Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

What to call a diet that is just based on reduced calories?

1356789

Replies

  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Posts: 37,001Member Member Posts: 37,001Member Member
    rdkstar wrote: »
    The ELF Diet - Eat Less Food

    I-like-it-GIF.gif
  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey Posts: 9,684Member Member Posts: 9,684Member Member
    rdkstar wrote: »
    The ELF Diet - Eat Less Food

    Love this! I'm going to use this at least once to amuse myself with the puzzled expression on people's faces.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I really don't understand the need to call the way you eat anything special. I was doing a paleo diet for a while (usual disclaimer: I was curious whether cutting out grains and the rest would make me feel better or differently, it did not, and I decided I thought most of the foods I was cutting out like legumes and dairy and whole grains were healthy for me), and didn't actually tell anyone I was. Even after I stopped I continued to not eat rice or most bread, because I'm not really into those foods so thought they were a waste of calories. I'd go to work lunches and if they were sandwich-based (not uncommon), I'd try to remove the bread in a subtle way. I've been not eating meat or dairy again for a while to try that out (with some deviations, since I consider myself in a learning process and knew I'd be eating lamb on Easter anyway, and certainly dairy too) and haven't mentioned it (if people notice they think it's a Lent thing anyway).

    I suspect a bit that this need to explain how you eat comes from a desire to evangelize, which is why I guess I don't get it.

    I don't quite see how a label leads to evangelizing but I suppose it could be possible. I would like a label to apply to others so I can better understand where they might be coming from, and to avoid unnecessary arguments over semantics, which is how I often view them.
  • annette_15annette_15 Posts: 1,657Member, Premium Member Posts: 1,657Member, Premium Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    I say "flexible dieting" if someone asks. If they want details, I say that I eat the foods I like in moderation and log/weigh so that I can stay near my calorie goal.

    This is me as well
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.

    In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"

    Yes. Exactly.

    Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.

    A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.

    I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.

    Confused-Jacksonville-Jaguars-fan-in-stands.gif

    And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.

    Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.

    This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.
    edited March 2016
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    rdkstar wrote: »
    The ELF Diet - Eat Less Food

    LOL I like it.
  • ClosetBayesianClosetBayesian Posts: 834Member Member Posts: 834Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.

    In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"

    Yes. Exactly.

    Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.

    A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.

    I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.

    Confused-Jacksonville-Jaguars-fan-in-stands.gif

    And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.

    Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.

    This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.

    It's not semantics, that's the point. If you are losing weight, it's because of CICO. You may not be counting calories, but you are in a calorie deficit. That is CICO.
  • Francl27Francl27 Posts: 26,391Member Member Posts: 26,391Member Member
    Eating less calories than you burn = being on a diet.

    I don't see what's so different about counting calories that it wouldn't be called a diet....
  • kommodevarankommodevaran Posts: 17,960Member Member Posts: 17,960Member Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Eating less calories than you burn = being on a diet.

    I don't see what's so different about counting calories that it wouldn't be called a diet....

    Semantics again :) English isn't my first language, but I think Norwegian has an equivalent to diet - dieting, so this is what I "feel": a diet is the way you eat, including special eating plans to treat ailments (including overweight). Dieting is eating less than you burn to lose weight. I think many people mix up diet and dieting and think you need a special diet to diet :# (I'm assuming a lot here.) I think the differentness is that calorie counting is dieting without any bells or whistles, aka not a special diet, and naming something that has no special features is difficult. Plus, we humans usually like to have name tags on things, it makes the world less messy.
  • WinoGelatoWinoGelato Posts: 13,334Member Member Posts: 13,334Member Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    I say "flexible dieting" if someone asks. If they want details, I say that I eat the foods I like in moderation and log/weigh so that I can stay near my calorie goal.
    I usually say "eat less move more" when people ask me but if we need a named diet then I like "flexible dieting" the best.
  • snikkinssnikkins Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Eating less calories than you burn = being on a diet.

    I don't see what's so different about counting calories that it wouldn't be called a diet....

    Semantics again :) English isn't my first language, but I think Norwegian has an equivalent to diet - dieting, so this is what I "feel": a diet is the way you eat, including special eating plans to treat ailments (including overweight). Dieting is eating less than you burn to lose weight. I think many people mix up diet and dieting and think you need a special diet to diet :# (I'm assuming a lot here.) I think the differentness is that calorie counting is dieting without any bells or whistles, aka not a special diet, and naming something that has no special features is difficult. Plus, we humans usually like to have name tags on things, it makes the world less messy.

    I think you're onto something with the noun v. verb usage of "diet." Well done. :)
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.

    In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"

    Yes. Exactly.

    Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.

    A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.

    I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.

    Confused-Jacksonville-Jaguars-fan-in-stands.gif

    And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.

    Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.

    This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.

    It's not semantics, that's the point. If you are losing weight, it's because of CICO. You may not be counting calories, but you are in a calorie deficit. That is CICO.

    I never said weight loss is not due to CI<CO. In fact, I said that I lost weight because of it. It was just not the focus of my diet. You are paraphrased what I said.

    This is where the labelling semantics come in because CICO is often applied to calorie reduced diets where nothing was changed except caloric intake.

    Conversations go like this:

    "CICO didn't work for me so I switched to paleo and lost a bunch of weight."

    "You lost because of CICO. Not paleo."

    "I never would of lost the weight without paleo."

    "You never would of lost weight without CICO..."

    It seems clear to me that the first person tried counting calories/a reduced calorie diet/ELF/whatever and was not successful. I think most people realize that lower calories are needed to lose weight but just reducing calories won't work for everyone just like vegan or ketogenic diets do not work for everyone.







  • ClosetBayesianClosetBayesian Posts: 834Member Member Posts: 834Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I guess the point of this thread is not exactly to label or frame something, but to help avoid those discussion spirals where CICO term can be confusing when two people use it in different ways, which sprouts further derailment in the same vein as "a calorie is not a calorie - yes it is" and "CICO does not work for me - yes it does it's a scientific fact"....etc.

    In real life I simply say "I eat less", but then again in real life I don't often get a reply such as "I eat clean/low carb/vegan and I still eat less, that's not a valid definition". This thread sounds to me more like a "let's clear up some confusion and come up with a term that can't be easily confused with something else"

    Yes. Exactly.

    Calorie counting or cutting calories in general did not work for me. It just doesn't. To successfully have my CO greater than CI, I do best on a LCHF diet, but I am still dealing in CICO.

    A year ago on MFP I might have said CICO doesn't work for me, but what I would have really meant is that cutting calories without changing my diet composition doesn't work for me... Bad fit.

    I agree that when people say CICO they often mean counting calories without changing the overall diet composition. That's why CICO is often refered to as a diet (woe), IMO.

    Confused-Jacksonville-Jaguars-fan-in-stands.gif

    And there is the semantics argument again... Or mocking, or whatever you would call that.

    Cutting calories, meaning smaller portions but eating the same foods as before, was a miserable unsustainable experience for me. It led to hunger and eventually stopping whther it was days, weeks or months later. If I change my macros, dropping foods that lead to a decline in my health (IR, autoimmune issues), I found I could easily lose weight because my CO was increased, and my CI did not need to be reduced as much - plus my macros were satiating to me so it was easier to eat less. My n=1.

    This is why I identify as vLCHF even though when losing my CO must be greater than my CI. CI<CO is not the focus of my diet even if it did happen.

    It's not semantics, that's the point. If you are losing weight, it's because of CICO. You may not be counting calories, but you are in a calorie deficit. That is CICO.

    I never said weight loss is not due to CI<CO. In fact, I said that I lost weight because of it. It was just not the focus of my diet. You are paraphrased what I said.

    This is where the labelling semantics come in because CICO is often applied to calorie reduced diets where nothing was changed except caloric intake.


    Conversations go like this:

    "CICO didn't work for me so I switched to paleo and lost a bunch of weight."

    "You lost because of CICO. Not paleo."

    "I never would of lost the weight without paleo."

    "You never would of lost weight without CICO..."

    It seems clear to me that the first person tried counting calories/a reduced calorie diet/ELF/whatever and was not successful. I think most people realize that lower calories are needed to lose weight but just reducing calories won't work for everyone just like vegan or ketogenic diets do not work for everyone.







    It's still not semantics.
  • lisawinning4losinglisawinning4losing Posts: 732Member Member Posts: 732Member Member
    The perpetual hunger diet?
  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey Posts: 9,684Member Member Posts: 9,684Member Member
    The perpetual hunger diet?

    That would be low carb for me, so it's not very accurate
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    The perpetual hunger diet?

    Contrasts nicely with the fact that people that believe CICO technically believe the human body is a perpetual motion machine.
  • Scamd83Scamd83 Posts: 808Member Member Posts: 808Member Member
    Have we come up with a sexy and marketable brand name for eating a bit less than you burn yet? We also need to come up with one of those websites which is full of exciting quotes about how this will change your life and seems to require you to scroll forever and ever to read all of it. I'd recommend a price of $89.99.
  • pebble4321pebble4321 Posts: 1,133Member Member Posts: 1,133Member Member
    I'd just call that eating.

    I don't think everything needs to have a label, probably because I don't see the value in applying labels to another person's way of eating (and I refuse to call that "woe", that's a terrible, negative word!). When you need to apply a label, it's usually to point out that "Mary's woe" is much worse that "my extra special, only way, best diet".
  • HealthyGinnyHealthyGinny Posts: 797Member Member Posts: 797Member Member
    In French, we call it "hypocalorique", WordReference tells me it simply translates to "low-calorie diet" but I don't really agree with that word? As you can eat less calories but not have your diet be really LOW calorie, you know what I mean? So I'll probably go with a diet where I eat fewer calories than before.
  • zyxstzyxst Posts: 9,146Member Member Posts: 9,146Member Member
    In French, we call it "hypocalorique", WordReference tells me it simply translates to "low-calorie diet" but I don't really agree with that word? As you can eat less calories but not have your diet be really LOW calorie, you know what I mean? So I'll probably go with a diet where I eat fewer calories than before.

    I bet German's got a great word for eating less.
Sign In or Register to comment.