Ketogenic diet
Replies
-
@karl317 thanks for sharing the changes in your Way Of Eating and the first two years of positive results.
I do wish I had known what I know and practice today 40 years ago but over the past four years all of my health markers are moving in the right direction and I am Rx free.
Best to your awesome changes working so well for you.11 -
The only thing I disagree with is this idea of "straight CICO". What is that? CICO just is... regardless of the diet you choose.
That said, congrats on your success...
Thank you, very much.
To clarify - "Straight CICO" to me means simply counting calories on both sides of the equation - intake and output - regardless of nutrition source (fat/protein/carbohydrates).
So, if MFP tells me I have a 2500 calorie "budget" consisting of 2000 calories food and 500 calories from exercise, I can eat 2500 calories a day. This methodology "works" for me in a sense that if I follow it to the letter, I will remain roughly the same weight if I match calories in to calories out (and gain when I go over significantly, and lose when I go under significantly). But that's not what makes CICO a failure for me.
The reason I call CICO a dismal failure is that I am miserable and hungry throughout, and eventually just say "F it" and fail spectacularly when I give into it. I am certain I am not alone in this, and as Jason Fungs, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholzes of the world love to point out, they pin this giving-in-to-hunger as a moral failure on my part.
I am no stranger to weight loss. I have done this countless times in the past. I am a pro! I have gained and lost nearly 1,000lb in my lifetime with yo-yo dieting the "CICO" way, thinking it was THE ONLY WAY. But I concede, when CICO is followed to the letter, it absolutely works for me in the weight loss/weight gain sense.
But that's the problem - the level of hunger I constantly feel eating that way. If there's one thing the "eating" portion of my lifestyle must not do should I desire to stay thin, it must not let me feel hungry all the time. That is where "straight CICO" (as I define it) fails me. I'm sure there are many physiological reasons that this happens, some having to do with funny words like "Ghrelin" and "Leptin" or what not - and who knows, maybe eating the "keto" way isn't only way to flip those switches. But this keto business is what apparently does the job for me, and I feel fortunate to have it in my life.
Yes, you are absolutely right that CICO "just is" from a math point of view. But the physiological, mental or whatever level of hunger I feel when eating that way is not what I would consider mathematical. Thankfully eating lots of fat and little to no carbs is the ticket to my success thus far, and like I said before I don't care if it's 100% mental, physiological or pure delusion. This is working, and I see no reason to stop doing it.
Sorry for the Wall o' Text. But when you finally think you've solved one of the great mysteries in your life, you tend to ramble on about it
13 -
The only thing I disagree with is this idea of "straight CICO". What is that? CICO just is... regardless of the diet you choose.
That said, congrats on your success...
Thank you, very much.
To clarify - "Straight CICO" to me means simply counting calories on both sides of the equation - intake and output - regardless of nutrition source (fat/protein/carbohydrates).
So, if MFP tells me I have a 2500 calorie "budget" consisting of 2000 calories food and 500 calories from exercise, I can eat 2500 calories a day. This methodology "works" for me in a sense that if I follow it to the letter, I will remain roughly the same weight if I match calories in to calories out (and gain when I go over significantly, and lose when I go under significantly). But that's not what makes CICO a failure for me.
The reason I call CICO a dismal failure is that I am miserable and hungry throughout, and eventually just say "F it" and fail spectacularly when I give into it. I am certain I am not alone in this, and as Jason Fungs, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholzes of the world love to point it, they pin this giving-in-to-hunger as a moral failure on my part.
I am no stranger to weight loss. I have done this countless times in the past. I am a pro! I have gained and lost nearly 1,000lb in my lifetime with yo-yo dieting the "CICO" way, thinking it was THE ONLY WAY. But I concede, when CICO is followed to the letter, it absolutely works for me in the weight loss/weight gain sense.
But that's the problem - the level of hunger I constantly feel eating that way. If there's one thing the "eating" portion of my lifestyle must not do should I desire to stay thin, it must not let me feel hungry all the time. That is where "straight CICO" (as I define it) fails me. I'm sure there are many physiological reasons that this happens, some having to do with funny words like "Ghrelin" and "Leptin" or what not - and who knows, maybe eating the "keto" way isn't only way to flip those switches. But this keto business is what apparently does the job for me, and I feel fortunate to have it in my life.
Yes, you are absolutely right that CICO "just is" from a math point of view. But the physiological, mental or whatever level of hunger I feel when eating that way is not what I would consider mathematical. Thankfully eating lots of fat and little to no carbs is the ticket to my success thus far, and like I said before I don't care if it's 100% mental, physiological or pure delusion. This is working, and I see no reason to stop doing it.
Sorry for the Wall o' Text. But when you finally think you've solved one of the great mysteries in your life, you tend to ramble on about it
My impression is that most people who are successful managing their weight counting calories use some sort of strategy to ensure satiety. Very few people seem to be doing "straight CICO" in the sense that you seem to describing. For example, I know from experience that I am satisfied by a diet that is higher in fiber, moderate in fat, and high in volume so most of my meals are planned to meet these goals (I may have some that don't, but I understand I may feel more hunger on these days). This doesn't mean that CICO doesn't work for me. It means I've found a way to make it work for me using my understanding of how I can most comfortably meet my calorie goal consistently.
