Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is overrated in my opinion
Options
Replies
-
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
If you look back at this thread, there have been countless articles posted and left for debate on the topic. We're waiting for you to post your own sources, since they differ from the ones already disclosed and discussed.13 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula.
It's not a diet plan. It's why various diet plans you might come up with (including but not limited to calorie counting) work. It's also not the application of a formula, it's the fact that calorie balance determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain. Of course, knowing that ALLOWS you to apply it and come up with a diet plan that works for you.It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories.
IT doesn't consider anything, it's not a person. If what you mean is that someone using CICO to lose weight won't consider nutrition, that is not necessarily true -- in fact, I think most do, and do as much as people who think they are losing without thinking about calories, on average. I care about nutrition, did before losing weight, and did while losing weight. I certainly did not think "wow, now I'm going to aim for a calorie deficit, so I guess I'd better stop thinking about nutrition." Why would someone do that, and why would someone blame CICO for their own (silly, IMO) choice not to think about nutrition?
Also, if someone cuts calories, ANY sensible person will probably make sure the foods they choose are filling, and so (if they weren't before) gravitate more toward filling for the calories foods, which are often -- not always -- more nutrient dense ones to some degree. I've seen plenty of people do this, without intentionally trying to focus on nutrition at first.This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources.
No one is assuming nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources, and why would aiming for a calorie deficit prevent one from thinking about nutrition? Most places to log (like Cronometer, where I sometimes do it, and of course MFP), provide nutritional information too, although you don't need to track nutrition to focus on it, it's not that complicated.
As for the google search, worth understanding that your past searches and internet history will determine what comes up in a search, so that you find silly nonsensical stuff about counting calories = CICO and CICO means you can't focus on nutrition, if that's really true, just shows that you have been spending time at silly sites, probably.9 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Ah, the point was already made. Sorry for repeating! Some points are worth making again, though.6 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
Why are you posting on a forum if you don't care for forums? Insulting the basic premise of a forum and the people using it while posting on it yourself seems pointless. You have now stated that you are not open to being influenced by anyone here, which means that logically we should all respond by putting you on ignore.13 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
I think the real question is, instead, why the false dichotomy? Why pretend like you can't emphasize nutrition AND calories?4 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
If you look back at this thread, there have been countless articles posted and left for debate on the topic. We're waiting for you to post your own sources, since they differ from the ones already disclosed and discussed.
No, I replied to the op. The rest of the responses aren’t of interest to me.
And so that it doesn’t get lost, I agree with the op.24 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
If you look back at this thread, there have been countless articles posted and left for debate on the topic. We're waiting for you to post your own sources, since they differ from the ones already disclosed and discussed.
No, I replied to the op. The rest of the responses aren’t of interest to me.
And so that it doesn’t get lost, I agree with the op.
This is the debate forum. If you're not interested in debating, why continue to post?12 -
Oh look, this bull *kitten* again.
14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
I think the real question is, instead, why the false dichotomy? Why pretend like you can't emphasize nutrition AND calories?
*You* can emphasize both. I don’t find it necessary to do so, however. And further agree that with proper food choices and emphasis it isn’t necessary.19 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
I eat very healthfully and I'm big time into nutrition and I don't count calories. I put on 5-10 Lbs every winter eating very healthfully because my general activity level decreases and my exercise becomes more sporadic and at times, non existent due to darkness and coldness.
That is very much CICO in play, despite really healthy eating.11 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
I think the real question is, instead, why the false dichotomy? Why pretend like you can't emphasize nutrition AND calories?
*You* can emphasize both. I don’t find it necessary to do so, however. And further agree that with proper food choices and emphasis it isn’t necessary.
I was very focused on nutrition before deciding to lose weight. I was also overweight. Increasing activity and finding a way to limit calories helped me avoid that (I don't think the only way to limit calories is counting them, although some find that enjoyable and it's often educational, including about nutrition).
Some people never have to really think about calories (although many may still think about portion sizes or make changes if their clothes get a bit tight) -- my sister is one of those, and has never been overweight.
Often I see people who were overweight and who were also eating nutritionally poorly change their diet and find they automatically dropped calories and so think they can lose and maintain without counting calories. Maybe that's true, but I suspect that for many once they get used to their new way of eating and realize there are many things they like enough to overeat and so on, that they will find it easy to start overeating again.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
Why are you posting on a forum if you don't care for forums? Insulting the basic premise of a forum and the people using it while posting on it yourself seems pointless. You have now stated that you are not open to being influenced by anyone here, which means that logically we should all respond by putting you on ignore.
We’ll go ahead and do so. It’s not like I’ll know or notice.
It is interesting that you think I should be open to being influenced by you and other people whom i do not know and who are not particularly credentialed in any meaningful way.
I just opined on a topic in the controversial section. Nowhere did it say that all opinions have to be the same.
My position stands as written.23 -
BTW, weird to claim that you agree with OP because you think a focus on nutrition is all that is needed to lose, as that's not actually what OP said. OP said lots of other things I disagree with, but not that.
Things OP said that I disagree with, for the record:
* focusing on calories results in losing weight but not fat
* focusing on calories means you will decide to have an extreme deficit and lose muscle
* focusing on calories means you will eat at an extreme deficit and look unhealthy
* focusing on calories means you will become malnourished
* talking about CICO means you are promoting weight loss not fat loss9 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I'm sure I would get similar results to what you got, I was just stating why I wouldn't use "do a google search" as proof of argument, as different people will see different things.
This thread is full of links supporting my stance, you're the one who jumped in after 20 pages and disagreed.
Maybe you didn't notice this thread is in the Debate forum. There is no reason to get personal or defensive. We are all actually in here to debate with each other. If you don't want others to argue with your point, you might want to avoid the Debates section in the future.11 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
Why are you posting on a forum if you don't care for forums? Insulting the basic premise of a forum and the people using it while posting on it yourself seems pointless. You have now stated that you are not open to being influenced by anyone here, which means that logically we should all respond by putting you on ignore.
We’ll go ahead and do so. It’s not like I’ll know or notice.
It is interesting that you think I should be open to being influenced by you and other people whom i do not know and who are not particularly credentialed in any meaningful way.
I just opined on a topic in the controversial section. Nowhere did it say that all opinions have to be the same.
My position stands as written.
and yet you would choose to be influenced by a woo-peddler like Jade Teta...13 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
Still not what I would use to prove a point in a debate, but that's fine.
FYI - Did you know that your Google search results are affected by your internet history? So if someone who goes to lots of conspiracy theory websites and someone who frequents scientific journals both google looking for information on the earth being flat, they will get back different results.
Makes sense that my results for the whole flat earth question differed from yours since I’m a scientist.
Does it not go without saying that the question of what you would use to prove a point in a debate is still open...? cuz you haven’t actually used anything yet...
I'm sure I would get similar results to what you got, I was just stating why I wouldn't use "do a google search" as proof of argument, as different people will see different things.
This thread is full of links supporting my stance, you're the one who jumped in after 20 pages and disagreed.
Maybe you didn't notice this thread is in the Debate forum. There is no reason to get personal or defensive. We are all actually in here to debate with each other. If you don't want others to argue with your point, you might want to avoid the Debates section in the future.
Thanks for the advice, but I’ll use the forums that I wish, in the manner of my choosing, ensuring to remain within the guidelines published by ua.25 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
Why are you posting on a forum if you don't care for forums? Insulting the basic premise of a forum and the people using it while posting on it yourself seems pointless. You have now stated that you are not open to being influenced by anyone here, which means that logically we should all respond by putting you on ignore.
We’ll go ahead and do so. It’s not like I’ll know or notice.
It is interesting that you think I should be open to being influenced by you and other people whom i do not know and who are not particularly credentialed in any meaningful way.
I just opined on a topic in the controversial section. Nowhere did it say that all opinions have to be the same.
My position stands as written.
and yet you would choose to be influenced by a woo-peddler like Jade Teta...
I don’t know jade tia, but I do know that I dont count calories, never have, was a varsity lightweight rower in college, continue to compete in athletic events, and many years later, still remain within 5 pounds of my competition weight by focusing on fueling my body with what it needs to perform and remain healthy rather than calories. Quality not quantity.
Eat to live, don’t live to eat.
And if jade teta doesn’t struggle with her weight, she is right to speak on what works for her. Those who do struggle might find from insights there they could find helpful.18 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
Why are you posting on a forum if you don't care for forums? Insulting the basic premise of a forum and the people using it while posting on it yourself seems pointless. You have now stated that you are not open to being influenced by anyone here, which means that logically we should all respond by putting you on ignore.
We’ll go ahead and do so. It’s not like I’ll know or notice.
It is interesting that you think I should be open to being influenced by you and other people whom i do not know and who are not particularly credentialed in any meaningful way.
I just opined on a topic in the controversial section. Nowhere did it say that all opinions have to be the same.
My position stands as written.
and yet you would choose to be influenced by a woo-peddler like Jade Teta...
I don’t know jade tia, but I do know that I dont count calories, never have, was a varsity lightweight rower in college, continue to compete in athletic events, and many years later, still remain within 5 pounds of my competition weight by focusing on fueling my body with what it needs to perform and remain healthy rather than calories. Quality not quantity.
Eat to live, don’t live to eat.
And if jade teta doesn’t struggle with her weight, she is right to speak on what works for her. Those who do struggle might find from insights there they could find helpful.
Many people have the ability to maintain a healthy weight without ever counting calories. Some of these people focus on nutrition when making food choices, others don't.
Many people find counting calories to be a useful way to help them maintain a healthy weight. Some of these people focus on nutrition when making food choices, others don't.
The body weight of all these people is determined by CICO. It's functioning whether you're aware of it or not. Focusing on the nutrition in one's foods and counting calories are completely independent strategies and people can choose to use both approaches or neither.20 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
Why are you posting on a forum if you don't care for forums? Insulting the basic premise of a forum and the people using it while posting on it yourself seems pointless. You have now stated that you are not open to being influenced by anyone here, which means that logically we should all respond by putting you on ignore.
We’ll go ahead and do so. It’s not like I’ll know or notice.
It is interesting that you think I should be open to being influenced by you and other people whom i do not know and who are not particularly credentialed in any meaningful way.
I just opined on a topic in the controversial section. Nowhere did it say that all opinions have to be the same.
My position stands as written.
and yet you would choose to be influenced by a woo-peddler like Jade Teta...
I don’t know jade tia, but I do know that I dont count calories, never have, was a varsity lightweight rower in college, continue to compete in athletic events, and many years later, still remain within 5 pounds of my competition weight by focusing on fueling my body with what it needs to perform and remain healthy rather than calories. Quality not quantity.
Eat to live, don’t live to eat.
And if jade teta doesn’t struggle with her weight, she is right to speak on what works for her. Those who do struggle might find from insights there they could find helpful.
You quoted an article from his website over in the metabolic thread.16 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Agree with the emphasis on nutrition rather than calories. Bit cico makes things simple.
I think there are also differing audiences—the I just wanna lose weight and still enjoy ice cream crowd vs the my body is a temple/Porsche and I’m going to fuel it accordingly crowd. The cicos would fall into the first category while the more nutrition oriented would fall into the second. Different goals and priorities, so different approaches.
Nice analogy, but incorrect. You are confusing CICO with calorie counting. CICO is an energy formula and applies to both of the groups that you described.
Actually it is spot on. Cico is a diet plan, or the application of a formula. It doesn’t consider nutrition, only calories. This is different from a nutritional focus, which doesn’t apply a formula nor does it assume nutritional equivalencies between caloric sources. A quick google of cico supports this definition. Have a good day.
But CICO doesn't require ignoring nutrition either.
Calorie counting is not eat crap at the right calorie level.
Calorie counting is eat whatever foods you want, AND eat at the right calorie level so you lose weight. Calorie counting and eating healthy are not mutually exclusive. If your other goals are to lower your blood pressure, or build muscle, or improve digestion, or become a fitness model, then you want to eat foods that support those other goals.
I could turn around your statement and say - a nutritional focus doesn't consider calories. Without adding calories to the mix, weight loss isn't guaranteed.
And generally, "a quick google" isn't the best way to back up a debate, A quick google will tell you that the earth is flat.
It is more substantive than an unsupported serious of comments on a discussion forum.
And I googled, “is the earth flat?” The answers overwhelmingly came back as, “no.”
The point is, if you were a flat earther, you could pick out the answers that fit into your world view, say just google, and then argue that because some sites advocate for flat earth there must be some truth in it. The number of answers that come up with a particular slant is determined by the user's past history and the popularity of the various sites found.
If you would post your google results we would be able to discuss the content of the results that you find compelling. Without knowing where you're getting your information it's just a google popularity contest.
edited for clarity
Better idea: just post the resources that support *your* position.
But the bottom line is that I agree with the original op that nutrition rather than cico should be the emphasis. That position really is not open to debate or influence, especially from nameless, faceless voices on a message board.
The real question here is: Why the investment? Just hit the woo button and move on.
Why are you posting on a forum if you don't care for forums? Insulting the basic premise of a forum and the people using it while posting on it yourself seems pointless. You have now stated that you are not open to being influenced by anyone here, which means that logically we should all respond by putting you on ignore.
We’ll go ahead and do so. It’s not like I’ll know or notice.
It is interesting that you think I should be open to being influenced by you and other people whom i do not know and who are not particularly credentialed in any meaningful way.
I just opined on a topic in the controversial section. Nowhere did it say that all opinions have to be the same.
My position stands as written.
and yet you would choose to be influenced by a woo-peddler like Jade Teta...
I don’t know jade tia, but I do know that I dont count calories, never have, was a varsity lightweight rower in college, continue to compete in athletic events, and many years later, still remain within 5 pounds of my competition weight by focusing on fueling my body with what it needs to perform and remain healthy rather than calories. Quality not quantity.
Eat to live, don’t live to eat.
And if jade teta doesn’t struggle with her weight, she is right to speak on what works for her. Those who do struggle might find from insights there they could find helpful.
I don't count calories. CICO is still in play. If I'm maintaining my weight then I'm eating a balance of CI to CO. If put on winter weight I'm eating a surplus of calories...and like I said before, I eat very healthfully. I lose weight in the spring when I start ramping up for the cycling season because my CI or less than my CO.
The notion that if you just eat healthy you won't or can't put on weight is ludicrous. There are any number of highly nutritious foods that are also calorie dense.
The notion that someone paying attention to calories is just eating ice cream is equally ludicrous.14
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
- 390 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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions