worth watching - Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Replies
-
don't worry I am not really going to do that, because I don't drink fizzy drinks and I don't like candy
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »according to MFP, to lose the desired amount of weight I need to consume 1500 before exercise, so I will not exercise and eat/drink 1500 calories worth of candy and coke which means CI<CO, and I will take nutrient tablets to make sure I get all the nutrients I need
which means because my CI is less than CO I should lose weight
at the end of the day 1 calorie is 1 calorie right? so as long as I eat less than I need and get all the nutrients I need all will be fine
Are you asking if that would work? Yes, it would work. Is anyone suggesting that's what you should do? No.
Also, why is MFP setting you at 1500 calories? I thought the bottom recommendation was 1600 for males, but even if it is 1500, that seems incredibly low for a 38 year old man. I'm a 5'2 female and can lose weight eating 1700-1900 cals/day.
Recommended for guys is 1500, but MFP doesn't have limiting factors by gender. So even on MFP males could go down to 1200.0 -
according to MFP, to lose the desired amount of weight I need to consume 1500 before exercise, so I will not exercise and eat/drink 1500 calories worth of candy and coke which means CI<CO, and I will take nutrient tablets to make sure I get all the nutrients I need
which means because my CI is less than CO I should lose weight
at the end of the day 1 calorie is 1 calorie right? so as long as I eat less than I need and get all the nutrients I need all will be fine
Also, that diet likely would not be sustainable since there is a good chance you would be hungry all day, and you would likely end up eating more than 1500.
This is one reason the people recommending filling most of your diet with lean proteins, vegetables, and whole foods; it allows for a larger volume of food within the same calorie goal. Many people can make room for a single serving of candy or soda if desired, but they need to see how it affects them as well as how it affects their ability to fit other nutritious foods into their daily plan.0 -
according to MFP, to lose the desired amount of weight I need to consume 1500 before exercise, so I will not exercise and eat/drink 1500 calories worth of candy and coke which means CI<CO, and I will take nutrient tablets to make sure I get all the nutrients I need
which means because my CI is less than CO I should lose weight
at the end of the day 1 calorie is 1 calorie right? so as long as I eat less than I need and get all the nutrients I need all will be fine
As gets said here all the freaking time yes, you'd lose weight. You would be hungry and miserable because that is a small volume of food, but if that was all you ate you'd lose weight. You'd miss vital macro and micro nutrients, but you'd lose weight. Because of CICO.
I still don't get what any of this has to do with the video you posted without watching. I still don't get why people think calling a stupid fad video misleading counts as "mean."0 -
tiny_clanger wrote: »And there's the real issue. If ANYONE wants to really lose weight, they'll just eat less than then burn. They don't need fancy or crazy diets to do it. Just a little self control, discipline and a willingness to change habitual behavior.
I find that quite an unpleasant and simplistic approach. We know that sugar has a physiological effect on the human body, we know that endocrine conditions can cause weight gain beyond that which can be explained by the pure energy equations of CICO. We also know that these endocrine conditions cause symptoms which make it increasingly difficult for people to motivate themselves to exercise. We see hormone imbalances causing behavioural shifts that can be extremely difficult to break out of.
Who is this "we" that knows all this stuff because any medical professional worth his/her salt does not "know" this.
0 -
no idea, put in my details, what I wanted to lose, and that was what it popped out with
tbh it seems ok, I'm not binge eating or anything like that
I think the quality of the calories matters, I'm eating more variety now, more veg etc, and 3 times a day instead of 20 -
WinoGelato wrote: »according to MFP, to lose the desired amount of weight I need to consume 1500 before exercise, so I will not exercise and eat/drink 1500 calories worth of candy and coke which means CI<CO, and I will take nutrient tablets to make sure I get all the nutrients I need
which means because my CI is less than CO I should lose weight
at the end of the day 1 calorie is 1 calorie right? so as long as I eat less than I need and get all the nutrients I need all will be fine
Are you asking if that would work? Yes, it would work. Is anyone suggesting that's what you should do? No.
Also, why is MFP setting you at 1500 calories? I thought the bottom recommendation was 1600 for males, but even if it is 1500, that seems incredibly low for a 38 year old man. I'm a 5'2 female and can lose weight eating 1700-1900 cals/day.
Recommended for guys is 1500, but MFP doesn't have limiting factors by gender. So even on MFP males could go down to 1200.
Not recommended but the lowest recommended, right? Just want to make sure someone doesn't read that and think that all guys should aim for 1500.
I didn't know there weren't filters based on gender. That seems like an easy If/Then logic to build into the calculations...0 -
tried a protein shake for lunch.... my god it tasted awful.... filling yes, kept me full yes.... but defo not something I enjoyed0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »according to MFP, to lose the desired amount of weight I need to consume 1500 before exercise, so I will not exercise and eat/drink 1500 calories worth of candy and coke which means CI<CO, and I will take nutrient tablets to make sure I get all the nutrients I need
which means because my CI is less than CO I should lose weight
at the end of the day 1 calorie is 1 calorie right? so as long as I eat less than I need and get all the nutrients I need all will be fine
Are you asking if that would work? Yes, it would work. Is anyone suggesting that's what you should do? No.
Also, why is MFP setting you at 1500 calories? I thought the bottom recommendation was 1600 for males, but even if it is 1500, that seems incredibly low for a 38 year old man. I'm a 5'2 female and can lose weight eating 1700-1900 cals/day.
Recommended for guys is 1500, but MFP doesn't have limiting factors by gender. So even on MFP males could go down to 1200.
Not recommended but the lowest recommended, right? Just want to make sure someone doesn't read that and think that all guys should aim for 1500.
I didn't know there weren't filters based on gender. That seems like an easy If/Then logic to build into the calculations...
There aren't on MFP, which is the issues. Theoretically, if the software would allow it, women would have a 1200 minimum level and men would have a 1500 minimum. Its generally not recommended for males to go below 1500. If they are active or lean, they would need more calories.0 -
tried a protein shake for lunch.... my god it tasted awful.... filling yes, kept me full yes.... but defo not something I enjoyed
I highly recommend getting samples of different ones before investing in large quantities of protein powder (not that protein shakes are required, but they're a quick mid-morning snack for me and cost effective).
I've found I hate a lot of shakes that other people love the flavor of, so it's just going to be personal preference. I've personally had a lot of luck with Trutein, but there are tons out there.0 -
We keep coming back to the confusion of strategy and tactics.
Goal: Lose Weight
Strategy: Obtain a situation where calorie intake is less than calorie expenditure for an extended period
Tactics: Ways of eating, amount and kind of exercise, food selection, everything else
When people say "CICO didn't work for me" they mean (or should mean) that the tactics they picked didn't work. Not that the principle conservation equations are invalid. As stated above, though, CICO isn't a tactic. It's a foundational principle.0 -
We keep coming back to the confusion of strategy and tactics.
Goal: Lose Weight
Strategy: Obtain a situation where calorie intake is less than calorie expenditure for an extended period
Tactics: Ways of eating, amount and kind of exercise, food selection, everything else
When people say "CICO didn't work for me" they mean (or should mean) that the tactics they picked didn't work. Not that the principle conservation equations are invalid. As stated above, though, CICO isn't a tactic. It's a foundational principle.
As someone who relies heavily on process mapping at work - this really resonates with me. Well said.0 -
just got the one, to see if it would keep me full.... it was like drinking/eating flour.....0
-
-
KarlynKeto wrote: »
When human physiology actually changes, then you can say that CICO is outdated. Problem is human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years.KarlynKeto wrote: »I've not watched the whole thing, just the first 10 mins or so
I just thought it would help motivate/push those struggling to lose weight
You say it is just the simple case of burning more than you eat, nobody is denying that,
so instead of just saying no it is not worth watching, why not post one or something that will help those that are struggling to lose weight etc
but before you think I am attacking you and go on the offensive, don't bother, that is not my intention
I just want to help those struggling, which is the whole point of fitbit and this forum
Your intentions are golden, but the reception is not always that warm around here. The CICO advice plays like a broken record around here, but it is very old advice that hasn't helped many people for decades. People need better help then being slammed in a forum that is suppose to support people.