This doesn't mean that CICO is a failure. It means that successful dieters pay attention to what works for them (whether it's meal timing, macro splits, volume, etc). There may be some people here who literally eat whatever with no attention to macros, timing, volume, nutrients like fiber, etc, but I don't think I've seen any posts from them.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I realize not everyone has the advantage of coming from a family where you're exposed to a variety of foods and learn about balancing meals to meet nutritional needs, but at what point do we take responsibility for our own decision to eat cookies?
You're not wrong - you're absolutely not wrong. But the problem of obesity is one that draws many parallels to other addictions.
I feel It's a gross oversimplification to say "you need to take personal responsibility for how many cookies you eat". Again, you *aren't wrong* - but that doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem. It doesn't all boil down to a test of will for everyone. For some, maybe. Not for all. Ask any teenager who has zero problems with eating an entire sleeve of oreos.12 -
The only thing I disagree with is this idea of "straight CICO". What is that? CICO just is... regardless of the diet you choose.
That said, congrats on your success...
Thank you, very much.
To clarify - "Straight CICO" to me means simply counting calories on both sides of the equation - intake and output - regardless of nutrition source (fat/protein/carbohydrates).
So, if MFP tells me I have a 2500 calorie "budget" consisting of 2000 calories food and 500 calories from exercise, I can eat 2500 calories a day. This methodology "works" for me in a sense that if I follow it to the letter, I will remain roughly the same weight if I match calories in to calories out (and gain when I go over significantly, and lose when I go under significantly). But that's not what makes CICO a failure for me.
The reason I call CICO a dismal failure is that I am miserable and hungry throughout, and eventually just say "F it" and fail spectacularly when I give into it. I am certain I am not alone in this, and as Jason Fungs, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholzes of the world love to point it, they pin this giving-in-to-hunger as a moral failure on my part.
I am no stranger to weight loss. I have done this countless times in the past. I am a pro! I have gained and lost nearly 1,000lb in my lifetime with yo-yo dieting the "CICO" way, thinking it was THE ONLY WAY. But I concede, when CICO is followed to the letter, it absolutely works for me in the weight loss/weight gain sense.
But that's the problem - the level of hunger I constantly feel eating that way. If there's one thing the "eating" portion of my lifestyle must not do should I desire to stay thin, it must not let me feel hungry all the time. That is where "straight CICO" (as I define it) fails me. I'm sure there are many physiological reasons that this happens, some having to do with funny words like "Ghrelin" and "Leptin" or what not - and who knows, maybe eating the "keto" way isn't only way to flip those switches. But this keto business is what apparently does the job for me, and I feel fortunate to have it in my life.
Yes, you are absolutely right that CICO "just is" from a math point of view. But the physiological, mental or whatever level of hunger I feel when eating that way is not what I would consider mathematical. Thankfully eating lots of fat and little to no carbs is the ticket to my success thus far, and like I said before I don't care if it's 100% mental, physiological or pure delusion. This is working, and I see no reason to stop doing it.
Sorry for the Wall o' Text. But when you finally think you've solved one of the great mysteries in your life, you tend to ramble on about it
the thing is CICO applies to all ways of eating whether its keto,paleo,atkins,etc if you felt hungry its because carbs didnt satiate you when you ate more carbs. for you keto works because the fat satiates you. it does for some and not for others. CICO is an energy balance and keto does not defy that energy balance. even if you were to overeat in keto you would still gain weight.. as for taubes and fung both have been debunked and are quacks when it comes to their "studies" taubes doesnt even have a degree or background in nutrition/diet. no medical degree at all.
If you yo yo dieted its probably because you werent satiated on what you were eating so you would give in as you say,eat more, then gain then try losing again and yo yo. so if you are losing weight doing keto,or even maintaining its still CICO. CICO is not really counting calories. your body does that anyway whether you do it or =not. if you are losing you are in a deficit,gaining=surplus and maintaining =maintenance or an even energy balance
I eat higher amounts of carbs/protein because fat doesnt satiate me and I cant do high fat diets due to a health issue.I even lost weight more than 10 years ago without even trying, I wasnt dieting,wasnt counting,nothing like that was even a thought, I wasnt trying to lose weight. I broke my leg and needed surgery and was making less trips to the kitchen therefore that means less calories in. so it was still CICO at play even though I had no idea about it back then. I didnt even know back then you had to eat less than you burned to lose weight. I was told as a kid in the 70s and 80s that if your parents were thin you would be thin, or vice versa that weight had to do with genetics. it doesnt, as both my parents were healthy weights and all of my sisters and myself are overweight.we all got that way eating more and moving less.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I realize not everyone has the advantage of coming from a family where you're exposed to a variety of foods and learn about balancing meals to meet nutritional needs, but at what point do we take responsibility for our own decision to eat cookies?
You're not wrong - you're absolutely not wrong. But the problem of obesity is one that draws many parallels to other addictions.
I feel It's a gross oversimplification to say "you need to take personal responsibility for how many cookies you eat". Again, you *aren't wrong* - but that doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem. It doesn't all boil down to a test of will for everyone. For some, maybe. Not for all. Ask any teenager who has zero problems with eating an entire sleeve of oreos.
I can see why you think that's an oversimplification, but I think "I ate cookies because I believed the food industry when they told me cookies were a health food" is also an oversimplification.
There are people who struggle with compulsive eating and that's a whole other worthy conversation. And there are people who are woefully undereducated on nutrition. But generally when people are eating a lot of cookies, they're not doing it under the impression that it's somehow a healthful or balanced meal.
My impression is that even when low fat cookies were big, they were marketed and positioned as an alternative to higher fat cookies, not a food to replace things like meat, vegetables, grains, and beans. As it turns out, lower fat cookies may not be more healthful than higher fat cookies. But in either case, someone who is eating enough of *either kind of cookie* is going to struggle to maintain their weight.8 -
The only thing I disagree with is this idea of "straight CICO". What is that? CICO just is... regardless of the diet you choose.
That said, congrats on your success...
Thank you, very much.
To clarify - "Straight CICO" to me means simply counting calories on both sides of the equation - intake and output - regardless of nutrition source (fat/protein/carbohydrates).
So, if MFP tells me I have a 2500 calorie "budget" consisting of 2000 calories food and 500 calories from exercise, I can eat 2500 calories a day. This methodology "works" for me in a sense that if I follow it to the letter, I will remain roughly the same weight if I match calories in to calories out (and gain when I go over significantly, and lose when I go under significantly). But that's not what makes CICO a failure for me.
The reason I call CICO a dismal failure is that I am miserable and hungry throughout, and eventually just say "F it" and fail spectacularly when I give into it. I am certain I am not alone in this, and as Jason Fungs, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholzes of the world love to point out, they pin this giving-in-to-hunger as a moral failure on my part.
I am no stranger to weight loss. I have done this countless times in the past. I am a pro! I have gained and lost nearly 1,000lb in my lifetime with yo-yo dieting the "CICO" way, thinking it was THE ONLY WAY. But I concede, when CICO is followed to the letter, it absolutely works for me in the weight loss/weight gain sense.
But that's the problem - the level of hunger I constantly feel eating that way. If there's one thing the "eating" portion of my lifestyle must not do should I desire to stay thin, it must not let me feel hungry all the time. That is where "straight CICO" (as I define it) fails me. I'm sure there are many physiological reasons that this happens, some having to do with funny words like "Ghrelin" and "Leptin" or what not - and who knows, maybe eating the "keto" way isn't only way to flip those switches. But this keto business is what apparently does the job for me, and I feel fortunate to have it in my life.
Yes, you are absolutely right that CICO "just is" from a math point of view. But the physiological, mental or whatever level of hunger I feel when eating that way is not what I would consider mathematical. Thankfully eating lots of fat and little to no carbs is the ticket to my success thus far, and like I said before I don't care if it's 100% mental, physiological or pure delusion. This is working, and I see no reason to stop doing it.
Sorry for the Wall o' Text. But when you finally think you've solved one of the great mysteries in your life, you tend to ramble on about it
That's a common error to confuse CICO with calorie counting.
I do agree it can be over-simplified. CICO tells you that you are or aren't losing weight, but it does not necessarily tell you why. The underlying reasons for overeating are way more complex. Boredom, comfort, stress, triggers.
It sounds like your diet and your preferences are in alignment and that's all that really matters...7 -
The only thing I disagree with is this idea of "straight CICO". What is that? CICO just is... regardless of the diet you choose.
That said, congrats on your success...
Thank you, very much.
To clarify - "Straight CICO" to me means simply counting calories on both sides of the equation - intake and output - regardless of nutrition source (fat/protein/carbohydrates).
So, if MFP tells me I have a 2500 calorie "budget" consisting of 2000 calories food and 500 calories from exercise, I can eat 2500 calories a day. This methodology "works" for me in a sense that if I follow it to the letter, I will remain roughly the same weight if I match calories in to calories out (and gain when I go over significantly, and lose when I go under significantly). But that's not what makes CICO a failure for me.
The reason I call CICO a dismal failure is that I am miserable and hungry throughout, and eventually just say "F it" and fail spectacularly when I give into it. I am certain I am not alone in this, and as Jason Fungs, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholzes of the world love to point out, they pin this giving-in-to-hunger as a moral failure on my part.
I am no stranger to weight loss. I have done this countless times in the past. I am a pro! I have gained and lost nearly 1,000lb in my lifetime with yo-yo dieting the "CICO" way, thinking it was THE ONLY WAY. But I concede, when CICO is followed to the letter, it absolutely works for me in the weight loss/weight gain sense.
But that's the problem - the level of hunger I constantly feel eating that way. If there's one thing the "eating" portion of my lifestyle must not do should I desire to stay thin, it must not let me feel hungry all the time. That is where "straight CICO" (as I define it) fails me. I'm sure there are many physiological reasons that this happens, some having to do with funny words like "Ghrelin" and "Leptin" or what not - and who knows, maybe eating the "keto" way isn't only way to flip those switches. But this keto business is what apparently does the job for me, and I feel fortunate to have it in my life.
Yes, you are absolutely right that CICO "just is" from a math point of view. But the physiological, mental or whatever level of hunger I feel when eating that way is not what I would consider mathematical. Thankfully eating lots of fat and little to no carbs is the ticket to my success thus far, and like I said before I don't care if it's 100% mental, physiological or pure delusion. This is working, and I see no reason to stop doing it.
Sorry for the Wall o' Text. But when you finally think you've solved one of the great mysteries in your life, you tend to ramble on about it
But in following a ketogenic diet to lose and then maintain a healthy weight - you are still doing CICO. In fact, CICO is a great success for you. CICO is simply an energy balance, a math equation, and you describe it correctly in your 2500 calorie example. You tried dieting for years and failed, because you didn't experiment with what foods satiate you within that 2,500 calorie budget. Then someone else came along and told you to try keto - and that way of eating satiates you and enables you to implement the calorie deficit to lose weight and eat at your maintenance calories now. That doesn't mean CICO failed you. It means you failed to correctly implement CICO.
I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever. Congrats on your current level of success - it's still CICO that drove your weight loss. Keto is just the magical formula that someone else told you to eat that enabled you to adhere to the calorie deficit.12 -
I think this idea of someone who counts calories carefully and pays no attention to the fact that he or she is really hungry and having to white knuckle it is mostly a straw man and in a few occasions maybe an issue for people with really limited taste preferences or no common sense.
I can't imagine the average, sensible person cutting calories and not making sure to eat food that is filling (and for me that has always meant a diet that meets nutritional needs too). Maybe that's why I was never hungry when cutting calories -- focusing on nutrient dense and filling foods seemed obvious.
I've also never had a Snackwell and don't recall them being other than a joke (ha, ha, people think mediocre cookies won't make them fat because low fat, despite the calories--it's the same mentality that leads to "only carbs make you fat today").9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think this idea of someone who counts calories carefully and pays no attention to the fact that he or she is really hungry and having to white knuckle it is mostly a straw man and in a few occasions maybe an issue for people with really limited taste preferences or no common sense.
I can't imagine the average, sensible person cutting calories and not making sure to eat food that is filling (and for me that has always meant a diet that meets nutritional needs too). Maybe that's why I was never hungry when cutting calories -- focusing on nutrient dense and filling foods seemed obvious.
I've also never had a Snackwell and don't recall them being other than a joke (ha, ha, people think mediocre cookies won't make them fat because low fat, despite the calories--it's the same mentality that leads to "only carbs make you fat today").
Being constantly hungry is uncomfortable. Even new dieters know that, evidenced by all the threads and questions being asked about filling foods. What people find filling and sustainable falls on a very wide spectrum, the difference is that some take longer to figure out an eating strategy that works for them. This may as well be keto for some, but not because keto is special. All of these strategies are CICO, it's interesting how it's usually used to mean "just counting calories and haven't found my groove yet".4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think this idea of someone who counts calories carefully and pays no attention to the fact that he or she is really hungry and having to white knuckle it is mostly a straw man and in a few occasions maybe an issue for people with really limited taste preferences or no common sense.
I can't imagine the average, sensible person cutting calories and not making sure to eat food that is filling (and for me that has always meant a diet that meets nutritional needs too). Maybe that's why I was never hungry when cutting calories -- focusing on nutrient dense and filling foods seemed obvious.
I've also never had a Snackwell and don't recall them being other than a joke (ha, ha, people think mediocre cookies won't make them fat because low fat, despite the calories--it's the same mentality that leads to "only carbs make you fat today").
Being constantly hungry is uncomfortable. Even new dieters know that, evidenced by all the threads and questions being asked about filling foods. What people find filling and sustainable falls on a very wide spectrum, the difference is that some take longer to figure out an eating strategy that works for them. This may as well be keto for some, but not because keto is special. All of these strategies are CICO, it's interesting how it's usually used to mean "just counting calories and haven't found my groove yet".
ITA. So many people say "Just CICO didn't work for me". Well nobody (or hardly anyone at least) does "just CICO". Everyone at least tweaks, if not eventually makes measurable changes, to their diet to perfect satiety and adherence. I started out just logging, but was having a tough time sticking to my calorie goal. So I started playing with my macro %s until I found my sweet spot - an increase in fiber and protein from my previous WOE. There might not be a super-cool name for the diet I'm eating now, but it's my new WOE. CICO is why I'm losing, the foods I choose and the activity level I strive for is how I'm balancing CICO. Just like Keto, if I found fats satiating.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My impression is that most people who are successful managing their weight counting calories use some sort of strategy to ensure satiety. Very few people seem to be doing "straight CICO" in the sense that you seem to describing.
Maybe... my experience is different. In my experience, people who are successful in managing their weight USUALLY never had a weight problem to begin with. My wife is one of those people. She's been roughly 120lb her entire adult life, and she's my age now. She has NEVER struggled with her weight, and she NEVER has an issue with things like portion control, satiety, what have you.
She only partially understands my struggle through being with me for 25+ years. And even then, she tells me to this day that there are facets of my problem that she will simply never understand.
This community often loves to demonize people like Lustig, Taubes and Teicholz and whoever else is in the "Keto Cabal" these days - and that's fine. They're entitled. But I read the bodies of work they produced, and followed many of their principles. And sure enough, they worked out well for me. I lost my weight, and thus far I've kept it off without any undue hunger issues.
Quacks or not, they had ME figured out, obviously.
I'm not saying CICO is a failure - just that CICO alone failed *me* in its dry, mathematical way or at least in the admittedly ambiguous way I applied it. I may still be doing "CICO" in some fashion, right? I mean, I must clearly be consuming fewer calories than I am expending, or I'd be regaining my weight, right?
Even if that is the case (which is fine!), I am now able to do whatever it is I'm doing without feeling hungry. That's the big win for me. I can eat a nominal amount of food that, when consumed, satiates me to the degree where I don't overeat. And for that, I owe people like Taubes, Teicholz, Fung, Lustig, Westman, and the other "Keto Cabal" members a great deal of gratitude. Their bodies of work resonated with me and gave me a path to where I am now.
Let's just hope I don't drop dead tomorrow
Call Keto whatever you like. Do it. Or don't do it. Listen to what the "Keto Cabal" has to say. Or don't. But this Keto business works for me, and I'm going to keep on doing it.15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My impression is that most people who are successful managing their weight counting calories use some sort of strategy to ensure satiety. Very few people seem to be doing "straight CICO" in the sense that you seem to describing.
Maybe... my experience is different. In my experience, people who are successful in managing their weight USUALLY never had a weight problem to begin with. My wife is one of those people. She's been roughly 120lb her entire adult life, and she's my age now. She has NEVER struggled with her weight, and she NEVER has an issue with things like portion control, satiety, what have you.
She only partially understands my struggle through being with me for 25+ years. And even then, she tells me to this day that there are facets of my problem that she will simply never understand.
This community often loves to demonize people like Lustig, Taubes and Teicholz and whoever else is in the "Keto Cabal" these days - and that's fine. They're entitled. But I read the bodies of work they produced, and followed many of their principles. And sure enough, they worked out well for me. I lost my weight, and thus far I've kept it off without any undue hunger issues.
Quacks or not, they had ME figured out, obviously.
I'm not saying CICO is a failure - just that CICO alone failed *me* in its dry, mathematical way or at least in the admittedly ambiguous way I applied it. I may still be doing "CICO" in some fashion, right? I mean, I must clearly be consuming fewer calories than I am expending, or I'd be regaining my weight, right?
Even if that is the case (which is fine!), I am now able to do whatever it is I'm doing without feeling hungry. That's the big win for me. I can eat a nominal amount of food that, when consumed, satiates me to the degree where I don't overeat. And for that, I owe people like Taubes, Teicholz, Fung, Lustig, Westman, and the other "Keto Cabal" members a great deal of gratitude. Their bodies of work resonated with me and gave me a path to where I am now.
Let's just hope I don't drop dead tomorrow
Call Keto whatever you like. Do it. Or don't do it. Listen to what the "Keto Cabal" has to say. Or don't. But this Keto business works for me, and I'm going to keep on doing it.
You're completely entitled to follow Taubes & co. and eat keto since it's obviously working for you. There's no debate that you've improved your overall health with it.
The problem with Fung, Lustig, Taubes, etc. is that they misinterpret/manipulate data to fit their narrative, and it's apparent in your responses that you've followed their line of thinking that CICO is a concept completely separate as a way of eating vs the actual metabolic process that occurs within the body that has been abbreviated as CICO just to bypass the concept of energy balance, which includes food calories, hormonal response, thermogenic factors, etc. It's not that you "might still be doing CICO," you are by definition of stored fat loss.
I belong to a lot of keto and low carb groups, and many knowledgeable people within the keto community itself will completely dismiss misinterpretation, regardless of where it comes from, which notably comes from people like Fung etc. Iin that regard, it's actually hard to disagree with "CICO" figureheads like Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld. Fun fact: Lyle McDonald literally wrote and published the ketogenic diet book for dieters and practitioners back in 1998. It's completely clinical in its approach, but if you really want knowledge in its application based on science, read that instead of an anti-carb narrative pushed by Taubes, or anti-eating like Fung.14 -
The problem with citing people like Lustig, Taubes, and Teicholz and saying they gave you "answers" is that they are imparting bad science with the "answers" they gave you.
A lot of what you're talking about amounts to the fact that the macro mix inherent to keto is what satiates you.
That's cool. You're not going to find anyone here who has a problem with that.
What we have a problem with is the insulin theory of obesity that those particular people you mentioned happen to espouse, and there are a bunch of other things they claim that are dubious as well.
As other posters have mentioned, every dieter who has experience is going to find a macro balance that works for them best in terms of satiety and compliance. The thing that's apparent from reading these forums is that this is something that varies greatly from individual to individual, and that even for a certain individual, might vary depending on things like activity levels (I know this is true for me, for example).
Congratulations on the success you've had so far @karl317.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My impression is that most people who are successful managing their weight counting calories use some sort of strategy to ensure satiety. Very few people seem to be doing "straight CICO" in the sense that you seem to describing.
Maybe... my experience is different. In my experience, people who are successful in managing their weight USUALLY never had a weight problem to begin with. My wife is one of those people. She's been roughly 120lb her entire adult life, and she's my age now. She has NEVER struggled with her weight, and she NEVER has an issue with things like portion control, satiety, what have you.
She only partially understands my struggle through being with me for 25+ years. And even then, she tells me to this day that there are facets of my problem that she will simply never understand.
This community often loves to demonize people like Lustig, Taubes and Teicholz and whoever else is in the "Keto Cabal" these days - and that's fine. They're entitled. But I read the bodies of work they produced, and followed many of their principles. And sure enough, they worked out well for me. I lost my weight, and thus far I've kept it off without any undue hunger issues.
Quacks or not, they had ME figured out, obviously.
I'm not saying CICO is a failure - just that CICO alone failed *me* in its dry, mathematical way or at least in the admittedly ambiguous way I applied it. I may still be doing "CICO" in some fashion, right? I mean, I must clearly be consuming fewer calories than I am expending, or I'd be regaining my weight, right?
Even if that is the case (which is fine!), I am now able to do whatever it is I'm doing without feeling hungry. That's the big win for me. I can eat a nominal amount of food that, when consumed, satiates me to the degree where I don't overeat. And for that, I owe people like Taubes, Teicholz, Fung, Lustig, Westman, and the other "Keto Cabal" members a great deal of gratitude. Their bodies of work resonated with me and gave me a path to where I am now.
Let's just hope I don't drop dead tomorrow
Call Keto whatever you like. Do it. Or don't do it. Listen to what the "Keto Cabal" has to say. Or don't. But this Keto business works for me, and I'm going to keep on doing it.
What didn't work for you was counting calories (CICO and calorie counting are NOT the same thing) without playing around with your diet to find the right macro balance for you personally. Honestly, that doesn't work for most people. When we reduce our calories, we often find part of the problem is that the food we were eating wasn't very filling. As I said in my other post, I started studying my food log and playing around with my macros. I discovered a combo of fiber and protein fills me up. You adopted Keto because I assume fat fills you up. No one here has an issue with that, it's the whole "carbs are bad, insulin is bad, calories don't matter" thing that gets disputed.
Calorie counting is logging your food and hitting a calorie goal. It doesn't work for everyone. That doesn't mean calories don't matter, just that focusing on calories isn't the best way for certain personalities or lifestyles. Some people do much better eating a specific way (like keto) or following certain rules that get them into a calorie deficit without them actually having to focus on the calories themselves.
CICO is the concept of calorie in/calories out balance. It is rooted in the scientific idea that you can't create matter out of nothing (gain weight while in a calorie deficit) and energy doesn't just disappear (lose weight while in a calorie surplus). It's there whether you think about it or not.
If keto works for you, keep doing it! You get to be a healthy weight, and more potatoes for me
10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. Their platforms being echo chambers on fb and twitter, blocking anyone that adamantly disagrees with them with evidence. They've confounded the concept of CICO the same way IIFYM was confounded when it was first introduced. And through the distillation of their original intentions, now CICO = IIFYM = "eating everything under the sun."7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. They (and their True Believers) often engage in the classic binary argument pattern in an attempt to strengthen their points. Either you're eating keto, or you're sitting on the couch shoveling mountains of sugar down your pie hole all day, every day. No possible way that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which takes balanced nutrition into consideration.
A month or so ago, Fung (or one of his lackeys) sic'ed his sycophants on either Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld (can't remember which) when they posted a link to a study on Facebook which wasn't favorable of Fung and his woo. The venom and vulgar personal attacks they spewed were absolutely vicious and way over the top. Unbelievably filthy and repulsive. You'd think that each of them had been personally attacked and were retaliating for it, rather than a link to a scientific study being posted. I've seen religious wars that were less fervent. It was absolutely disgusting.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. They (and their True Believers) often engage in the classic binary argument pattern in an attempt to strengthen their points. Either you're eating keto, or you're sitting on the couch shoveling mountains of sugar down your pie hole all day, every day. No possible way that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which takes balanced nutrition into consideration.
A month or so ago, Fung (or one of his lackeys) sic'ed his sycophants on either Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld (can't remember which) when they posted a link to a study on Facebook which wasn't favorable of Fung and his woo. The venom and vulgar personal attacks they spewed were absolutely vicious and way over the top. Unbelievably filthy and repulsive. You'd think that each of them had been personally attacked and were retaliating for it, rather than a link to a scientific study being posted. I've seen religious wars that were less fervent. It was absolutely disgusting.
I've seen Fung throw middle aged temper tantrums via responses on fb and twitter, even in the midst of his fat shaming tweet. It separated keto into separate camps: "true keto/LCHF ketone chasers" that follow Jimmy Moore, Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, etc. and the adorably coined "CICOpath meatheads" that follow evidence based research in dietary strategies for body composition and adherence. I've been banned by the former for touting thermodynamics, the importance of protein, and denouncing the magic of ketones for fat loss and improvement of health markers.
Funny enough, the ketone chasers' favorite phrase was "show me the evidence" where anecdote seemingly trumped RCTs and meta-analyses. Go figure.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. They (and their True Believers) often engage in the classic binary argument pattern in an attempt to strengthen their points. Either you're eating keto, or you're sitting on the couch shoveling mountains of sugar down your pie hole all day, every day. No possible way that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which takes balanced nutrition into consideration.
A month or so ago, Fung (or one of his lackeys) sic'ed his sycophants on either Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld (can't remember which) when they posted a link to a study on Facebook which wasn't favorable of Fung and his woo. The venom and vulgar personal attacks they spewed were absolutely vicious and way over the top. Unbelievably filthy and repulsive. You'd think that each of them had been personally attacked and were retaliating for it, rather than a link to a scientific study being posted. I've seen religious wars that were less fervent. It was absolutely disgusting.
I've seen Fung throw middle aged temper tantrums via responses on fb and twitter, even in the midst of his fat shaming tweet. It separated keto into separate camps: "true keto/LCHF ketone chasers" that follow Jimmy Moore, Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, etc. and the adorably coined "CICOpath meatheads" that follow evidence based research in dietary strategies for body composition and adherence. I've been banned by the former for touting thermodynamics, the importance of protein, and denouncing the magic of ketones for fat loss and improvement of health markers.
Funny enough, the ketone chasers' favorite phrase was "show me the evidence" where anecdote seemingly trumped RCTs and meta-analyses. Go figure.
Apparently they haven't yet figured out that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
...or maybe it's because anecdote is all they have to 'prove' their points, since actual science pretty soundly disagrees.
[ETA:] Here's a good evidence-based retort to one of Fung's hissy fits and junk science: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. They (and their True Believers) often engage in the classic binary argument pattern in an attempt to strengthen their points. Either you're eating keto, or you're sitting on the couch shoveling mountains of sugar down your pie hole all day, every day. No possible way that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which takes balanced nutrition into consideration.
A month or so ago, Fung (or one of his lackeys) sic'ed his sycophants on either Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld (can't remember which) when they posted a link to a study on Facebook which wasn't favorable of Fung and his woo. The venom and vulgar personal attacks they spewed were absolutely vicious and way over the top. Unbelievably filthy and repulsive. You'd think that each of them had been personally attacked and were retaliating for it, rather than a link to a scientific study being posted. I've seen religious wars that were less fervent. It was absolutely disgusting.
I've seen Fung throw middle aged temper tantrums via responses on fb and twitter, even in the midst of his fat shaming tweet. It separated keto into separate camps: "true keto/LCHF ketone chasers" that follow Jimmy Moore, Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, etc. and the adorably coined "CICOpath meatheads" that follow evidence based research in dietary strategies for body composition and adherence. I've been banned by the former for touting thermodynamics, the importance of protein, and denouncing the magic of ketones for fat loss and improvement of health markers.
Funny enough, the ketone chasers' favorite phrase was "show me the evidence" where anecdote seemingly trumped RCTs and meta-analyses. Go figure.
Apparently they haven't yet figured out that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
...or maybe it's because anecdote is all they have to 'prove' their points, since actual science pretty soundly disagrees.
[ETA:] Here's a good evidence-based retort to one of Fung's hissy fits and junk science: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
The thing is, and I'm hearing this more and more lately, "thousands of anecdotes become data" and you bet they've equated anecdote to be singular points of data.
The only appropriate response I could give was, "bruuuh.. lol."
7 -
If it is repeated often enough, it becomes true.3
-
Eating in a way that resolves over eating is the key to not regaining on any WOE. Counting calories is good at kicking the can down the road where it is LCHF, HCLF, etc. Until the "WHY" of one's overeating is addressed no long term obesity control is likely to happen.
I still do not grasp while some with no credibility seem to have an emotional need to slam others that are named above who have credibility in black and white.19 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Eating in a way that resolves over eating is the key to not regaining on any WOE. Counting calories is good at kicking the can down the road where it is LCHF, HCLF, etc. Until the "WHY" of one's overeating is addressed no long term obesity control is likely to happen.
I still do not grasp while some with no credibility seem to have an emotional need to slam others that are named above who have credibility in black and white.
The point is dietary adherence is the ultimate driver for long-term fat loss success, if that's what you're trying to get at. There are a multitude of reasons that might play a factor, whether it's psychological or physiological.
The credibility statement is a bit vague, but if you want to know why Fung emotionally reacts to confrontation, that's because he has a vested interest in pushing a business initiative to propose fasting as its own separate entity from caloric restriction. If you're proposing either I or @AnvilHead have an emotional need to slam others, I assure you, there's no emotion involved. We've objectively witnessed the lengths that Fung is willing to go through to assert his stance and are expressing opinions based on our observations.9 -
Another Keto WOE success story perhaps?
https://nypost.com/2018/03/19/heres-how-to-crush-a-race-by-running-on-a-keto-diet/16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Another Keto WOE success story perhaps?
https://nypost.com/2018/03/19/heres-how-to-crush-a-race-by-running-on-a-keto-diet/
You posting thay again..
Ill just repeat, he finished 11,326... So close and well behind all the carb loaders.13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. They (and their True Believers) often engage in the classic binary argument pattern in an attempt to strengthen their points. Either you're eating keto, or you're sitting on the couch shoveling mountains of sugar down your pie hole all day, every day. No possible way that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which takes balanced nutrition into consideration.
A month or so ago, Fung (or one of his lackeys) sic'ed his sycophants on either Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld (can't remember which) when they posted a link to a study on Facebook which wasn't favorable of Fung and his woo. The venom and vulgar personal attacks they spewed were absolutely vicious and way over the top. Unbelievably filthy and repulsive. You'd think that each of them had been personally attacked and were retaliating for it, rather than a link to a scientific study being posted. I've seen religious wars that were less fervent. It was absolutely disgusting.
I've seen Fung throw middle aged temper tantrums via responses on fb and twitter, even in the midst of his fat shaming tweet. It separated keto into separate camps: "true keto/LCHF ketone chasers" that follow Jimmy Moore, Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, etc. and the adorably coined "CICOpath meatheads" that follow evidence based research in dietary strategies for body composition and adherence. I've been banned by the former for touting thermodynamics, the importance of protein, and denouncing the magic of ketones for fat loss and improvement of health markers.
Funny enough, the ketone chasers' favorite phrase was "show me the evidence" where anecdote seemingly trumped RCTs and meta-analyses. Go figure.
Stuff like this just reinforces that taking the advice of a doctor is generally pathetic, unless its a doctor like Dr. Spencer Nadolsky.
I actually feel bad that these diets have so many zealots being the focal leaders representing the diet. Because when there is actual science, it tends to get overlooked. Now someone like Dr. Dom D'Agostino is legit when it comes to ketogenic.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. They (and their True Believers) often engage in the classic binary argument pattern in an attempt to strengthen their points. Either you're eating keto, or you're sitting on the couch shoveling mountains of sugar down your pie hole all day, every day. No possible way that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which takes balanced nutrition into consideration.
A month or so ago, Fung (or one of his lackeys) sic'ed his sycophants on either Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld (can't remember which) when they posted a link to a study on Facebook which wasn't favorable of Fung and his woo. The venom and vulgar personal attacks they spewed were absolutely vicious and way over the top. Unbelievably filthy and repulsive. You'd think that each of them had been personally attacked and were retaliating for it, rather than a link to a scientific study being posted. I've seen religious wars that were less fervent. It was absolutely disgusting.
I've seen Fung throw middle aged temper tantrums via responses on fb and twitter, even in the midst of his fat shaming tweet. It separated keto into separate camps: "true keto/LCHF ketone chasers" that follow Jimmy Moore, Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, etc. and the adorably coined "CICOpath meatheads" that follow evidence based research in dietary strategies for body composition and adherence. I've been banned by the former for touting thermodynamics, the importance of protein, and denouncing the magic of ketones for fat loss and improvement of health markers.
Funny enough, the ketone chasers' favorite phrase was "show me the evidence" where anecdote seemingly trumped RCTs and meta-analyses. Go figure.
Stuff like this just reinforces that taking the advice of a doctor is generally pathetic, unless its a doctor like Dr. Spencer Nadolsky.
I actually feel bad that these diets have so many zealots being the focal leaders representing the diet. Because when there is actual science, it tends to get overlooked. Now someone like Dr. Dom D'Agostino is legit when it comes to ketogenic.
Not so sure. He now has his own site (ketonutrition.org) pimping woo "supplements" such as exogenous ketones, and selling his book about how keto cures cancer. Dom may have jumped the shark, like Fung and others who prostitute their reputations for money.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »...I'm not really sure why CICO gets blamed for people's yo yo dieting experience, and keto gets all the credit for the success - but whatever...
Because of tinfoil hat pseudoscientist crackpots like Taubes, Fung and Lustig, that's why. They willfully subvert/ignore science (and prey upon those not analytical enough to see through their woo) in the name of the almighty dollar.
Don't they pretty much trash talk it on their platforms and basically misrepresent what it is? I'm convinced they're single-handedly responsible for the idea that CICO=eating Twinkies and donuts all day.
Yes. They (and their True Believers) often engage in the classic binary argument pattern in an attempt to strengthen their points. Either you're eating keto, or you're sitting on the couch shoveling mountains of sugar down your pie hole all day, every day. No possible way that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which takes balanced nutrition into consideration.
A month or so ago, Fung (or one of his lackeys) sic'ed his sycophants on either Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld (can't remember which) when they posted a link to a study on Facebook which wasn't favorable of Fung and his woo. The venom and vulgar personal attacks they spewed were absolutely vicious and way over the top. Unbelievably filthy and repulsive. You'd think that each of them had been personally attacked and were retaliating for it, rather than a link to a scientific study being posted. I've seen religious wars that were less fervent. It was absolutely disgusting.
I've seen Fung throw middle aged temper tantrums via responses on fb and twitter, even in the midst of his fat shaming tweet. It separated keto into separate camps: "true keto/LCHF ketone chasers" that follow Jimmy Moore, Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, etc. and the adorably coined "CICOpath meatheads" that follow evidence based research in dietary strategies for body composition and adherence. I've been banned by the former for touting thermodynamics, the importance of protein, and denouncing the magic of ketones for fat loss and improvement of health markers.
Funny enough, the ketone chasers' favorite phrase was "show me the evidence" where anecdote seemingly trumped RCTs and meta-analyses. Go figure.
Stuff like this just reinforces that taking the advice of a doctor is generally pathetic, unless its a doctor like Dr. Spencer Nadolsky.
I actually feel bad that these diets have so many zealots being the focal leaders representing the diet. Because when there is actual science, it tends to get overlooked. Now someone like Dr. Dom D'Agostino is legit when it comes to ketogenic.
Not so sure. He now has his own site (ketonutrition.org) pimping woo "supplements" such as exogenous ketones, and selling his book about how keto cures cancer. Dom may have jumped the shark, like Fung and others who prostitute their reputations for money.
Exogenous ketones have been shown to increase ketone levels. It can help you get into ketosis faster.
And the cures for cancer are in conjunction with cancer therapy treatments. It only relates to specific cancers, specifically ones that tend to be fueled by glucose and mainly things related to brain tumors.
ETA: if you want, check out his podcast with Layne Norton. They have been friends for a decade. All his work started with the Department of thr Navy in support of Seals.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions