CICO the lastest fad diet
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person
Yup, and different macros affect your body differently so depending on the person, their goals, etc there's more to the story than just calories.
Yup,leptin, insulin , testosterone and others can change the whole calories in vs calories out equation quite a bit.
Insulin is my personal devil. I can CICO all I want but if that insulin isn't in check, I lose nothing. BUT I truly believe that CICO works GREAT too. There is no single right answer. So many factors, such as insulin, age, metabolic damage, disease can affect which methods work best for you. When I was in my 20's, I absolutely loss weight eating McDonald's everyday. But because I was super careful about my calories, I was able to drop weight. I miss those days.....
CICO is not something that works, it's HOW every single diet you may ever do works. Insulin does not stop your weight loss, overeating calories is.
In fact, insulin resistance makes it HARDER to convert carbs to fat. I suspect what happens with people who are IR, is that they don't feel satisfied, less hungry, the necessary energy, whatever from carbs so continue to eat more, and with the carbs comes lots of fat (calories as a whole). They burn the carbs, store the fat, but the key is too many calories.
That said, obviously if one has insulin problems that's bad for health, so eating in a way that addresses it might be sensible. If you were on a set diet with a calorie deficit in, say, an experiment where you had no way to eat anything else, that person would lose, however.
And often the best way to fix insulin problems IS just losing weight -- that's one way in which being obese can clearly be a risk factor for health problems.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I do firmly buy into CICO - but I have to admit I love seeing articles like this and others because it so ticks off all the right people on here.
So you dislike certain posters more than you love the truth? Cool.
Btw, as one of the posters that invariably jumps into these threads, I usually find these discussions fun (if often ridiculous), that's why we participate, probably.
What in the article is not true?
Oh, I guess I should have seen this question before writing the last post, as this may be duplicative to some degree.A nutritional fad called CICO...
CICO is not a fad or way of eating, it's a statement of the truth, that whether one is losing, gaining, or maintaining depends on energy balance. Similarly, "eat less, move more" is not a way of eating or fad.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
This is false: recognizing that CICO is what matters for weight loss obviously does not mean that you view fruits and veg as the same as candies and sodas or that calories are all that matter in choosing what to eat. It's an insulting lie, in fact, or intentional distortion of what people who say CICO is what determines weight loss are saying.
For example, I firmly believe that CICO is what matters for weight loss, but I have lost without tracking, don't track at maintenance, and used logging when I did it to monitor my diet in lots of ways (since it was fun). I focus on lots of nutritional things. So on."Being healthy isn't just about weight loss alone," noted Lona Sandon, program director and assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "You have to consider the whole package."
Sure, true, but if one has a lot of weight to lose losing weight may well be one of the MOST important things. And, again, NO ONE is saying it's not good to focus on things beyond weight loss. I think most who talk about CICO would easily identify other things they think are important for health.Sandon acknowledged that those who adopt a CICO approach to eating "might actually lose weight." But there's a downside: "nutrient deficiencies or even malnutrition," she warned.
This suggests that "a CICO approach" (which means nothing more than trying to keep a calorie deficit in some way, if you are trying to lose) somehow results in a more nutrient deficient way of eating, which I totally disagree with. I actually think some (not all) approaches that say calories don't matter but are very restrictive (meat only, very low veg versions of keto, a raw plant-based diet and even some other extreme versions of plant based, many of the silly fad diets that promise magical results from food choice or combining) are FAR more likely to lead to nutritional deficiency. Yes, if you decide that only calories matter and you WANT TO eat a poor diet, then you might do so, but you probably were before cutting calories too. The idea that understanding that calories are what matter for weight loss and focusing on them (which is what I think she's talking about) leads one to eat a nutrient-poor diet is really weird, and suggests that she thinks that unless you lie to people and tell them you need to eat well to lose weight that they won't. I prefer to think that people are capable of acting reasonably and eating well because they understand it's good for them, not because you tell them weight loss requires it.Samantha Heller, senior clinical nutritionist at New York University Medical Center, agreed.
"We are so obsessed with weight loss and being thin that we have lost sight of the fact that being healthy is everything," she said.
Um, actually the problem in our country is not too many thin people who eat junk food diets. It's too many fat people (many of whom also eat poorly, of course). Weight loss is a HUGE factor in healthiness, and focusing on weight loss by no means detracts from eating healthfully if you care about that (and if you don't it's not like learning about CICO caused you not to care, so you might as well do one good thing for health)."It is far more important to eat healthy foods like broccoli, edamame, pecans, berries, pasta and olive oil than go on some crazy weight-loss fad diet," Heller said.
Understanding that CICO is what matters for weight and eating with a calorie deficit is NOT a "crazy weight-loss fad diet." If one if obese, also, it is NOT more important to eat those (weird) foods than lose weight. As I said elsewhere, I ate plenty of olive oil (too much) and pasta (same) and broccoli (I still eat about the same amount) and pecans (although I've always preferred walnuts and some other nuts anyway) when fat, and I eat less of those (but for broccoli and edamame since I only recently started eating edamame) now, and yet my health is no doubt better (and my diet overall better).
If the claim is that it's better to eat lots of nutrient dense foods and be obese than to be more careless about nutrition and a healthy weight, I doubt it, but it's not like you should choose between the two. When I cut calories (because it's only logical and sensible), I cut portions of less nutrient dense foods and kept the higher nutrient foods. Olive oil was one of those I cut down on, since I was consuming too much."Severely restricting calories or food groups, along with rapid weight loss, are likely to backfire for many reasons, and the dieter will be left feeling frustrated," she added.
Agree, but acknowledging CICO does not promote any of these things, quite the opposite. (The alternative to CICO is often fad diets that are super low cal or restricting food groups.)
For the record, I think restricting food groups is not always bad, but it has 0 to do with CICO or flexible dieting (which is a common approach for people who mainly focus on getting a calorie deficit).
The rest is a combination of things I mostly agree with and a weird attribution of the bad things argued against (quick fix!) to CICO, when CICO is (again) just a statement of the truth that calorie balance is what determines the direction your weight will go in.
CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
I think most everything in the article is true. It just makes some rather bizarre assumptions and connections.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »https://medlineplus.gov/news/fullstory_169921.html
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 22, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- What if you could have your cake, eat it, too, and lose weight?
A nutritional fad called CICO -- short for "Calories In, Calories Out" -- promises just that for those looking to shed some pounds.
...
ahhh the magical world of physics and some science. Both of those are just well, another fad and a myth.
Given that this was published on a .gov website, and with the current administration's questionable views on evidence-based science, is it really so surprising?12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I do firmly buy into CICO - but I have to admit I love seeing articles like this and others because it so ticks off all the right people on here.
So you dislike certain posters more than you love the truth? Cool.
Btw, as one of the posters that invariably jumps into these threads, I usually find these discussions fun (if often ridiculous), that's why we participate, probably.
What in the article is not true?
Oh, I guess I should have seen this question before writing the last post, as this may be duplicative to some degree.A nutritional fad called CICO...
CICO is not a fad or way of eating, it's a statement of the truth, that whether one is losing, gaining, or maintaining depends on energy balance. Similarly, "eat less, move more" is not a way of eating or fad.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
This is false: recognizing that CICO is what matters for weight loss obviously does not mean that you view fruits and veg as the same as candies and sodas or that calories are all that matter in choosing what to eat. It's an insulting lie, in fact, or intentional distortion of what people who say CICO is what determines weight loss are saying.
For example, I firmly believe that CICO is what matters for weight loss, but I have lost without tracking, don't track at maintenance, and used logging when I did it to monitor my diet in lots of ways (since it was fun). I focus on lots of nutritional things. So on."Being healthy isn't just about weight loss alone," noted Lona Sandon, program director and assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "You have to consider the whole package."
Sure, true, but if one has a lot of weight to lose losing weight may well be one of the MOST important things. And, again, NO ONE is saying it's not good to focus on things beyond weight loss. I think most who talk about CICO would easily identify other things they think are important for health.Sandon acknowledged that those who adopt a CICO approach to eating "might actually lose weight." But there's a downside: "nutrient deficiencies or even malnutrition," she warned.
This suggests that "a CICO approach" (which means nothing more than trying to keep a calorie deficit in some way, if you are trying to lose) somehow results in a more nutrient deficient way of eating, which I totally disagree with. I actually think some (not all) approaches that say calories don't matter but are very restrictive (meat only, very low veg versions of keto, a raw plant-based diet and even some other extreme versions of plant based, many of the silly fad diets that promise magical results from food choice or combining) are FAR more likely to lead to nutritional deficiency. Yes, if you decide that only calories matter and you WANT TO eat a poor diet, then you might do so, but you probably were before cutting calories too. The idea that understanding that calories are what matter for weight loss and focusing on them (which is what I think she's talking about) leads one to eat a nutrient-poor diet is really weird, and suggests that she thinks that unless you lie to people and tell them you need to eat well to lose weight that they won't. I prefer to think that people are capable of acting reasonably and eating well because they understand it's good for them, not because you tell them weight loss requires it.Samantha Heller, senior clinical nutritionist at New York University Medical Center, agreed.
"We are so obsessed with weight loss and being thin that we have lost sight of the fact that being healthy is everything," she said.
Um, actually the problem in our country is not too many thin people who eat junk food diets. It's too many fat people (many of whom also eat poorly, of course). Weight loss is a HUGE factor in healthiness, and focusing on weight loss by no means detracts from eating healthfully if you care about that (and if you don't it's not like learning about CICO caused you not to care, so you might as well do one good thing for health)."It is far more important to eat healthy foods like broccoli, edamame, pecans, berries, pasta and olive oil than go on some crazy weight-loss fad diet," Heller said.
Understanding that CICO is what matters for weight and eating with a calorie deficit is NOT a "crazy weight-loss fad diet." If one if obese, also, it is NOT more important to eat those (weird) foods than lose weight. As I said elsewhere, I ate plenty of olive oil (too much) and pasta (same) and broccoli (I still eat about the same amount) and pecans (although I've always preferred walnuts and some other nuts anyway) when fat, and I eat less of those (but for broccoli and edamame since I only recently started eating edamame) now, and yet my health is no doubt better (and my diet overall better).
If the claim is that it's better to eat lots of nutrient dense foods and be obese than to be more careless about nutrition and a healthy weight, I doubt it, but it's not like you should choose between the two. When I cut calories (because it's only logical and sensible), I cut portions of less nutrient dense foods and kept the higher nutrient foods. Olive oil was one of those I cut down on, since I was consuming too much."Severely restricting calories or food groups, along with rapid weight loss, are likely to backfire for many reasons, and the dieter will be left feeling frustrated," she added.
Agree, but acknowledging CICO does not promote any of these things, quite the opposite. (The alternative to CICO is often fad diets that are super low cal or restricting food groups.)
For the record, I think restricting food groups is not always bad, but it has 0 to do with CICO or flexible dieting (which is a common approach for people who mainly focus on getting a calorie deficit).
The rest is a combination of things I mostly agree with and a weird attribution of the bad things argued against (quick fix!) to CICO, when CICO is (again) just a statement of the truth that calorie balance is what determines the direction your weight will go in.
tremendous post
My severe obesity and metabolic diseases were, and still are, a serious threat to my life
understanding that I needed to consistently eat in a calorie deficit to drop weight & then doing it has saved my life
I may not eat an ideal diet but I'm dropping weight. I've got 85lbs to target (from 140) and feel much better. I get my bloodwork done this week and am expecting significant improvements. My health has improved dramatically and my risk of death is clearly much lower
Just eating a load of 'healthy food' without achieving a deficit would not have produced these benefits.14 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »I got called a liar on another MFP discussion for saying there's people that just count calories and disregard nutrition.
And the author of this article is as confused on the subject as you are.
" Sandon pointed out that "canned diet plans rarely work and are hard to stick with."
Instead, she advocates forgoing the "quick-fix mentality" in favor of a long-term resolution to embrace a "combination of healthy eating and exercise."
For example, Sandon said, "Reduce calories by cutting back on portion sizes or use pre-portioned foods, such as frozen meals, to cut back on total food intake.""
Pretty much the standard advice given here.
Different person quoted
""Severely restricting calories or food groups, along with rapid weight loss, are likely to backfire for many reasons, and the dieter will be left feeling frustrated," she added."
Again, this seems to be the tone of those promoting calorie counting.
I'm not confused at all. I was just told previously "Literally no one on earth tracks CICO and ignores nutrition" and that's not true. I'm totally on board with CICO being a surefire way to lose weight; no argument there.
I think there are more than few that track calories and ignore nutrition. Especially when just starting out. I think some add lower calorie nutrient dense foods as much for volume as they do for nutrients.
I don't ignore macros totally, but I will let them slide a bit some days. I do try to get enough protein and have plenty of fruit and veggies in the mix. Because so many of my carbs are fruit, I tend to come in low for carbs and go over on sugar. I was going no starch for a while and now I am eating some starches, but not a lot; that's why so much fruit and sugar.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
Pet peeve of mine but CICO is not calorie counting. The two are not the same. Too often when people refer to CICO, they are really talking about calorie counting.
Eating at a deficit can be calorie counting. Losing weight through a deficit via a KETO diet still means CI<CO. CICO is the underlying energy balance, but is not a way of eating, is not a diet, is not a fad. It is the underlying physics behind weight management.
It's why I think the article is so out to lunch. They are talking about calorie counting, not CICO.
15 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
Pet peeve of mine but CICO is not calorie counting. The two are not the same. Too often when people refer to CICO, they are really talking about calorie counting.
Eating at a deficit can be calorie counting. Losing weight through a deficit via a KETO diet still means CI<CO. CICO is the underlying energy balance, but is not a way of eating, is not a diet, is not a fad. It is the underlying physics behind weight management.
It's why I think the article is so out to lunch. They are talking about calorie counting, not CICO.
Just for fun, I googled CICO. And honestly now I'd say that the term does fit a fad diet. Not surprising really I guess. The diet industry is pretty quick to jump on terms and adopt them as their own.
My pet peeve is "plant based" which apparently now means vegan.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.5 -
This 100% But some people still need2argueTacklewasher wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
Pet peeve of mine but CICO is not calorie counting. The two are not the same. Too often when people refer to CICO, they are really talking about calorie counting.
Eating at a deficit can be calorie counting. Losing weight through a deficit via a KETO diet still means CI<CO. CICO is the underlying energy balance, but is not a way of eating, is not a diet, is not a fad. It is the underlying physics behind weight management.
It's why I think the article is so out to lunch. They are talking about calorie counting, not CICO.
13 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
Pet peeve of mine but CICO is not calorie counting. The two are not the same. Too often when people refer to CICO, they are really talking about calorie counting.
Eating at a deficit can be calorie counting. Losing weight through a deficit via a KETO diet still means CI<CO. CICO is the underlying energy balance, but is not a way of eating, is not a diet, is not a fad. It is the underlying physics behind weight management.
It's why I think the article is so out to lunch. They are talking about calorie counting, not CICO.
Just for fun, I googled CICO. And honestly now I'd say that the term does fit a fad diet. Not surprising really I guess. The diet industry is pretty quick to jump on terms and adopt them as their own.
My pet peeve is "plant based" which apparently now means vegan.
My google turns up mostly articles where authors are knocking down the strawman version of calorie counting.
Even saw this tidbit on one of them "Ms Cohen also said that when people 'undercut' their calories or eat less, their bodies go into 'starvation mode where your body just starts to eat muscle' "
I guess I'm not up on what's cool on redditt, but it really seems that it's not a fad diet, but those who are pushing a fad diet want to call it that.
7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
I actually think they are talking calories here, and they are correct. For CICO the source of the calories does not matter. If CI < CO then weight loss occurs. That's the premise of CICO. You see it on MFP all the time. "It doesn't matter what you eat, if you are in a deficit you'll lose weight" "There is no difference in the sugar in an apple or sugar in candy" "Every heard of the Twinkie diet?"4 -
It's like she clipped quotes from wherever to kind of fit the article6
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
I actually think they are talking calories here, and they are correct. For CICO the source of the calories does not matter. If CI < CO then weight loss occurs. That's the premise of CICO. You see it on MFP all the time. "It doesn't matter what you eat, if you are in a deficit you'll lose weight" "There is no difference in the sugar in an apple or sugar in candy" "Every heard of the Twinkie diet?"
