graphic:
ADHERENCE!
Thanks
BUT I DON’T WANNA!!
(don’t worry, I still do the thing even when I don’t want to)wunderkindking wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »And this is why I say CICO and consider other factors as well
The math is the base. But sometimes other things make it extremely difficult to get down to the math in the first place. And we do need to acknowledge that.
Isn't this what everyone else has been saying?
Specifically, that what is good about understanding that CICO governs weight loss/gain/maintenance is that it frees you up to figure out the best way to get to the desired CICO for you (if you want to lose, CI<CO). Unlike other approaches, it doesn't tell you that you must also do something that might not work for you (like low carb, low fat, eat 6 mini meals, IF, exercise 1 hour per day, NO processed foods, etc.).
I would say that if one has trouble achieving CI<CO due to a specific health condition or a problem with binging or hunger issues, those are all things that one will need to figure out how to deal with (through a doctor/medication or therapy or not over restricting or figuring out what foods and eating patterns help with hunger, depending on what the issue is).
Absolutely no one claims that on an individual level you won't need to focus on anything but calories in order to achieve lasting weight loss, but that the specific things that will work for a person will likely vary based on their personal circumstances and preferences and the ways they gained in the first place. CICO, on the other hand, will be true for all -- the question is how a particular person finds it easiest to achieve the calorie balance that they are seeking.
Some say that. But no. Not “everyone” says that. And I’ve gotten quite a few disagrees for mentioning that there are often other factors that people need to pay attention to in addition to CICO.
I’ve even said on these forums that fat shaming is bad, and had people disagree with that.. .
As a forum veteran (not here - internet as a whole) - the people clicking react buttons are usually not the people you are talking to/who are participating in discussions with words.
I have someone who follows me around here clicking disagree on everything I say.
That does not mean that the people discussing with me - or even anyone - actually disagrees with me. It means they don't like me.
It's fine.
Yeah. I think I’ve got a few of those.
4 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »
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.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/
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
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??0 -
paperpudding wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »
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.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/
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
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.7 -
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:
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.4 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »
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.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/
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
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.
2 -
lynn_glenmont 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! ;-)2 -
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.4 -
There is a groupthink here which discourages even hints of going against the simplified dogma. I get that most mean well, but there are negatives to this, as often it halts any nuanced discussions, and leaves people feeling they have to go elsewhere for info and some of the places might be worse. I get there is a balance. An example from a while ago is someone labeled the DASH diet as a dangerous fad diet, and told the poster how dangerous it would be to follow it. At least in this example, there were others that were able to come to the defense of DASH. This poster followed the pattern of labeling diets as fads, so she thought she was doing good. Now there are crazy diets and it is good to bring this out, just that maybe there needs to be less reliance on dogma. I have seen CICO thrown out when clearly the OP understood that, they had gone on to something more detailed that CICO wouldn't answer. Still, CICO is the mantra so.......
(For the record, I agree with using CICO).6 -
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.
1 -
I just get frustrated with the fact that food, or at least the kinds of food I really want to eat, has as many calories as it does. I mean, why not amp up the calories in a stalk of celery to 500 and let the ice cream have 1 calorie.
Stamping my feet and throwing my 2 yo acting body on the floor screaming 'it isn't fair!!'16 -
I just get frustrated with the fact that food, or at least the kinds of food I really want to eat, has as many calories as it does. I mean, why not amp up the calories in a stalk of celery to 500 and let the ice cream have 1 calorie.
Stamping my feet and throwing my 2 yo acting body on the floor screaming 'it isn't fair!!'
Just so you know, if you search enough, you just might find an ice cream entry for one calorie in the MFP database! If not give me a minute.......
10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions