why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm losing faith in CICO....
I don't believe in it because it's wrong. Just like we turned out to be wrong about fat. Etc. Etc.
You don't identify anything supporting it being wrong, and don't even explain what you mean by "it's wrong." Are you saying calories don't matter, or simply that a variety of things affect the calories in vs. calories out equation (which everyone already agrees with)?
If calories don't matter, what does?Different types of calories have different effects, 100 calories of chips is different than 100 calories of lettuce.
There are no 100 calories of chips or 100 calories of lettuce, just calories. In addition to the energy, the foods contribute different nutrients (lettuce (as opposed to spinach or some such) doesn't actually have a lot of anything and I'm not sure how you are getting 100 calories of it, but whatever). No one claims that the nutrients are identical. Also, there are somewhat different burns related to digestion, but it's unusual to have a macro mix where that makes much of a difference (that would mean a crazy amount of protein, typically, and you need either fat or carbs for energy). Also, of course there are different effects of the macros involved--chips will provide energy, for example, since they have lots of carbs and fat. Lettuce has fiber. I will agree it would be pretty impossible to get fat eating an all lettuce diet, but that's because you wouldn't be able to eat many calories and you'd feel bad. (And of course all anything diets are silly.)I have days where I eat a boiled egg and an orange and lose nothing, and then days where I gorge myself senseless on Indian buffet food (since I'm gluten-free, it's basically meat, veggies, and fat)... and then drop 5 pounds.
You can't tell how any one day affected you. It doesn't work like that. I always gorge myself on Indian food and I eat gluten, so it ends up being one of the higher carb meals I ever eat, and yet I've gone down on the scale the day after. I fasted on Good Friday last year and ate lots on Easter and yet my weight went down more on the Monday after Easter than on Holy Saturday. Pretty sure this isn't because my Easter calories magically did not count (although maybe that's a holiday miracle). Instead, it's that the scale bounces up and down for all kinds of reasons.WHAT? That doesn't fit calories-in-calories-out.
Sure it does.'Cause of stuff like metabolisms.
People's metabolism vary. My maintenance calories if I'm sedentary suck, they are about 1550. Some 21 year old 6'3 guy could be sedentary and eat lots more without gaining. That says zero about the merits of CICO. Someone with a bum thyroid will have super low maintenance calories if not medicated often. Again, that means their CO is screwed up, not that CICO doesn't work.I don't calorie count, I don't meticulously track... I put things in when I remember to. And I'm losing weight at a rate that satisfies me... 1-2 pounds a week.
Yes, many people can lose without counting calories specifically. I've done it myself. That doesn't mean that you aren't losing because of a calorie deficit. Of course you are. You've just created it through a method other than counting, which some people prefer.basically people with glucose resistance had higher success with low-carb, and people who weren't on the track to diabetes, had more success with low-fat diets in the study.
I think this is because of compliance issues, but it also might be that carbs have more of an effect (negative) on metabolism in IR people. I know various other things, like exercise, make a difference as to how foods affect you (for example, exercise tends to make people less insulin resistant).It'd be nice if weight loss was just math. But it isn't.
It is, it's just there are lots of variables and we can't include all of them. For MOST people, we can include the important ones, though. (For those with medical conditions it is more complicated sometimes.)
excellent breakdown lemurcat….
She is a role model for the threads. Very modest, kind, and knowledgable.
Thanks! That's nice of you.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."
You obviously failed to read the rest of the posts. You are seeing what you want to see and can't look past some "math" you did and are ignoring the point of the whole thing. It's cute because even the other ladies that were in the thread pretty much saw it.
And by the way, the "math" you made up wasn't to hit a calorie goal, it was to make sure you hit some wonderful 5% number. You fail to see logic but I forgive you.
Whew, I was really gonna lose sleep over that! Thanks!
I know NDJ finds it humorous that you were attempting to stick to your guns so hard. With all you could. But unfortunately there comes a point where faulty arguments unravel and the person backs out. It's like a game of chess. Some just play it better than others.
wait, are you saying you are playing chess while others are playing checkers..??0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Back to the OP's op, any diet is just a tool to conquer losing stored energy. The energy we use each day is quite finite compared with the amount of energy the body can store. In a perfect world, we could just stop eating until we hit a certain fitness standard. But the world is not perfect.
I do keto for now because it helps me not gain. I am not religious with it by any means, as I will have a greater amount of carbs on the weekends. But it is my tool to start carving into my stored energy in a healthy way, as it (for the most part) keeps me from overeating.
It is also worth mentioning that I dont do it just for weight loss. My mind is clearer, my workouts go farther, my workouts as well as my functioning do not depend on mealtimes, I dont get the farts, and....oh yeah, I can eat all the bacon I want.
I think about 85% of the posters in this thread can agree with that…
I know I can ...0 -
because they typically make a drastic change to eating 100% clean and viewing whole food groups as "bad' and then post a thread saying they can't eat over 1200 calories….a 250 pound male has no business eating less than 1200 calories when they could lose comfortable at say 2000 calories a day or more …..
but if it's all about CICO why not lose faster at 1200 ?
0 -
On chips and potatoes (obviously these are only correlations, can't exclude other variables) - their consumption was highly correlated with weight gain in a massive prospective study (along with other things, natch).
Problem with this is that I bet "other potatoes" includes in large part fries, which is going to be correlated with other things (as you acknowledge). It's not that eating potatoes itself would be a risk factor for gaining weight.
And interestingly, I bet if you could separate out potatoes with a higher carb percentage (like my roasted potatoes that I eat all the time along with some non-starchy veg and protein) and those where the majority of the calories are likely from fat (fast food fries, chips, etc.) that you will find the correlation only applies to the high fat items.
I am NOT anti fat, but this is one of the reasons the focus on carbs can be misleading.
I happen to think focusing on food quality is a good approach for a lot of reasons, although I usually also think it works best for most people to go incrementally, but that's really a separate issue from "why do LCHF."
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »^^This. And if you bothered to read properly there is always the caveat of also meeting your targets in terms of macros and micros. Srsly, I have yet to see anyone suggest people just blindly eat what they want without paying attention to nutritional needs.
Here's an exampleif you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros.
More common than you think.0 -
because they typically make a drastic change to eating 100% clean and viewing whole food groups as "bad' and then post a thread saying they can't eat over 1200 calories….a 250 pound male has no business eating less than 1200 calories when they could lose comfortable at say 2000 calories a day or more …..
but if it's all about CICO why not lose faster at 1200 ?
If that is sustainable for them sure…
In my experience they usually end up binging feeling guilty, and then abandoning said weight loss program because they are "hungry all the time"…
IMO slow and steady is better and more sustainable...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On chips and potatoes (obviously these are only correlations, can't exclude other variables) - their consumption was highly correlated with weight gain in a massive prospective study (along with other things, natch).
Problem with this is that I bet "other potatoes" includes in large part fries, which is going to be correlated with other things (as you acknowledge). It's not that eating potatoes itself would be a risk factor for gaining weight.
And interestingly, I bet if you could separate out potatoes with a higher carb percentage (like my roasted potatoes that I eat all the time along with some non-starchy veg and protein) and those where the majority of the calories are likely from fat (fast food fries, chips, etc.) that you will find the correlation only applies to the high fat items.
I am NOT anti fat, but this is one of the reasons the focus on carbs can be misleading.
I happen to think focusing on food quality is a good approach for a lot of reasons, although I usually also think it works best for most people to go incrementally, but that's really a separate issue from "why do LCHF."
I'm sure you're right, I bet the heavier health professionals did consume tons of fries, lol. I actually think I've seen that, in a more granular breakdown of that set of studies somewhere. If I recall, though, various forms of potatoes took up a few slots on the list of foods heavier people consumed. That said, I highly doubt a cup of sauteed new potatoes with skin every now and then is going to hurt anyone. The involvement of fat may or may not explain it, I don't know.
Re food quality being a separate issue - well, I don't know; most of the low carb, high protein, higher fat diets I've seen look a lot like that list of "healthy" foods. It's not keto, though, for sure.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."
You obviously failed to read the rest of the posts. You are seeing what you want to see and can't look past some "math" you did and are ignoring the point of the whole thing. It's cute because even the other ladies that were in the thread pretty much saw it.
And by the way, the "math" you made up wasn't to hit a calorie goal, it was to make sure you hit some wonderful 5% number. You fail to see logic but I forgive you.
Whew, I was really gonna lose sleep over that! Thanks!
I know NDJ finds it humorous that you were attempting to stick to your guns so hard. With all you could. But unfortunately there comes a point where faulty arguments unravel and the person backs out. It's like a game of chess. Some just play it better than others.
It must be strange going through life viewing how other people eat as a competition. That almost sounds disordered.0 -
because they typically make a drastic change to eating 100% clean and viewing whole food groups as "bad' and then post a thread saying they can't eat over 1200 calories….a 250 pound male has no business eating less than 1200 calories when they could lose comfortable at say 2000 calories a day or more …..
but if it's all about CICO why not lose faster at 1200 ?
Speaking just for myself and why I don't, even though I'd like to lose faster (who wouldn't?).
(1) Not everyone is primarily interested in weight loss alone. I want to minimize losing muscle and end up with a fat percentage of around 20-22%. I've found that now that I'm close to goal there seems to be a risk of losing more muscle than I'd like if I go faster, so I'm trying to force myself to go slow. (It was much easier going faster in some ways.)
(2) I'm trying to get stronger (weights) and train for triathlons. Those are already hard enough to do at the same time, I can't imagine it would help to start eating 1200 calories. I care more about running faster and biking uphill with energy and improving my back squat than dropping 5-10 lbs more quickly.
These are also reasons why I'm picky about my own diet, but that's not because I couldn't lose weight or would lose less if I were less picky.0 -
Here's a link to the 2011 study
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/NEJMoa1014296.pdf&ei=zCACVb7_C4SOyATo5YCgDg&usg=AFQjCNFhmq_QoE7dnAgOLI0iz90n23yBEg (link goes directly to a pdf download)
citation if that doesn't work: Mozaffarian, D., et al., Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med, 2011. 364(25): p. 2392-404.
Potatoes in that study:
The dietary
factors with the largest positive associations with
weight changes, per serving per day, were increases
in the consumption of potato chips (1.69 lb), potatoes
(1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb),
unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed
meats (0.93 lb). A secondary analysis of potato subtypes
showed that weight changes were positively
associated with increases in the consumption of
french fries (3.35 lb) and of boiled, baked, or
mashed potatoes (0.57 lb). Weight gain associated
with increased consumption of refined grains
(0.39 lb per serving per day) was similar to that for
sweets and desserts (0.41 lb per serving per day).
Inverse associations with weight gain, per serving
per day, were seen for increased consumption of
vegetables (−0.22 lb), whole grains (−0.37 lb), fruits
(−0.49 lb), nuts (−0.57 lb), and yogurt (−0.82 lb).0 -
So, yup, mostly fries, lol. Fat must play a role, or fat + potatoes. I think your roast potatoes are safe 0
-
Probably because you can't get over the fact that most of the time that people say CICO they are not saying ignore proper nutrition.
it is frequently said that "the only thing that matters is calories" which is what I take CICO to mean. Otherwise we would be talking about food, or macronutrients, rather than units of energy which we don't measure.
So in terms of the thread title the reason I am not enthusiastic about CICO dogma is that the biological effect of foods is variable and not purely a function of their energy value.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."
You obviously failed to read the rest of the posts. You are seeing what you want to see and can't look past some "math" you did and are ignoring the point of the whole thing. It's cute because even the other ladies that were in the thread pretty much saw it.
And by the way, the "math" you made up wasn't to hit a calorie goal, it was to make sure you hit some wonderful 5% number. You fail to see logic but I forgive you.
Whew, I was really gonna lose sleep over that! Thanks!
I know NDJ finds it humorous that you were attempting to stick to your guns so hard. With all you could. But unfortunately there comes a point where faulty arguments unravel and the person backs out. It's like a game of chess. Some just play it better than others.
It must be strange going through life viewing how other people eat as a competition. That almost sounds disordered.
Nope, I don't view eating as a competition. I use being able to display the ability to debate overall knowledge in weight loss, health and fitness as a competition. It's a game you can't win.
Even when nobody cares what you know? Your knowledge is irrelevant to me. I have a doctor, a surgeon and a registered dietitian for that. I don't need your input. Basically you've been engaging in a game of solitaire.0 -
Probably because you can't get over the fact that most of the time that people say CICO they are not saying ignore proper nutrition.
it is frequently said that "the only thing that matters is calories" which is what I take CICO to mean. Otherwise we would be talking about food, or macronutrients, rather than units of energy which we don't measure.
So in terms of the thread title the reason I am not enthusiastic about CICO dogma is that the biological effect of foods is variable and not purely a function of their energy value.
I take it as a formula as how one can gain/maintain/lose ..get the numbers right and you should not have an issue with weight….
0 -
Yep and once dialed in it is quite easy. The only effort required is patienceProbably because you can't get over the fact that most of the time that people say CICO they are not saying ignore proper nutrition.
it is frequently said that "the only thing that matters is calories" which is what I take CICO to mean. Otherwise we would be talking about food, or macronutrients, rather than units of energy which we don't measure.
So in terms of the thread title the reason I am not enthusiastic about CICO dogma is that the biological effect of foods is variable and not purely a function of their energy value.
I take it as a formula as how one can gain/maintain/lose ..get the numbers right and you should not have an issue with weight….
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions