Looking at the one (above in comments) where you eat about 500 cals one day and 3000 cals another, it also looks like 5 on, 2 off IF -- which is one of many effective methods.
CiCO does work. My sister lost considerable weight with calorie restriction many years ago. The trouble is, you have to continually watch and restrict because you aren't necessarily eating healthy foods. My mom did WW and my sister did EDiets. Both of them worked for them -- so long as they were counting calories and keeping strict journals.
My sister got down to a size 6 (she's currently a size 22 I think), and my mother got down to a size 2 (she's currently a 12). But, once they gave up journaling and being strict in their calories, the weight came back on.
Both did SB for a bit, and that worked well for some things, but once they get back to phase 2 or whatever, they dropped it and . . . yeah.
I find primal easier. Cutting out these foods, eating those foods, it's all good. And, oddly, I do eat fewer calories than before. I used to eat around 2000 as a veg. Now I consume around 1600 on average. it's interesting.
Fat Los s Boss is definitely all about counting calories, from their blog:
Originally Posted by zoebird
Tracking calories provides you with a 100% guarantee to lose or gain weight (depending on your goal). Of course, whether or not you want to gain or lose weight is up to you. But so long as you track your food intake in an honest and consistent way, you are guaranteed to achieve your goal. You might be wondering how such a guarantee like that can possibly be made. It’s possible because the fundamental laws of physics that govern our Universe also govern the dynamics of weight change in the human body – these are known as the laws of Thermodynamics. To find out more about how thermodynamics relates to the human body, click here;
Tracking your calories can actually provide a sense of freedom and certainty. Contrary to popular belief, there’s freedom in tracking your calories: the freedom of knowing the line between weight loss and weight gain. Without tracking, it’s much harder to ensure that you’re gaining or losing weight. Sure, you can guess. But guessing how much energy you’re consuming isn’t much better than shooting at a target while wearing a blindfold. Obviously its much more stressful to be guessing than it is to have certainty!
Tracking Calories provides you with a great education in basic Nutrition. By simply going through the process of tracking the calories you eat on a daily basis you will come to learn a lot more about the nutritional content of the foods you eat. You may be surprised to learn many of the foods you thought to be lean or healthy might not be great after all and vice-versa.
Even if it is possible to lose weight on a crappy diet, it is always a very good idea to have the majority of calories from healthy food though! CICO does work, but basically it is only an abstract principle that states that the dieter must burn more energy than he takes in, and summa summarum, all diets boils down to this principle in respect of weightloss. But it is also much more to it than only "weightloss", like general health and bodyrecomposition that also put other variables into play...
Originally Posted by zoebird
I never said to not be primal.
I just said that CICO does work, so the guy's claim that there are no dietary restrictions on what you can eat is accurate. When my mom and sister did their CICO diets -- with extensive, honest journalling -- their diets were not healthy, really (aspects where) and they lost the weight.
The only problem with CICO in my opinion is that if you stop counting, you're likely going to regain the weight because you'll be eating the same foods, just different quantities -- and, you'll be lying to yourself about it because there's no strict journal where you keep yourself managed (assuming you journal well, like my family does).
Since going primal, I might run my numbers through an online calorie counter, but it always, always comes out the same: 1500-1700 calories, 45% fat/etc/etc, and so on. I don't have to count calories because, it turns out, that when you eat real foods, it's really hard to over-eat them. At least, it is for me.
I have a hard time over-eating salad, for example, or meat. But, I have no hard time over-eating pasta or cake (even if I feel like crap afterwards.
So, the bottom line is that I'm not advocating anything, but that these guys ARE right. And, in terms of IF -- there's a lot of info out there (science-stuff) that indicates that it doesn't matter what you eat, so long s you IF. In fact, on the BBC HOrizon's show about IFing, they had people eat *horrid* extreme SAD diets in on an alternating schedule -- ie "as much as you want" on day one (which was typically a normal caloric intake of, say 1500-2000 calories), and then 25% of your normal calories (any kind of food) on the next day. Then alternate onwards. They apparently discovered that the benefits of fasting like this came about regardless of food quality.
I think it's because you have a caloric deficit across two days: 2500 calories over two days equals 1250 calories across two days, which qualifies as "CICO" in it's own way (without the intensive counting per se).
So, yeah, it works.
Is it the healthiest, easiest way of going about things?
I don't think so.
I'm hardly one to be advocating against calorie tracking and restriction. I just think these Fat Loss Boss guys are presenting it as if it were some big new discovery. "Hey, you eat less, you lose weight! Wow!" I just thought that was a little silly.
I tend to agree. Based upon what I've read on their blog and in the guide, it seems like they're focusing on what you need to do to lose fat instead of what you should to to stay as healthy as possible in the long term. I didn't come across any recommendations about macronutrients though – they seem to just recommend 1.5g of protein per kg of body weight – but they don't seem to say anything about macros for fat and carbohydrate or any particular foods to avoid. But maybe I missed something?
Originally Posted by zoebird
Personally I think it's best to eat whole foods and make sure you're not overeating at the same time – which is generally easy if you don't go overboard on trail mix
Agreed. The fact that you need a caloric deficit to decrease your fat or muscle mass is no secret to anyone who's looked into nutrition and the body. That said, I find that most people I speak to on a day to day basis are completely unaware of energy balance and think that diets cause them to lose weight because of some magical combination of foods or simply because they're avoiding certain 'bad' or 'high fat' foods. It's quite bizarre really :/
Originally Posted by Paleobird
Just came across this article by Lyle Mcdonald.
Very thought provoking when you consider how Primal works with it:
All Diets Work: The Importance of Calories | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Lyle is spot on of course, but unfortunately most people will not be ready for his gospel of dieting I think...
Originally Posted by Caveman_Sam
What do you mean?
Originally Posted by Gorbag
Is it that people prefer to be told what to do and adopt an 'eat this; don't eat that' diet than track calories and determine what their maintenance and defiict levels are?
I suppose you mean that tracking macro ratios and energy (which Lyle seems to recommend) is too much for most people.
In that I agree because it's much easier to simply block out grains and refined foods and do the primal thing. But it's harder to be certain of a result if you don't know what you're eating.