To think that 'eat less move more', everything in moderation and CICO is total bollox?

[Honestopinion23]

CICO stands for calories in vs calories out by the way.
I often read the weight loss section on here. Every day there are people embarking on any number of diets and body overhauls and I reckon about 95% of them are unsuccessful. Calorie counting, shake diets, you name it, people always gain the weight back before long. Even celebrities who seem to have done well with weight loss eventually gain it back, e.g. Pauline Quirke. I am watching that new amazon show with Melissa McCarthy and she is also back to being around the same size she was before starting her weight loss. Lisa Riley is another one who lost a lot of weight and most of it is back now. Clearly it's not working and people are making money out of telling fat people that they can be thin if only they want it bad enough or try hard enough. The scientific research shows that once you are morbidly obese, you have an absolutely miniscule chance of getting to and maintaining a normal BMI without surgery. Yes, there will no doubt be people popping up here saying they did just that but you are the exception.

The idea that if you just eat less than you burn is also flawed when a) your body adapts to lower amounts. For instance, those who have gastric bypass and eat v low calories forever still tend to be overweight/mildly obese because their bodies just can't get to a low BMI and b) you're fighting against intense hunger urges that someone who has always been normal weight just can't imagine dealing with.

If I was morbidly obese, I would ditch all the dieting crap, admit that I couldn't fix it and have surgery. I see so many dieting plans just blame the dieter for 'failure' when they're trying to do something impossible. If I was stage 1 obese or overweight, I'd go low carb no-processed for life because I think that is the only thing that switches off the hunger signals in the brain.

But anyone with a PHD can call themselves a Dr. Dr. of languages for example. Lots of professions don’t have their titles protected, engineers or nursing. Yes checking registration with governing bodies is very important.

Anybody with a PhD is a doctor... that's what a PhD is.

@Washeduponthebeach

www.ion.ac.uk/undergraduate-nutritional-therapy

Perhaps you would like to contact this training organisation to start with to educate yourself a bit.

www.bda.uk.com/about-dietetics/what-is-dietitian/dietitian-or-nutritionist.html

"Is their title protected by law?
No – anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, however only registrants with the UK Voluntary Register of Nutritionists (UKVRN) can call themselves a Registered Nutritionist (RNutrs). RNutrs are not permitted by law to call themselves dietitians."

"What qualifications do they have?
There are many degree courses available in nutrition. Courses that have applied and met strict standards of professional education in nutrition are accredited by the Association for Nutrition (AfN) and graduates from these courses have direct entry onto the voluntary register. It is not a legal requirement for a nutritionist to be registered with the UKVRN, which is run by the Association for Nutrition (AfN).

A nutritionist who is not registered with the UKVRN may not have met or be able to meet the AfN’s recognised standards and competencies in underpinning knowledge and professional skills"

The point is ZH did not have her PHD when she wrote those books and was not even studying for that PHD at the time and is still not registered with the UKVRN

The point is ZH did not have her PHD when she wrote those books and was not even studying for that PHD at the time and is still not registered with the UKVRN

So? She openly states that she doesn't think that the training that registered nutritionists (or anybody else in the NHS vein) receive are based on accurate science. That's her whole point. You're saying 'She's not even registered with the body she argues against'. Of course she isn't. Nobody who agrees with her would want to be.

You are so gullable
We are talking about someone who wrote diet books with no medical or dietary training, whose degrees were totally in related, who lied about doing a phd in 2011 when asked about their qualification.

@bruffin

You are so gullable We are talking about someone who wrote diet books with no medical or dietary training, whose degrees were totally in related, who lied about doing a phd in 2011 when asked about their qualification.

She backs up her assertions with verifiable references.

You can actually go and read the science yourself, you know, it's fantastic, it's right there for you to check for yourself whether what she's saying is true. All on your own!

But you haven't, have you

'Gullable'

Large number of people who agree with her out there, but it's not like other conspiracists who agree with her ''theories''. The information is out there, it's just ignored!

Take biochemical engineer Ivor Cummins for one, he has a big following now. Saying the same as Dr Zoe Harcombe.
He worked in private industry as a problem solver and then he had some blood test results back in 2012 and what the gp said to him didn't sit right with him as he had been doing his own research, from sources like like pubmed
The information is not secret. It's there, but the various organisations responsibile for promoting good choices are ignoring it!

The information is not secret.

No, it wasn't a secret the first time round in the 70s with Dr Atkins Diet Revolution, it wasn't a secret before that in the 1800s with Banting.

She backs up her assertions with verifiable references
She is known for cherry picking and misinterpreting.

A low carb diet includes plenty of complex carbohydrates, as they are indigestible, and affect gut motility rather than nutrition.

A bit like oil in a car. It's not fuel, but it helps things move along.

Talking about me not having a clue seems a bit ironic now! Have you not encountered the research and findings of the last 7 or so years on the gut microbiome?!

Take biochemical engineer Ivor Cummins...

Christ. The covid conspiracists' idol himself!

You have got to be joking.

Calories in v calories out works. Imix it with intermittent fasting and loads of veg so i try not to waste my 1200 calories on crisps.
However, it is haaaaaaard and i do miss junk food but i dont want to get obese in my middle age so i have to do it.

I’ve watched one of Zh’s videos and bought her book on kindle which I’ve just finished reading as a result of this thread. I was 9 st when I was 16, have dieted all my life and was 14 stone on Sat morning. I have tried every diet going and have read/own over 50 diet books. Zoe’s book makes perfect sense and supports most of the current research and science on eating/food/weight gain and loss. Her 3 phase method sounds v straight forward. I am now on my third day of phase one - haven’t found it difficult - and have lost 5lbs already. Most of that will be water as she explains but that’s fine and as expected.

In a nutshell her diet is about cutting out processed foods, eating protein, veg and salad, complex carbs and not eating fat with carbs. It is not in the least faddy. Aim for three big meals a day and avoid snacking as much as possible. She also talks about an excess of Candida growth in most people which causes massive cravings for sugar that are v hard to resist. Going cold turkey no sugar for 5 days is a great way to start combating that. I genuinely feel better already - and slept better last night.
For anyone struggling to lose or maintain weight loss, feeling constantly hungry or binging - why not give it a try? She emphasises that you can eat as much food as you need not to feel hungry. No calorie counting. To my astonishment even on the difficult 5 day introduction I have felt much less hungry and food obsessed than usual. I have been trying and failing to do fast 800 for over a year - makes me hungry and depressed abd I can’t even manage to stick to it for one day. This new approach explains why and has been quite different.
I’ll see how I get on but this has made me feel hopeful and optimistic. The final phase of the diet is more relaxed, sounds eminently manageable and includes treats.

I want to add a thank you to all those who have posted about ZH here as I’d never heard of her. Her book also complements the “why we eat too much” book which I’ve also read and which is helping many Mumsnetters to lose weight - it offers more structure than that which I’m finding helpful.
Oh - and for the CICO believers- I’ve counted my cals over the last two days out of interest and they’ve been around 2000. Much higher than I would plan to eat in a normal “diet day” and I’ve lost weight. Early days I know but certainly hopeful.

Well done @Janeaustensquill! Sounds like you’re making brilliant progress. It’s interesting how people get so defensive of the CICO model when it is challenged, despite its very obvious failings. If it worked in the way it claims, we wouldn’t have an obesity crisis. I accept that it may work for some people but usually the period for which it works is quite short-lived. I mean what’s the point of constantly berating yourself for being a failure? How will that help your weight issues?

I also had very short-lived successes with CICO and if you’d asked me right after I’d lost weight whether it worked, I’d have sung its praises and said it was all about willpower. Every time, within a short space of time since losing the weight, I would get uncontrollable cravings to binge that I couldn’t stop despite desperately wanting to. I’d veer between restrictive eating most days of the week and then a weekend blowout. I became obsessed with food and what I was going to eat that day. I can’t really describe it properly but it was a horrible feeling of being out of control. It certainly wasn’t inadvertent- I knew what was happening but couldn’t stop it.

This approach of targeting insulin and blood sugar is a world apart because the cravings are gone. When I was relying on ‘will-power’, there would be a constant internal monologue of ‘I want pizza but I can’t because of my diet’. Every day that I was able to resist, it was a small victory but I knew that there were some days that I couldn’t resist and with trigger foods, I can’t have just a small amount.

Carbs are addictive for me, the more I eat, the more I want, and I would graze constantly throughout the day.

Going low carb has meant I eat 3 meals a day with little snacking, as there is less incentive to snack when chocolates/biscuits/cake/crisps are off the table.

Exactly @Honestopinion23 . Whilst CICO might work for some individuals, it has definitely been a failure on a societal level. The current advice simply isn't working for people.
I also find carbs totally addictive - I can fast until 1 or 2 quite easily, but then as soon as I have something carby, it's like a switch has been flicked and I just want more and more. And it's an urge that's almost impossible to fight with willpower alone.

Thank you @Honestopinion23 - yes I’ve managed to lose 100s of lbs through restricting calories one way or another - but it all came back on faster and more every time I attempted to maintain - and the last two stone has been a v fast response to antidepressants. I’m still on them but hopefully I can offset the increased appetite by eating the right foods. Have reduced my dose so hoping to come off eventually.
You can understand the body hoarding fat and lowering Metabolism in response to perceived famine. I think it’s hard because we’ve been given the same messages for so long about dieting - -also if you’ve invested time and suffering into CICO it’s hard to recognise it’s not effective for the vast majority of slimmers.

Calories in v calories out works.

It doesn't work long-term for 95% of dieters. I'd say that equates to 'doesn't work', not 'does work'. Surely a weight loss method has to actually permanently make you lose weight in order to qualify as effective. And they don't.

Someone upthread said 'Well what's the answer then?'. I think the answer is to stop ever doing calorie restrictive diets and just try to eat as little sugar as possible and avoid processed food, especially carby ones, as much as possible. Don't restrict overall food, and eat enough at meal times to fill you up. Accept that weight loss will be sloooow. Basically follow the advice in 'Why We Eat Too Much".

But people dont stay fat in famine, starvation mode is a myth

But people dont stay fat in famine, starvation mode is a myth

I don't think starvation mode is a myth at all, though it's a bit of a misnomer. If you significantly restrict calories, your brain makes you much much hungrier, more tired and inclined to inactivity, and reduces the general amount of energy use in order to conserve calories and make it really really hard to resist eating more calories. Common sense really. The reason people don't stay fat in a famine is because they can't get more calories! Apparently there have been studies which suggest that exposure to genuine famine in early life or even in utero predisposes people to obesity. I think because genetic things have been switched on in them to drive them to seek out a higher caloric intake. There's loads about that stuff in the "Why We Eat Too Much" book.

@bruffin

But people dont stay fat in famine, starvation mode is a myth

First of all, the body does adapt to starvation and you will lose much slower after a while of calorie restriction than you did at the beginning, see eg Minnesota starvation experiment where, while the participants lost weight, it was nowhere near as much as the CICO model would predict.

Second and more importantly, we don’t live in a famine. In a famine, there is no/little food so you have to endure the hunger. Nothing you can do about it. We live in an abundance of food and when you have extreme food cravings, giving in to them is almost inevitable. Sure, if someone locked us in a cell and restricted our food, no doubt we’d lose weight but that’s not what real life is like.

@bruffin

She backs up her assertions with verifiable references She is known for cherry picking and misinterpreting.

She is known by other people for stating the truth clearly, and being unperturbed by naysayers who don't know what they're talking about.

'She is known for' isn't a very strong argument, is it

All the ZH bashers on the thread are not putting forward any references to refute anything she's said, whereas she references everything and explains her points plainly. It's not worth arguing. It's basically

ZH: I assert that xyz, here are the references to the studies and meta-analyses, and here is an explanation in simple terms of the assertion.

MN ZH bashers: Boo! Hiss! Conspiracy theorist! Boo! Some people say you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll quote them rather than knowing what I'm talking about! Boo!

Have none of you got anything of your own to say except 'She doesn't agree with what we've been told for years, so she must be talking rubbish!'? Which claim do you refute? Which studies are you basing your ideas on?

@bruffin

But people dont stay fat in famine, starvation mode is a myth

Some people 'stay fat' when they restrict their calories though, because their body deals with the deficit in different ways than using fat (using less calories for hormone function, for example, leading to poor skin/hair quality, poor sleep, poor mood regulation, poor mental health etc)

Your knowledge is very basic. Your commitment to the thread is astonishing, given how little research you seem to have done on the subject.

You might also want to consider some of the extremes that people go to in a famine situation: cannibalism, drinking own urine etc. It’s not a good comparison at all. If there is food available and your body tells you you’re starving and to eat it, eventually you probably will. Very few fat people like being fat and yet they can’t stick to calorie restriction long-term.