Watch the Mike Israetel video. Weight is the primary driver of health, actually. You have to worry about getting the excess weight off, and the caloric content of your diet matters more for that than the nutritional content does. Nutrition is important, but it's not as important as weight.15 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
I actually think they are talking calories here, and they are correct. For CICO the source of the calories does not matter. If CI < CO then weight loss occurs. That's the premise of CICO. You see it on MFP all the time. "It doesn't matter what you eat, if you are in a deficit you'll lose weight" "There is no difference in the sugar in an apple or sugar in candy" "Every heard of the Twinkie diet?"
Either they are not talking about calories, or they're implying that equal calories = equal calories is somehow wrong.
Both would be wrong.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
I actually think they are talking calories here, and they are correct. For CICO the source of the calories does not matter. If CI < CO then weight loss occurs. That's the premise of CICO. You see it on MFP all the time. "It doesn't matter what you eat, if you are in a deficit you'll lose weight" "There is no difference in the sugar in an apple or sugar in candy" "Every heard of the Twinkie diet?"
Watch the Mike Israetel video. Weight is the primary driver of health, actually. You have to worry about getting the excess weight off, and the caloric content of your diet matters more for that than the nutritional content does. Nutrition is important, but it's not as important as weight.
I agree.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
No, I think that's clearly in the article. Look at the context:
"A nutritional fad called CICO -- short for "Calories In, Calories Out" -- promises just that for those looking to shed some pounds.
The pitch is straightforward: Eat whatever you want, junk food included, and still shrink your waistline -- as long as every day you expend more calories than you consume.
It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
Perhaps not surprisingly, many nutrition experts disagree."
Do the nutrition experts disagree that you will lose if you eat fewer calories than you burn, regardless of nutrition? No, they do not. As the quotations go on to show, they "disagree" that it does not matter what you eat for NUTRITION purposes. Thus, the article is intentionally saying that CICO says that what you eat does not matter for nutrition -- which is false -- or else why claim that the nutritionists are DISAGREEING with the claims of this "fad diet" CICO (which is another false statement or at least very stupid misunderstanding). The assertion is that those doing CICO are saying that nothing matters but calories, period, for anything, and that's why the nutritionists are (allegedly) so very concerned.
If the article had been written in a truthful manner and said "many nutritionists think that although calories determine weight loss, it is of course important to eat a nutritious diet," no one would have disagreed. Because of course virtually every regular poster who says "CICO is what matters for weight loss" -- including you, from what I recall of other threads -- also says that "of course food choice matters for satiety and nutrition."7 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
I actually think they are talking calories here, and they are correct. For CICO the source of the calories does not matter. If CI < CO then weight loss occurs. That's the premise of CICO. You see it on MFP all the time. "It doesn't matter what you eat, if you are in a deficit you'll lose weight" "There is no difference in the sugar in an apple or sugar in candy" "Every heard of the Twinkie diet?"
Either they are not talking about calories, or they're implying that equal calories = equal calories is somehow wrong.
Both would be wrong.
Just to be sure we are on the same page, we are talking about this paragraph - "It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally."
In which case, yes they are saying equal calories = equal calories. Which is true, and is the foundation of CICO.
Then they start assuming all types of things. But after reading some of 'The CICO Diet' nonsense on the internet the article does make a little more sense.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
No, I think that's clearly in the article. Look at the context:
"A nutritional fad called CICO -- short for "Calories In, Calories Out" -- promises just that for those looking to shed some pounds.
The pitch is straightforward: Eat whatever you want, junk food included, and still shrink your waistline -- as long as every day you expend more calories than you consume.
It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
Perhaps not surprisingly, many nutrition experts disagree."
Do the nutrition experts disagree that you will lose if you eat fewer calories than you burn, regardless of nutrition? No, they do not. As the quotations go on to show, they "disagree" that it does not matter what you eat for NUTRITION purposes. Thus, the article is intentionally saying that CICO says that what you eat does not matter for nutrition -- which is false -- or else why claim that the nutritionists are DISAGREEING with the claims of this "fad diet" CICO (which is another false statement or at least very stupid misunderstanding). The assertion is that those doing CICO are saying that nothing matters but calories, period, for anything, and that's why the nutritionists are (allegedly) so very concerned.
If the article had been written in a truthful manner and said "many nutritionists think that although calories determine weight loss, it is of course important to eat a nutritious diet," no one would have disagreed. Because of course virtually every regular poster who says "CICO is what matters for weight loss" -- including you, from what I recall of other threads -- also says that "of course food choice matters for satiety and nutrition."
yup
the article deliberately conflated several issues
energy balance
nutrition
human behaviour6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
I actually think they are talking calories here, and they are correct. For CICO the source of the calories does not matter. If CI < CO then weight loss occurs. That's the premise of CICO. You see it on MFP all the time. "It doesn't matter what you eat, if you are in a deficit you'll lose weight" "There is no difference in the sugar in an apple or sugar in candy" "Every heard of the Twinkie diet?"
Either they are not talking about calories, or they're implying that equal calories = equal calories is somehow wrong.
Both would be wrong.
Just to be sure we are on the same page, we are talking about this paragraph - "It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally."
In which case, yes they are saying equal calories = equal calories. Which is true, and is the foundation of CICO.
Then they start assuming all types of things. But after reading some of 'The CICO Diet' nonsense on the internet the article does make a little more sense.
Yeah that thing. Which they go on to say that "experts disagree" and the whole piece is written in a "aren't those people silly? It can't possibly be that easy" fashion, from the very beginning.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CICO is not a way of eating? Not sure I agree with that. Yes, it's about energy balance but it's about balancing calories consumed (aka eating) with calories expended. Eating at a deficit is a way of eating.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. CICO is a statement of how weight loss works. One may choose to eat in a way that creates a calorie deficit (or maintenance), but the ways to do that are basically infinite, and how much one thinks specifically about calories (and what else one thinks about) will vary a lot.
The article suggests that CICO is a way of eating that ignores nutrition, and that is certainly not true. I would say that I accept CICO as a truth, and so when I decided to lose I chose to eat in a way that would reduce calories (as I was not then losing -- basically eat less, more move). I added movement (part of CICO, not a way of eating) and reduced what I was eating by lowering calories (by looking at where I was wasting calories).
The people in the article are giving all these warnings about CICO that has nothing to do with how I was eating (I was concerned with nutrition, didn't go super low cal, etc.), so clearly they think it's a way of eating that has certain problem qualities. Just trying to eat less than you burn (whether by focusing on more filling foods or counting or moving more) does not have any specific qualities and, again, I think it's way to diverse and vague to consider a specific way of eating.Also, I think this statement (below) is true, though it makes it sound as if people believe them equal in terms of nutrition when nutrition is not the subject.It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally.
But that's exactly why it's not true (misleading). For calorie purposes, yes, the fruit and veg calories count, but that does not mean -- as the person suggests -- that anyone considers them nutritionally the same or that a "CICO approach" would consider them interchangeable. Even if we are talking about counting calories (which is only a subset of CICO approaches), they wouldn't be interchangeable, since nothing about CICO says that nutrition does not ALSO matter or that how filling foods are does not matter.
The overall impression given by the article -- purposefully, I believe -- is that CICO is not simply a truth, but a way of dieting that involves eating lots of junk food, ignoring nutrition, and going for super fast weight loss (and, oddly, not eating pasta and olive oil and cutting food groups and being restrictive). Makes no sense.
re: the bold section - the article is about CICO and therefore about calories. It does not say that the foods are viewed the same nutritionally. You are interpreting that from it.
I actually think they are talking calories here, and they are correct. For CICO the source of the calories does not matter. If CI < CO then weight loss occurs. That's the premise of CICO. You see it on MFP all the time. "It doesn't matter what you eat, if you are in a deficit you'll lose weight" "There is no difference in the sugar in an apple or sugar in candy" "Every heard of the Twinkie diet?"
Either they are not talking about calories, or they're implying that equal calories = equal calories is somehow wrong.
Both would be wrong.
Just to be sure we are on the same page, we are talking about this paragraph - "It's a simplified approach to eating that essentially views fruits and vegetables through the same prism as candies and soda. All that matters is the total caloric tally."
In which case, yes they are saying equal calories = equal calories. Which is true, and is the foundation of CICO.
Then they start assuming all types of things. But after reading some of 'The CICO Diet' nonsense on the internet the article does make a little more sense.
Yeah that thing. Which they go on to say that "experts disagree" and the whole piece is written in a "aren't those people silly? It can't possibly be that easy" fashion, from the very beginning.
Yeah, I wasn't really sure what exactly they were disagreeing with. And maybe they are playing loose and free with the term "expert".2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions