worth watching - Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Christine_72 wrote: »

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.

I think you are right about what they are (mostly) saying -- or maybe instead "trying to maintain a calorie deficit while eating my old standard foods and macros didn't work for me, because I was hungry."

What I find frustrating is why is it assumed that people eat the SAD or don't sensibly pay attention to what makes them sated. I never ate the SAD (as usually defined) and I changed my diet anyway when losing, as it makes no sense to just cut 20% across the board -- some things are easier to cut down and others shouldn't be. I didn't cut protein or vegetables at all, added more of both while cutting back on other things. But that's still a "eat what you like within your calories" diet--certainly, what you like should include how you feel and not being hungry--and I still (like everyone) lost based on CICO.

I also assume people will naturally play around with what's satisfying to them when they lower calories. I tried out lots of things, including eating more fat (sadly, not satiating to me), and cutting down on carbs substantially for a while (I wasn't HF at all, more like 30-35-35, and pretty low cal), and different meal patterns/habits.

Christine_72 wrote: »

Yes, but choosing the right macros or avoiding trigger foods or whatever it may be, makes staying in a deficit easier and not such an everyday struggle.. I'm not saying cico doesn't work, of course it does, and I agree It's not a diet or way of eating, it just is! If calories in are less than calories out, you will lose weight. I'm not going to repeat everything I said in my last post...
I'm not going to debate when I'm agreeing with what the majority of people here have said, I'm just trying to understand and perhaps clarify what the cico didn't work for me folks are saying.

ETA: Was responding to the poster above you Lemur.

Thanks Christine, I think you got it. I think there's misunderstandings all the way around, as I tried to clarify multiple times that I was talking about the 'calories in calories out' concept in a bubble, where food choices are not the focus. As in "eat what you want, just eat less of it". Eating what one wants doesn't always equal healthy or satisfying food. (If people want to criticize other people's bad choices, go for it if it makes you feel better.) But I'm not disagreeing that basic math isn't basic math, and I don't think anybody else is either. Maybe I didn't explain it clear enough, but for many it takes more help then just knowing the basic math. Many here have already agreed that the food choices also matter, but unlike many of the people here a great majority of the worlds population isn't as smart as all of them, and they do not realize what bad choices they are making, they fall prey to a lot of bad marketing, bad advice and/or simply bad economics. It is these folks who do come to this forum that needs better then a 'talk to the hand' response. Or why bother replying to them at all.

Christine_72 wrote: »

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.

Yeah, almost all of them very emphatically aren't saying that the concept of CICO as a scientific principle is wrong. There are a lot of variations in what they're actually saying - "I need more structure to keep myself sticking to my goals", "Counting the calories of everything I eat is more difficult for me than just avoiding food groups in a way that naturally ends at lower calorie counts", "I needed more guidance on how to tweak my diet effectively and didn't feel like I was getting that kind of support from only focusing on calories", among others - but it's very disingenuous the way people react to them. You guys all know what they mean!

Mentali wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

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.

Yeah, almost all of them very emphatically aren't saying that the concept of CICO as a scientific principle is wrong.

Well, some do, but I agree most do not. It would be helpful if they'd be more clear and say "counting calories did not work for me" or "I needed to change my macros to deal with hunger at a deficit" or whatever it is. Instead, they seem to start with the assumption that "CICO" as most use it means making NO changes in diet, ignoring nutrition and satiety, and/or eating the SAD, which I find weird to offensive, depending on how it's stated.

There are a lot of variations in what they're actually saying - "I need more structure to keep myself sticking to my goals", "Counting the calories of everything I eat is more difficult for me than just avoiding food groups in a way that naturally ends at lower calorie counts", "I needed more guidance on how to tweak my diet effectively and didn't feel like I was getting that kind of support from only focusing on calories", among others - but it's very disingenuous the way people react to them. You guys all know what they mean!

I feel like they are intentionally distorting what others mean by CICO is what matters. Again, I doubt most make no changes in their diet to address things like satiety or have no structure or so on. So why assume that by CICO we mean "just eat whatever strikes your fancy but write it down and stop eating when you hit your calories" or some such thing? That's what they seem to be suggesting that others do or mean by CICO. That's why I think it's really important to make the point that CICO is NOT a diet, let alone a diet that means ignoring satiety and nutrition. No one recommends ignoring satiety and nutrition.

This content has been removed.

stevencloser wrote: »

perkymommy wrote: »

"Super Size Me" is another good one for those who eat a lot of fast food.

And then there's John Cisna who showed that guy was full of *kitten* because he purposely overate to an extreme degree.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10?IR=T

Maybe I should make a documentary of me eating only homecooked meals and grossly overeating them until I'm fat. There's good money in fearmongering.

Then you could quit your day job and be rich and fat!!

"CICO did not work for me." Translation, CI>CO.

"CICO worked for me." Translation, CI<CO.

Conclusion, CICO worked in both instances...

Mentali wrote: »

Jruzer wrote: »

One more thought from my end to rebut those who are arguing against the "Eat what you want" advice:

I had a light bulb moment that started my weight loss. It was made clear to me that weight loss was really about conservation of energy, and that it was a process that I could control and monitor and which allowed me maximum freedom. When that happened it was like the heavens opened. I didn't have to restrict unnecessarily! I could eat "bad" foods! I could measure and know how much to eat! No cabbage soup!

When I put this into practice - monitoring what I ate and exercising more - I lost weight. And have maintained for going on 5 years.

I'm willing to bet that for every "CICO didn't work for me" poster, there is someone like me for whom this advice was exactly what they needed to hear.

Me too! This is the first time I've "dieted" by eating the right portions of whatever food I want. I felt like a blindfold was taken off, that I could eat anything as long as I don't eat too much of it (and "too much" isn't a tiny amount like I suspected), I've seen that advice before so I don't know why it didn't click before now, but it really was a turning point.

I remember that glorious feeling. It's lost me 80 lbs so far. No strict diet. No demon foods. Just eating whatever (not doritos and ice cream 3 meals a day because that would be just plain dumb) and still losing.

KarlynKeto wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

Yes, but choosing the right macros or avoiding trigger foods or whatever it may be, makes staying in a deficit easier and not such an everyday struggle.. I'm not saying cico doesn't work, of course it does, and I agree It's not a diet or way of eating, it just is! If calories in are less than calories out, you will lose weight. I'm not going to repeat everything I said in my last post...
I'm not going to debate when I'm agreeing with what the majority of people here have said, I'm just trying to understand and perhaps clarify what the cico didn't work for me folks are saying.

ETA: Was responding to the poster above you Lemur.

Thanks Christine, I think you got it. I think there's misunderstandings all the way around, as I tried to clarify multiple times that I was talking about the 'calories in calories out' concept in a bubble, where food choices are not the focus. As in "eat what you want, just eat less of it". Eating what one wants doesn't always equal healthy or satisfying food. (If people want to criticize other people's bad choices, go for it if it makes you feel better.) But I'm not disagreeing that basic math isn't basic math, and I don't think anybody else is either. Maybe I didn't explain it clear enough, but for many it takes more help then just knowing the basic math. Many here have already agreed that the food choices also matter, but unlike many of the people here a great majority of the worlds population isn't as smart as all of them, and they do not realize what bad choices they are making, they fall prey to a lot of bad marketing, bad advice and/or simply bad economics. It is these folks who do come to this forum that needs better then a 'talk to the hand' response. Or why bother replying to them at all.

I agree .

earlnabby wrote: »

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

Mentali wrote: »

Jruzer wrote: »

One more thought from my end to rebut those who are arguing against the "Eat what you want" advice:

I had a light bulb moment that started my weight loss. It was made clear to me that weight loss was really about conservation of energy, and that it was a process that I could control and monitor and which allowed me maximum freedom. When that happened it was like the heavens opened. I didn't have to restrict unnecessarily! I could eat "bad" foods! I could measure and know how much to eat! No cabbage soup!

When I put this into practice - monitoring what I ate and exercising more - I lost weight. And have maintained for going on 5 years.

I'm willing to bet that for every "CICO didn't work for me" poster, there is someone like me for whom this advice was exactly what they needed to hear.

Me too! This is the first time I've "dieted" by eating the right portions of whatever food I want. I felt like a blindfold was taken off, that I could eat anything as long as I don't eat too much of it (and "too much" isn't a tiny amount like I suspected), I've seen that advice before so I don't know why it didn't click before now, but it really was a turning point.

I remember that glorious feeling. It's lost me 80 lbs so far. No strict diet. No demon foods. Just eating whatever (not doritos and ice cream 3 meals a day because that would be just plain dumb) and still losing.

Me too. I think of eating for weight loss as a puzzle: you have a set number of calories to eat and you need to figure out the best way to maximize those calories for a combination of nutrition, satiety, AND pleasure. Nothing is off limits, but if I have a high calorie treat, I know I need to balance it out with lower calorie foods elsewhere in the day.

That's exactly how I see it. A puzzle. If you play it right, you have the recipe for both success and pleasure.

earlnabby wrote: »

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

Mentali wrote: »

Jruzer wrote: »

One more thought from my end to rebut those who are arguing against the "Eat what you want" advice:

I had a light bulb moment that started my weight loss. It was made clear to me that weight loss was really about conservation of energy, and that it was a process that I could control and monitor and which allowed me maximum freedom. When that happened it was like the heavens opened. I didn't have to restrict unnecessarily! I could eat "bad" foods! I could measure and know how much to eat! No cabbage soup!

When I put this into practice - monitoring what I ate and exercising more - I lost weight. And have maintained for going on 5 years.

I'm willing to bet that for every "CICO didn't work for me" poster, there is someone like me for whom this advice was exactly what they needed to hear.

Me too! This is the first time I've "dieted" by eating the right portions of whatever food I want. I felt like a blindfold was taken off, that I could eat anything as long as I don't eat too much of it (and "too much" isn't a tiny amount like I suspected), I've seen that advice before so I don't know why it didn't click before now, but it really was a turning point.

I remember that glorious feeling. It's lost me 80 lbs so far. No strict diet. No demon foods. Just eating whatever (not doritos and ice cream 3 meals a day because that would be just plain dumb) and still losing.

Me too. I think of eating for weight loss as a puzzle: you have a set number of calories to eat and you need to figure out the best way to maximize those calories for a combination of nutrition, satiety, AND pleasure. Nothing is off limits, but if I have a high calorie treat, I know I need to balance it out with lower calorie foods elsewhere in the day.

Great way to view it...