I personally had to change my beliefs about food entirely before I could start really losing weight and getting healthy. Even had to relearn how to cook. The CICO approach failed me many times. It wasn't until I dumped this outdated POV that I began to succeed. Instead of looking at food as if all calories are the exact same, look at food from a nutritional view. When you do this foods like refined sugars, fast foods, and artificial additives don't look so appetizing anymore. I also read a ton about insulin spikes and the role of hormones, which made a lot more sense then a bunch of internet guys implying I (and others here) are just stupid and doing it wrong. Stay strong, join a group here that focuses on clean eating or whatever preference you prefer, and ignore the main boards for advice.
If you failed it's because you likely didn't do it right. Many of my clientele thought the same till they ACTUALLY did start counting calories.
And trust the countries that don't have an obesity problem aren't eating "clean" on a daily basis. They just eat ENOUGH and not a surplus.
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
The CICO failed me (as it failed many) because dieting by this rule alone -- which seems to be popular advice around here -- isn't sustainable for so many. Sooner or later the hunger cravings hit hard, the social pressures or whatever other reasons hit hard, and before you know it bad habits and weight gain re-emerge.
People don't say not to pay attention to things like health and satiety. That was your choice. I generally assume that of course people will make choices that help with feeling satisfied with their diet -- I mean, you'd have to be not very sensible if you were hungry and did not change your diet to deal with that. You really can't be saying that you didn't realize that that would be a smart thing to do, and so failed because you didn't think of it, are you?
For me hunger was never an issue. I just seemed to naturally focus on more satisfying foods when cutting back.0 -
according to MFP, to lose the desired amount of weight I need to consume 1500 before exercise, so I will not exercise and eat/drink 1500 calories worth of candy and coke which means CI<CO, and I will take nutrient tablets to make sure I get all the nutrients I need
which means because my CI is less than CO I should lose weight
If you can do this (I couldn't), sure, you'd lose weight. You won't look as good as if you ate adequate protein and exercised, though. And it's probably not a sustainable diet and I bet you'd feel not as good as you could.
More significantly, though -- why on earth would you do this? IMO, no one with any sense would do something like that, and assuming others would is insulting.
Also, even if I suspect someone might do something so stupid (IMO), it is wrong -- morally and ethically wrong -- to lie to them and tell them they won't lose weight unless they eat healthfully or cut out added sugar or eat vegetables or whatever thing you'd decided they should do, merely because it might motivate them to do something you consider good for them. I'm not sure if that's your argument (I am honestly confused as to what your argument is), but if it is, this is my response. People have the right to make bad choices if they want to as to what they eat.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »KarlynKeto wrote: »
When human physiology actually changes, then you can say that CICO is outdated. Problem is human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years.KarlynKeto wrote: »I've not watched the whole thing, just the first 10 mins or so
I just thought it would help motivate/push those struggling to lose weight
You say it is just the simple case of burning more than you eat, nobody is denying that,
so instead of just saying no it is not worth watching, why not post one or something that will help those that are struggling to lose weight etc
but before you think I am attacking you and go on the offensive, don't bother, that is not my intention
I just want to help those struggling, which is the whole point of fitbit and this forum
Your intentions are golden, but the reception is not always that warm around here. The CICO advice plays like a broken record around here, but it is very old advice that hasn't helped many people for decades. People need better help then being slammed in a forum that is suppose to support people.
I personally had to change my beliefs about food entirely before I could start really losing weight and getting healthy. Even had to relearn how to cook. The CICO approach failed me many times. It wasn't until I dumped this outdated POV that I began to succeed. Instead of looking at food as if all calories are the exact same, look at food from a nutritional view. When you do this foods like refined sugars, fast foods, and artificial additives don't look so appetizing anymore. I also read a ton about insulin spikes and the role of hormones, which made a lot more sense then a bunch of internet guys implying I (and others here) are just stupid and doing it wrong. Stay strong, join a group here that focuses on clean eating or whatever preference you prefer, and ignore the main boards for advice.
If you failed it's because you likely didn't do it right. Many of my clientele thought the same till they ACTUALLY did start counting calories.
And trust the countries that don't have an obesity problem aren't eating "clean" on a daily basis. They just eat ENOUGH and not a surplus.
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
The CICO failed me (as it failed many) because dieting by this rule alone -- which seems to be popular advice around here -- isn't sustainable for so many. Sooner or later the hunger cravings hit hard, the social pressures or whatever other reasons hit hard, and before you know it bad habits and weight gain re-emerge.
People don't say not to pay attention to things like health and satiety. That was your choice. I generally assume that of course people will make choices that help with feeling satisfied with their diet -- I mean, you'd have to be not very sensible if you were hungry and did not change your diet to deal with that. You really can't be saying that you didn't realize that that would be a smart thing to do, and so failed because you didn't think of it, are you?
For me hunger was never an issue. I just seemed to naturally focus on more satisfying foods when cutting back.
Personally, I had no idea just how dramatically what I was eating impacted my appetite. Following the conventional wisdom that advises lots of vegetables, fiber and lean protein did nothing for me even though I was doing everything "right". Six months in and every single day was a struggle to just stay at my maintenance calories.
Sneer at people if you like but day in and day out people are told on these forums that what you eat doesn't matter for weight loss it's simply a matter of CICO -- which is true of course -- but it does nothing to help people come up with a satisfying, sustainable diet. I think KarlynKeto explained that well.0 -
We keep coming back to the confusion of strategy and tactics.
Goal: Lose Weight
Strategy: Obtain a situation where calorie intake is less than calorie expenditure for an extended period
Tactics: Ways of eating, amount and kind of exercise, food selection, everything else
Thank you, it was the issue of tactic that tripped me up on this thread. The OP suggested a conversation about eliminating sugars, but the 'tactic' got downtrodden and sidetracked with anti-Lustig info and provided links to sites that proved Lustig didn't know what people ate in China. I felt that approach didn't offer the OP any support, and was frankly rude. IMO he was clearly looking for more than just a cookie-cutter answer of CICO, and I really doubt he was looking for salacious reading material. Lustig is by far NOT the only person who advocates reduction or elimination of refined sugars. BY FAR he is not alone. I still stand by my advice that the OP should ask his questions in groups where there is a more open dialogue about the topics and tactics he is interested in.
0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »We keep coming back to the confusion of strategy and tactics.
Goal: Lose Weight
Strategy: Obtain a situation where calorie intake is less than calorie expenditure for an extended period
Tactics: Ways of eating, amount and kind of exercise, food selection, everything else
Thank you, it was the issue of tactic that tripped me up on this thread. The OP suggested a conversation about eliminating sugars, but the 'tactic' got downtrodden and sidetracked with anti-Lustig info and provided links to sites that proved Lustig didn't know what people ate in China. I felt that approach didn't offer the OP any support, and was frankly rude. IMO he was clearly looking for more than just a cookie-cutter answer of CICO, and I really doubt he was looking for salacious reading material. Lustig is by far NOT the only person who advocates reduction or elimination of refined sugars. BY FAR he is not alone. I still stand by my advice that the OP should ask his questions in groups where there is a more open dialogue about the topics and tactics he is interested in.
No one gave a cookie cutter CICO answer. You are the only want who is making that statement. Many of Lustigs theories have been debunked (which is why people posted the rebuttals), but if someone wants to cut out added sugars because they feel it's best, than great, but cutting out added sugars does not guarantee weight loss. They still have to address the energy balance equation (i.e. CICO). If you are cutting maintaining weight, and replace each gram of added sugar with a gram of fat, you would gain as fat is more caloric per gram.0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »We keep coming back to the confusion of strategy and tactics.
Goal: Lose Weight
Strategy: Obtain a situation where calorie intake is less than calorie expenditure for an extended period
Tactics: Ways of eating, amount and kind of exercise, food selection, everything else
Thank you, it was the issue of tactic that tripped me up on this thread. The OP suggested a conversation about eliminating sugars, but the 'tactic' got downtrodden and sidetracked with anti-Lustig info and provided links to sites that proved Lustig didn't know what people ate in China. I felt that approach didn't offer the OP any support, and was frankly rude. IMO he was clearly looking for more than just a cookie-cutter answer of CICO, and I really doubt he was looking for salacious reading material. Lustig is by far NOT the only person who advocates reduction or elimination of refined sugars. BY FAR he is not alone. I still stand by my advice that the OP should ask his questions in groups where there is a more open dialogue about the topics and tactics he is interested in.
On the one hand, I do agree that often people on this forum shut down any discussion of tactics because they think the person is trying to claim that the tactics should be used instead of CICO, not in addition to it.
On the other other hand, this tactic is scientifically inaccurate so that doesn't really apply here until the thread got a bit derailed - people were criticizing because the tactics is based in bad science, not because it's suggested instead of CICO.0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »
When human physiology actually changes, then you can say that CICO is outdated. Problem is human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years.KarlynKeto wrote: »I've not watched the whole thing, just the first 10 mins or so
I just thought it would help motivate/push those struggling to lose weight
You say it is just the simple case of burning more than you eat, nobody is denying that,
so instead of just saying no it is not worth watching, why not post one or something that will help those that are struggling to lose weight etc
but before you think I am attacking you and go on the offensive, don't bother, that is not my intention
I just want to help those struggling, which is the whole point of fitbit and this forum
Your intentions are golden, but the reception is not always that warm around here. The CICO advice plays like a broken record around here, but it is very old advice that hasn't helped many people for decades. People need better help then being slammed in a forum that is suppose to support people.
I personally had to change my beliefs about food entirely before I could start really losing weight and getting healthy. Even had to relearn how to cook. The CICO approach failed me many times. It wasn't until I dumped this outdated POV that I began to succeed. Instead of looking at food as if all calories are the exact same, look at food from a nutritional view. When you do this foods like refined sugars, fast foods, and artificial additives don't look so appetizing anymore. I also read a ton about insulin spikes and the role of hormones, which made a lot more sense then a bunch of internet guys implying I (and others here) are just stupid and doing it wrong. Stay strong, join a group here that focuses on clean eating or whatever preference you prefer, and ignore the main boards for advice.
If you failed it's because you likely didn't do it right. Many of my clientele thought the same till they ACTUALLY did start counting calories.
And trust the countries that don't have an obesity problem aren't eating "clean" on a daily basis. They just eat ENOUGH and not a surplus.
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
The CICO failed me (as it failed many) because dieting by this rule alone -- which seems to be popular advice around here -- isn't sustainable for so many. Sooner or later the hunger cravings hit hard, the social pressures or whatever other reasons hit hard, and before you know it bad habits and weight gain re-emerge. It is just a bad cycle for many, which is failure. Once I started looking past this advice-in-a-bubble (which many diet gurus like Oprah loves to push too) and started looking at food as medicine and not just all equal calories, and started to understand how other factors play a role besides calories such as hormones and insulin spikes, I then chose to revamp my FOOD not my calories. In a nutshell I chose much healthier foods, re-learned how to cook, chose to avoid certain foods completely (something that really erks people around here, lol), and I don't count calories at all. I just eat better at all my meals. Does this mean I am eating less calories than consuming? Of course. I have lost close to 70 pounds staying focused on food quality and not focused on the calories, and after 7 months I feel just as motivated as when I started. This method FEELS sustainable, and it is the method that has worked for many.
As the for the Lustig debate, avoiding refined sugar is definitely one of the smarter choices I have made. I don't care about the minutia details being debated about Lustig. It is irrelevant to me if China does or does not eat refined sugars. It is irrelevant to me what percentage of glucose to fructose is in HFCS. Did Lustig get those details wrong? As if I care! I am not going to focus on shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, which really doesn't matter because the bigger picture (the ship is sinking!) is really what matters. The hatred for him on this board is clearly thick, (and frankly, he is not the only medical doc who published a popular book who gets accused of being a fraud around here. Just read the recent vegan thread about McDougall.) but his primary message is sane advice: cut back on consuming refined sugars. Focus on the foods, not calories. People CAN learn from that, and can find success like they never could by simply following a CICO plan.
Awesome, good for you. Point is, you still lost weight because you consumed less calories than you burned. Whether it was by eating 'healthy' or 'nutrient-dense' or 'whole' foods, or x or y or z. Saying CI<CO for weight loss is wrong is like saying F=ma is wrong. Like most people here are trying to say, CI<CO can be achieved by eating whatever one wants, including the kind of food you eat. If your are losing weight on your 'diet', it is because of CICO.0 -
We keep coming back to the confusion of strategy and tactics.
Goal: Lose Weight
Strategy: Obtain a situation where calorie intake is less than calorie expenditure for an extended period
Tactics: Ways of eating, amount and kind of exercise, food selection, everything else
When people say "CICO didn't work for me" they mean (or should mean) that the tactics they picked didn't work. Not that the principle conservation equations are invalid. As stated above, though, CICO isn't a tactic. It's a foundational principle.
Exactly!
0 -
CICO is a written simplification of a process that every human being abides by.
It's not a way of eating or a type of diet. CICO doesn't fail or succeed. CICO is the process that happens during success or failure. CICO has nothing to do with nutrition or health.
You 'do' CICO every second, of every day, of your entire life, just like every other human being.
There needs to be a great big flashing sticky telling people this because many are obviously not getting it.0 -
^^^This...CICO is a written simplification of a process that every human being abides by.
It's not a way of eating or a type of diet. CICO doesn't fail or succeed. CICO is the process that happens during success or failure. CICO has nothing to do with nutrition or health.
You 'do' CICO every second, of every day, of your entire life, just like every other human being.
There needs to be a great big flashing sticky telling people this because many are obviously not getting it.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »KarlynKeto wrote: »
When human physiology actually changes, then you can say that CICO is outdated. Problem is human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years.KarlynKeto wrote: »I've not watched the whole thing, just the first 10 mins or so
I just thought it would help motivate/push those struggling to lose weight
You say it is just the simple case of burning more than you eat, nobody is denying that,
so instead of just saying no it is not worth watching, why not post one or something that will help those that are struggling to lose weight etc
but before you think I am attacking you and go on the offensive, don't bother, that is not my intention
I just want to help those struggling, which is the whole point of fitbit and this forum
Your intentions are golden, but the reception is not always that warm around here. The CICO advice plays like a broken record around here, but it is very old advice that hasn't helped many people for decades. People need better help then being slammed in a forum that is suppose to support people.
I personally had to change my beliefs about food entirely before I could start really losing weight and getting healthy. Even had to relearn how to cook. The CICO approach failed me many times. It wasn't until I dumped this outdated POV that I began to succeed. Instead of looking at food as if all calories are the exact same, look at food from a nutritional view. When you do this foods like refined sugars, fast foods, and artificial additives don't look so appetizing anymore. I also read a ton about insulin spikes and the role of hormones, which made a lot more sense then a bunch of internet guys implying I (and others here) are just stupid and doing it wrong. Stay strong, join a group here that focuses on clean eating or whatever preference you prefer, and ignore the main boards for advice.
If you failed it's because you likely didn't do it right. Many of my clientele thought the same till they ACTUALLY did start counting calories.
And trust the countries that don't have an obesity problem aren't eating "clean" on a daily basis. They just eat ENOUGH and not a surplus.
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
The CICO failed me (as it failed many) because dieting by this rule alone -- which seems to be popular advice around here -- isn't sustainable for so many. Sooner or later the hunger cravings hit hard, the social pressures or whatever other reasons hit hard, and before you know it bad habits and weight gain re-emerge.
People don't say not to pay attention to things like health and satiety. That was your choice. I generally assume that of course people will make choices that help with feeling satisfied with their diet -- I mean, you'd have to be not very sensible if you were hungry and did not change your diet to deal with that. You really can't be saying that you didn't realize that that would be a smart thing to do, and so failed because you didn't think of it, are you?
For me hunger was never an issue. I just seemed to naturally focus on more satisfying foods when cutting back.
Personally, I had no idea just how dramatically what I was eating impacted my appetite. Following the conventional wisdom that advises lots of vegetables, fiber and lean protein did nothing for me even though I was doing everything "right". Six months in and every single day was a struggle to just stay at my maintenance calories.
Sneer at people if you like but day in and day out people are told on these forums that what you eat doesn't matter for weight loss it's simply a matter of CICO -- which is true of course -- but it does nothing to help people come up with a satisfying, sustainable diet. I think KarlynKeto explained that well.
I'm not sneering. You are reading that in, for some reason of your own.
The fact is that people are never told that what you eat doesn't matter for health and satiety. Quite the opposite, that advice is given routinely, including by me (even though it seems to me something that people should already know). I also always suggest that if you are hungry to experiment with your diet and pay attention to what you are eating when feeling hungry or not, and make the point -- which too few low carbers acknowledge -- that what is satiating varies from person to person. Too many assert that fat is satiating to everyone, and it's not for me at all. Vegetables and lean protein and sweet potatoes, potatoes, and legumes, on the other hand, are for me. I don't assume they are for all.0 -
If it was UNSUSTAINABLE CICO, then you were doing it wrong. Sorry, but if you were getting hunger cravings, then likely you ate too little or went very restrictive.KarlynKeto wrote: »
When human physiology actually changes, then you can say that CICO is outdated. Problem is human physiology hasn't changed in thousands of years.KarlynKeto wrote: »I've not watched the whole thing, just the first 10 mins or so
I just thought it would help motivate/push those struggling to lose weight
You say it is just the simple case of burning more than you eat, nobody is denying that,
so instead of just saying no it is not worth watching, why not post one or something that will help those that are struggling to lose weight etc
but before you think I am attacking you and go on the offensive, don't bother, that is not my intention
I just want to help those struggling, which is the whole point of fitbit and this forum
Your intentions are golden, but the reception is not always that warm around here. The CICO advice plays like a broken record around here, but it is very old advice that hasn't helped many people for decades. People need better help then being slammed in a forum that is suppose to support people.
I personally had to change my beliefs about food entirely before I could start really losing weight and getting healthy. Even had to relearn how to cook. The CICO approach failed me many times. It wasn't until I dumped this outdated POV that I began to succeed. Instead of looking at food as if all calories are the exact same, look at food from a nutritional view. When you do this foods like refined sugars, fast foods, and artificial additives don't look so appetizing anymore. I also read a ton about insulin spikes and the role of hormones, which made a lot more sense then a bunch of internet guys implying I (and others here) are just stupid and doing it wrong. Stay strong, join a group here that focuses on clean eating or whatever preference you prefer, and ignore the main boards for advice.
If you failed it's because you likely didn't do it right. Many of my clientele thought the same till they ACTUALLY did start counting calories.
And trust the countries that don't have an obesity problem aren't eating "clean" on a daily basis. They just eat ENOUGH and not a surplus.
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
The CICO failed me (as it failed many) because dieting by this rule alone -- which seems to be popular advice around here -- isn't sustainable for so many. Sooner or later the hunger cravings hit hard, the social pressures or whatever other reasons hit hard, and before you know it bad habits and weight gain re-emerge. It is just a bad cycle for many, which is failure. Once I started looking past this advice-in-a-bubble (which many diet gurus like Oprah loves to push too) and started looking at food as medicine and not just all equal calories, and started to understand how other factors play a role besides calories such as hormones and insulin spikes, I then chose to revamp my FOOD not my calories. In a nutshell I chose much healthier foods, re-learned how to cook, chose to avoid certain foods completely (something that really erks people around here, lol), and I don't count calories at all. I just eat better at all my meals. Does this mean I am eating less calories than consuming? Of course. I have lost close to 70 pounds staying focused on food quality and not focused on the calories, and after 7 months I feel just as motivated as when I started. This method FEELS sustainable, and it is the method that has worked for many.
While I don't disagree on making better choices for nutrient dense foods, denying that CICO doesn't work is a matter of your opinion. You're speaking anecdotally of what works for you. The fact is that you still HAD to do CICO to lose weight. How you went about it was a matter of choice for you.
It's fine for people to focus on foods. Offer better choices. Just don't offer propaganda that's relatively been shown to be extreme as a great diet plan because as a professional in the business and dealing with people who've tried these diets, I can say with authority that clients came back with weight regain because in THEIR lifestyle, it wasn't sustainable.As the for the Lustig debate, avoiding refined sugar is definitely one of the smarter choices I have made. I don't care about the minutia details being debated about Lustig. It is irrelevant to me if China does or does not eat refined sugars. It is irrelevant to me what percentage of glucose to fructose is in HFCS. Did Lustig get those details wrong? As if I care! I am not going to focus on shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, which really doesn't matter because the bigger picture (the ship is sinking!) is really what matters. The hatred for him on this board is clearly thick, (and frankly, he is not the only medical doc who published a popular book who gets accused of being a fraud around here. Just read the recent vegan thread about McDougall.) but his primary message is sane advice: cut back on consuming refined sugars. Focus on the foods, not calories. People CAN learn from that, and can find success like they never could by simply following a CICO plan.
You're speaking of your experience. I speak from the experience of many I personally have known and helped.
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
0 -
You're speaking of people with health issues then. And anyone with a health issue will likely have a different approach to accommodate whatever health issue they have when trying to lose weight.tiny_clanger wrote: »And there's the real issue. If ANYONE wants to really lose weight, they'll just eat less than then burn. They don't need fancy or crazy diets to do it. Just a little self control, discipline and a willingness to change habitual behavior.
I find that quite an unpleasant and simplistic approach. We know that sugar has a physiological effect on the human body, we know that endocrine conditions can cause weight gain beyond that which can be explained by the pure energy equations of CICO. We also know that these endocrine conditions cause symptoms which make it increasingly difficult for people to motivate themselves to exercise. We see hormone imbalances causing behavioural shifts that can be extremely difficult to break out of.
If you're speaking of the general population, you can find it to be however unpleasant and simplistic as you like. It still CICO that is responsible for weight gain/loss/maintenance.
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
0 -
Maybe a better way for the "cico didn't work for me" folks to explain it would be.. "Following a calorie controlled diet eating the regular sad foods or whatever did not work for me". Maybe I'm completely off base, I don't know.
But I do know some people struggle with hunger and are never satisfied when they eat a certain way, be it high carb, high sugar, high fat, low fibre etc etc etc So never make any headway in their weight loss 'journey', so claim cico doesn't work for them. And this probably goes double for people with insulin resistance or PCOS and such.
I always say, picking the right foods/calories helps me eat less food/calories. In the end if calories in are less than calories out you will lose weight no matter which woe one chooses, how people choose to get there is a personal and very individual thing, and what works for one will not work for all.0 -
CICO is a written simplification of a process that every human being abides by.
It's not a way of eating or a type of diet. CICO doesn't fail or succeed. CICO is the process that happens during success or failure. CICO has nothing to do with nutrition or health.
You 'do' CICO every second, of every day, of your entire life, just like every other human being.
There needs to be a great big flashing sticky telling people this because many are obviously not getting it.
Agree 100%!!!! This needs to be pasted all over MFP.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions