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: »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.
Ah. The microbiome is a hot topic across the board nowadays. Article on bbc today, not jade’s.13 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »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.
Ah. The microbiome is a hot topic across the board nowadays. Article on bbc today, not jade’s.
I don't understand why. Bacteria does not have the capacity to seriously impact weight management. Even in controlled studies comparing gnotobioltic populations the difference in uptake is marginal and does not exceed instrument error.
People don't gain weight because of gut bacteria.14 -
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.
If you put emphasis on nutrition and completely ignore calories, you get "I'm eating healthy but not losing any weight" threads. Guess why that is.18 -
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 don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
25 -
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.
Lots of people don't pay attention to nutrition or count calories and aren't overweight.
Others may pay attention to nutrition and become overweight.
Still others pay attention to calories and not nutrition and have never been overweight.
That doesn't really relate to the topic of whether CICO is an overrated concept for someone wishing to lose weight which is, in fact, what the OP is about.7 -
Stupid binding laws of thermodynamics in which my body is bound to because it's a closed energy system *shakes fist*11
-
Hmmm.... A "scientist" who doesn't understand the difference between a method of calorie control (likesay...calorie counting) and the acronym describing the change in energy balance that must take place before weight loss can occur under any form of what is commonly called "dieting" (aka CICO). Nor does the supposed "scientist" understand the need for clear communication of their meaning in order to avoid semantic entanglements that would inevitably lead to "rabbit trailing" in an online debate. Add to that the strawman that calorie counting automatically disregards the importance of micro-nutrient intake and well all that's really left to say is...
24 -
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.
Per the bolded section above, the fact that you've maintained your weight by focusing on food quality vs. food quantity is correlation and not causality; any self-proclaimed scientist should be able to recognize that.
You can over-consume on a "healthy", "fuel-laden" diet and gain weight just the same as you can lose weight by eating a controlled quantity of junk food. The fact that the caloric energy balance which governs weight/fat loss exists, and the subsequent importance thereof when it comes to weight loss shouldn't be debated any more that of gravity or flat Earther theories. That said, I do see the validity in the point of the OP and @PiperGirl08 that encourages an emphasis on the quality of food as a healthy practice, though it has to be an emphasis that cannot supersede a caloric restriction if the ultimate goal is to lose weight.8 -
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 don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
16 -
I lost weight on:
Paleo
Fasting
Carb reduction
Fat reduction
Detoxing
And on, and on, and on.
You were put into an energy deficit. That's it. That's all that happened.
You're in the gym to connect yourself to your body and gain strength.
You lose body-fat through maintaining an energy deficit. This is MUCH more easily done by energy restriction than increasing energy expenditure.8 -
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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.19 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then?
Why bring what up?8 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then?
Why bring what up?
Why bring up that you are scientist if you don't consider it to be important or relevant? If you think it is relevant then could you expand on that a bit more and explain what your expertise is specifically?11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.15 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then?
Why bring what up?
Why bring up that you are scientist if you don't consider it to be important or relevant? If you think it is relevant then could you expand on that a bit more and explain what your expertise is specifically?
See my previous reply.9 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Ah okay, that makes sense then.
I thought you were bringing it up as some sort of argument from authority that you have expertise in biochemistry and therefore you know more about what you are saying than most people with regards to thermodynamics and energy balance. Is that your area?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Ah okay, that makes sense then.
I thought you were bringing it up as some sort of argument from authority that you have expertise in biochemistry and therefore you know more about what you are saying than most people with regards to thermodynamics and energy balance. Is that your area?
No, is it yours?6 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. Considering you don't understand what CICO is (hint: not a diet plan), I see no possible way you could have done anything past basic high-school science class.
Hmmm... Political scientist? That would actually pretty well explain things.
I’m ok with that. Degrees and jobs are not the Easter bunny and don’t rely on “belief.” Or more precisely, your belief or lack thereof, has no real world implications.
:-) Good one about political scientist, though.
...so why bring it up then? I mean the implication in you bringing it up was to give your statement some authority on the basis of your education...so I think it only fair for people to respond in the way they did and to question why you are doing that.
If you work in a particular field there is no reason to declare that you work in that field because it is evident in the language you employ that you possess expertise. There is no benefit to simply declaring ones education level and presenting as some sort of case in and of itself.
Frankly, I'm not surprised people doubt you.
Ah. Somebody suggested that google results differed if folks were a scientist vs if they were not. At which point I volunteered that I’m a scientist.
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
13 -
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Regarding whether the nameless, faceless cico people doubt that fact is addressed in my previous post.
Well to be fair you are also nameless and faceless here. Also to be fair I think they have a point when they say that CICO is just a reference to energy balance and is a concept, not a strategy. One might devise strategies such as calorie counting for weight loss and base that on the concept of CICO sure, but that doesn't mean that CICO itself is a diet plan. To use an analogy gravity is a concept by which we understand why an object has weight when near a massive object such as the earth, one could devise a strategy for increasing ones strength by lifting things that have mass against the force of gravity....but that doesn't make gravity itself an exercise plan.
They use it as a means of dieting. So, in fact, engage in a cico diet.
Was that a no to the question of your field being thermodynamics?19
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions