Losing Weight is NOT that simple..imo..
Options
Replies
-
Yes, some people are way over the top on the sugar thing. So what. It's not a personal insult to those who eat it. It's not good reason to make fun of them.blankiefinder wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »There are lots of condescending comments to new people on MFP.
The whole CICO is one very simple aspect of food
It ignores all of the other aspects of nutrition
I ate a crappy diet. Eating less of a crappy diet is not the best health option. That is why my dr sent me to a nutritionist.
I don't think many people want to just lose weight with no regard to learning how to eat a balanced diet.
Maybe some do, not sure why but that is their choice.
I'm glad I had worked with a nutritionist and trainer before getting to MFP.
The point is to understand the first step. Calorie restriction. That puts you on the road to rejecting large calorie loads (ONE cookie is 300 calories?! NOT worth it! *munches carrots*)
CICO isn't ABOUT -health-, it's just the science behind weight loss. When people ask about weight loss, that is the answer they get.
Actually, pretty much any question is answered with CICO, which is part of the problem.
Want advice on eating healthier diet? You'll get a ridiculous argument that food is food and CICO is all that matters.
Ask a question about a plateau? The answer is CICO and you must not be accurately tracking intake.
It'd be amusing if it weren't so actively unhelpful to those seeking assistance.
If you have better advice, we're all ears... pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
If you think that spouting off CICO as the final answer to either of the example questions in my post, there's no discussion worth having.
Some of us prefer to realize that nuance and personal circumstance play a large role in success. If someone wants to give low carb a try or reduce their sugar intake, who are you to demean that decision?
CICO isn't being denied, only the derisive and unhelpful way in which it is used to belittle any approach that adds other, more personal variables.
CICO includes low carb, or low sugar, or whatever other route people want to take to achieve a deficit.
Yet every post that references "clean eating" will eventually be closed/deleted because it devolves into a tired debate about how CICO is all that matters and foods are completely equal outside of individual dietary context. Doesn't seem very accepting of alternate approaches.
IMO clean eating threads go south because of the trend to attach moral values to food choices. And you're showing a bias by saying that CICO people bash clean eating (which is a misrepresentation anyway, since as I stated, true CICO just means maintaining a deficit by the means of your choice), but not admitting that some clean eating people sometimes portray sugar as evil.
Heaven forbid that we accept that neither side is 'bad', just achieving a deficit (CICO) through alternate means. And heaven forbid that we acknowledge that most people here advocate eating a generally healthy diet to achieve CICO, and add treats as your CICO allowance permits.
Even if they refuse to believe that any sugar is okay - so what.
Remember the guy who hated breakfast? He was insane with his war on breakfast and crusade against it. There was NO WAY that guy was ever giving up. He was going to fight breakfast until he drew his last breath. Nobody was going to stop him from trying to introduce his Abolish Breakfast messages from any (or every) thread.
I learned a lot from Breakfast Is Evil And Must Die guy. They're never going to change their minds. Sugar people are no different.
The thing is, you and me are not the only people reading those threads, so letting outright wrong posts just stand as is is not helpful to new people who are reading the threads and might think it must be true since no one questioned it. Yes, even less helpful than someone just saying "CICO" then leaving the thread never to be seen again.0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »There are lots of condescending comments to new people on MFP.
The whole CICO is one very simple aspect of food
It ignores all of the other aspects of nutrition
I ate a crappy diet. Eating less of a crappy diet is not the best health option. That is why my dr sent me to a nutritionist.
I don't think many people want to just lose weight with no regard to learning how to eat a balanced diet.
Maybe some do, not sure why but that is their choice.
I'm glad I had worked with a nutritionist and trainer before getting to MFP.
The point is to understand the first step. Calorie restriction.
That's not the first step.
It's not even the second step.
Please expand on this.
The first step for many people is accepting that there isn't any magic to the process and that they CAN do it. Many here don't believe they can, and many are looking for non-existent shortcuts.
The second step is to learn how to log - jumping right to calorie restrictions isn't going to help someone until they first figure out how to count what they're eating. And that happens...a LOT...around here.
(This is assuming someone is committing to calorie counting, which isn't strictly speaking necessary at all).
Personally I'd count both of those into calorie restriction. What better way is there to tell someone there's no magic and that anyone can do it than "You're burning calories, if you eat less than you're burning you lose weight. That's all there is to it."?0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »There are lots of condescending comments to new people on MFP.
The whole CICO is one very simple aspect of food
It ignores all of the other aspects of nutrition
I ate a crappy diet. Eating less of a crappy diet is not the best health option. That is why my dr sent me to a nutritionist.
I don't think many people want to just lose weight with no regard to learning how to eat a balanced diet.
Maybe some do, not sure why but that is their choice.
I'm glad I had worked with a nutritionist and trainer before getting to MFP.
The point is to understand the first step. Calorie restriction. That puts you on the road to rejecting large calorie loads (ONE cookie is 300 calories?! NOT worth it! *munches carrots*)
CICO isn't ABOUT -health-, it's just the science behind weight loss. When people ask about weight loss, that is the answer they get.
It is an incomplete answer
That is the problem with the quip type answers that prevail on MFP
Most people do not want to disregard health for weight loss
Even attempting to defend the weak answers of CICO on does not seem logical
Who says I want to lose weight with no regard to health?
It is not the "science behind weight loss". It is one element in the science of weight loss.
We're all adults here, we should have learned to eat our veggies by the time we were 5. Why is this something you want to get pointed out? That would seem patronizing to me as if I don't know that getting good nutrition is important and need to be told. On the other hand, your average Joe only has a very rudimentary knowledge of what a calorie is and how it factors into weight loss and gain.
And that's why people tell you when you say things like "I haven't lost anything in 3 weeks, I'm gonna start clean eating to jump start my weight loss/metabolism!" that the nutrition of your food was not the problem of why you weren't losing the weight and eating clean won't change anything about your stalled weight loss unless you're eating less than you burn, and won't make you any healthier than you were before, assuming you didn't eat like complete crap beforehand, which would lead back to my first sentence.0 -
Yeah, it actually is that easy. The problem is people make it complicated for themselves by looking for quick fixes, by thinking it's a temporary condition, by looking for magic and by giving food a power beyond it's purpose.
The outcome for a lot of people is going to be failure. Because it's not the easiest thing in the world to put a sustained effort into reaching any goal. Not because of the details of getting there.
0 -
I never get why everyone ignores the fact that they can be off in both directions. People assume every inaccuracy is an underestimate. So unless there is some compelling reason to believe that a significant majority of food labels are all too low, you can expect the variations to even out in the long term.DeguelloTex wrote: »Second, even if the labels can be that far off, they almost never are. And stuff like steaks will even out over time.
[/quote]
Right, except I worked for a bottling company, and I know for a fact they intentinally pack more, because they have to have AT LEAST as much in the container as it says, or they will get in trouble. The opposite does not apply.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »
I never get why everyone ignores the fact that they can be off in both directions. People assume every inaccuracy is an underestimate. So unless there is some compelling reason to believe that a significant majority of food labels are all too low, you can expect the variations to even out in the long term.DeguelloTex wrote: »Second, even if the labels can be that far off, they almost never are. And stuff like steaks will even out over time.
Right, except I worked for a bottling company, and I know for a fact they intentinally pack more, because they have to have AT LEAST as much in the container as it says, or they will get in trouble. The opposite does not apply.
Here's the rules again:
From the FDA's Guidance for Industry: Nutrition Labeling Manual - A Guide for Developing and Using Data Bases:
Nutritional labels are allowed to be 40% inaccurate for the specified serving size? Could you post some reading material on this?
Better get yourself an accurate bomb calorimeter to go with it, the OP was making the point that nutritional labels themselves are not required to be very accurate.This part - no. If you use a digital food scale, and weigh all solid foods, you can be very accurate with calorie counting.Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the labelClass II nutrients must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.
Some things need to have a minimum of exactly what's shown (more is fine), some things need to have at least 80% of what's shown (more is fine), and some things have to have less than 120% of what's shown on the nutritional label (less is fine).For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less
Added vitamins and minerals need to be present at least as much as on the label,
naturally occuring vitamins and minerals as well as protein and carbs need to be present at at least 80% of what's on the label
calories, fats and sugar must not exceed 120% of what's on the label, it can be less.
The last point especially:
Third group is calories, fat and sugar, they're allowed to be lower than declared as long as it's in reasonable amounts.Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »
I never get why everyone ignores the fact that they can be off in both directions. People assume every inaccuracy is an underestimate. So unless there is some compelling reason to believe that a significant majority of food labels are all too low, you can expect the variations to even out in the long term.DeguelloTex wrote: »Second, even if the labels can be that far off, they almost never are. And stuff like steaks will even out over time.
Right, except I worked for a bottling company, and I know for a fact they intentinally pack more, because they have to have AT LEAST as much in the container as it says, or they will get in trouble. The opposite does not apply.
I was curious about this. It appears you still wouldn't be off per serving if you actually measured a serving. To me that's a good thing
And I also wonder if whole foods fall under this requirement as well? Like calories in rice or cherries or oranges - I don't think we would have to worry about any corporation needing to manipulate the calorie contents of the items in those cases to meet some FDA requirement
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »
I never get why everyone ignores the fact that they can be off in both directions. People assume every inaccuracy is an underestimate. So unless there is some compelling reason to believe that a significant majority of food labels are all too low, you can expect the variations to even out in the long term.DeguelloTex wrote: »Second, even if the labels can be that far off, they almost never are. And stuff like steaks will even out over time.
Right, except I worked for a bottling company, and I know for a fact they intentinally pack more, because they have to have AT LEAST as much in the container as it says, or they will get in trouble. The opposite does not apply.
Here's the rules again:
From the FDA's Guidance for Industry: Nutrition Labeling Manual - A Guide for Developing and Using Data Bases:
Nutritional labels are allowed to be 40% inaccurate for the specified serving size? Could you post some reading material on this?
Better get yourself an accurate bomb calorimeter to go with it, the OP was making the point that nutritional labels themselves are not required to be very accurate.This part - no. If you use a digital food scale, and weigh all solid foods, you can be very accurate with calorie counting.Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the labelClass II nutrients must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.
Some things need to have a minimum of exactly what's shown (more is fine), some things need to have at least 80% of what's shown (more is fine), and some things have to have less than 120% of what's shown on the nutritional label (less is fine).For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less
Added vitamins and minerals need to be present at least as much as on the label,
naturally occuring vitamins and minerals as well as protein and carbs need to be present at at least 80% of what's on the label
calories, fats and sugar must not exceed 120% of what's on the label, it can be less.
The last point especially:
Third group is calories, fat and sugar, they're allowed to be lower than declared as long as it's in reasonable amounts.Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
No, I just mean they pack more product in the container than it says it contains.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »
I never get why everyone ignores the fact that they can be off in both directions. People assume every inaccuracy is an underestimate. So unless there is some compelling reason to believe that a significant majority of food labels are all too low, you can expect the variations to even out in the long term.DeguelloTex wrote: »Second, even if the labels can be that far off, they almost never are. And stuff like steaks will even out over time.
Right, except I worked for a bottling company, and I know for a fact they intentinally pack more, because they have to have AT LEAST as much in the container as it says, or they will get in trouble. The opposite does not apply.
That seems like even MORE reason to encourage people to weigh their food and not rely on what the label says as a portion, especially if they come to the forum with a thread that they are eating below the MFP guidelines and not losing weight. [/quote]
I agree.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »
I never get why everyone ignores the fact that they can be off in both directions. People assume every inaccuracy is an underestimate. So unless there is some compelling reason to believe that a significant majority of food labels are all too low, you can expect the variations to even out in the long term.DeguelloTex wrote: »Second, even if the labels can be that far off, they almost never are. And stuff like steaks will even out over time.
Right, except I worked for a bottling company, and I know for a fact they intentinally pack more, because they have to have AT LEAST as much in the container as it says, or they will get in trouble. The opposite does not apply.
Here's the rules again:
From the FDA's Guidance for Industry: Nutrition Labeling Manual - A Guide for Developing and Using Data Bases:
Nutritional labels are allowed to be 40% inaccurate for the specified serving size? Could you post some reading material on this?
Better get yourself an accurate bomb calorimeter to go with it, the OP was making the point that nutritional labels themselves are not required to be very accurate.This part - no. If you use a digital food scale, and weigh all solid foods, you can be very accurate with calorie counting.Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the labelClass II nutrients must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.
Some things need to have a minimum of exactly what's shown (more is fine), some things need to have at least 80% of what's shown (more is fine), and some things have to have less than 120% of what's shown on the nutritional label (less is fine).For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less
Added vitamins and minerals need to be present at least as much as on the label,
naturally occuring vitamins and minerals as well as protein and carbs need to be present at at least 80% of what's on the label
calories, fats and sugar must not exceed 120% of what's on the label, it can be less.
The last point especially:
Third group is calories, fat and sugar, they're allowed to be lower than declared as long as it's in reasonable amounts.Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
No, I just mean they pack more product in the container than it says it contains.
Ahhh, well that is easily solved by weighing your food. I'm pretty sure the post you were responding to was talking about calories though.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »It does partially come down to manners. For example, if someone is in front of you do you just say "move" or "excuse me please"? If someone's weight loss is stalled (and half a dozen people haven't already replied with the same advice) do you say "CICO" or " Are you sure you are eating at a calorie deficit? Sometimes using a food scale can help you make sure you aren't accidentally eating more than you think."? I know which ones i would respond to better.
I'm not sure I've been reading the same forum as everyone else.
I don't see people respond "CICO" I see people ask:- Are you weighing your food?
- Are you logging everything you eat and drink?
- Are you eating back all of your exercise calories? (sometimes accompanied by "How are you measuring your burn?")
- How long have you been trying for? (sometimes accompanied by an explanation that weight-loss isn't linear)
- Is exercise new to you? (usually accompanied by an explanation that the body might store more water when you start exercising but that this will level out in the long run)
They try to work out what part of CICO isn't quite right for the person seeking help then guide them to a better way.
50% of the time the OP responds with "I measure everything! I'm doing everything right! How dare you suggest that I'm not!!!!!" People cannot help someone who refuses to listen.
I've found the forum to be a very useful place to lurk and it's taught me a lot.
In answer to the OP, weight-loss is incredibly straightforward and also one of the most difficult things you'll do.
I agree that "CICO" isn't a useful response in and of itself but what I tend to see is people helping the OP identify what part of CICO they're getting wrong (or indeed, "you appear to be doing it right, have patience, it will work out") which is incredibly useful.0 -
Whilst I'm getting kind of bored with the circularity of this thread I thought I might dissect the OP and add my personal perspective...as after all this is about personal perspectives isn't itdanieltsmoke wrote: »I've lost 40lbs about, so what I'm doing is working for me,
I've lost 56lbs and am in maintenance so I'm also doing what is working for me
I'm not complaining. But I get frustrated when I see a forums response like "Just eat less calories than you're burning...are you sure you're weighing accurately?"
I get frustrated too, but more on a grammar pedantry point than an issue with the advice itself
This seems patronizing, and also is flawed in a couple ways.
First, it's really difficult to just know how many calories you're burning..I don't have a butt stamp indicating that number, or even an owners manual, so the best I've got is taking blood tests and running fitness experiments (which simply isn't practical for an average person), OR using an online calculator/guestimator, which let's be honest, has a HUGE margin of error. Some sites I have a 2500 TDE, some say 3500..
this is true actually ....what you can do is use the calculators to estimate but you need to use your own personal data averaged over 6-8 weeks on a rolling basis to refine the numbers...the estimation is a guideline for starting off, if you're relying on it without recourse to what your body actually does then IMO you're doing it wrong ...and you need to do it continuously because as you lose weight your numbers will change
Secondly, its really difficult to just know how many calories you're eating..Have you googled "food label accuracy"? That stuff can often be 20%-40% wrong..not even to mention that some things just cant be calculated accurately..ie. one steak from a package could be hugely more caloric-ly dense simply due to a higher fat content.
yes it can be up to 20% out in either direction...so you weigh your food to get a slightly more accurate estimate and again you have the rolling adjustment
My point is, even if you follow all the right steps, you could easily have an over estimated TDE (by no fault of your own), and eat far underestimated calories (by no fault of your own), and simply not lose weight. Thus "just eat less than you burn" is fairly useless.
hmmm...the no fault approach...if you're not judging on an ongoing basis then there is a lack of care ..you're simply not losing weight because you're not following the right steps. Eat less than you burn is appropriate
...perhaps more information on how to achieve that is needed,but seriously isn't it implicit?..choosing higher volume, lower calorie food? Making good choices across the week, finding what you find filling..protein, fat or carbs the satiety can differ for individuals
If I had any advice to offer to people struggling, I'd say it's all about trial and error, which can be frustratingly slow.
agree
You gotta try something, whether its working out more, or trying to stay under a certain amount-ish of calories, and see how that goes for a few weeks.
agree
If that doesn't work, change it up, and try again. Patience has been my biggest struggle but probably my greatest ally during the last few months, and I know that once you find your groove you're gonna kick your fitness goals right in the somewhat large *kitten*. Rant over
agree
..
0 -
No, no, no guys. Did you miss the the turn from OP? This thread is really about how rude and short people are with their answers.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »
I never get why everyone ignores the fact that they can be off in both directions. People assume every inaccuracy is an underestimate. So unless there is some compelling reason to believe that a significant majority of food labels are all too low, you can expect the variations to even out in the long term.DeguelloTex wrote: »Second, even if the labels can be that far off, they almost never are. And stuff like steaks will even out over time.
Right, except I worked for a bottling company, and I know for a fact they intentinally pack more, because they have to have AT LEAST as much in the container as it says, or they will get in trouble. The opposite does not apply.
Here's the rules again:
From the FDA's Guidance for Industry: Nutrition Labeling Manual - A Guide for Developing and Using Data Bases:
Nutritional labels are allowed to be 40% inaccurate for the specified serving size? Could you post some reading material on this?
Better get yourself an accurate bomb calorimeter to go with it, the OP was making the point that nutritional labels themselves are not required to be very accurate.This part - no. If you use a digital food scale, and weigh all solid foods, you can be very accurate with calorie counting.Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the labelClass II nutrients must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.
Some things need to have a minimum of exactly what's shown (more is fine), some things need to have at least 80% of what's shown (more is fine), and some things have to have less than 120% of what's shown on the nutritional label (less is fine).For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less
Added vitamins and minerals need to be present at least as much as on the label,
naturally occuring vitamins and minerals as well as protein and carbs need to be present at at least 80% of what's on the label
calories, fats and sugar must not exceed 120% of what's on the label, it can be less.
The last point especially:
Third group is calories, fat and sugar, they're allowed to be lower than declared as long as it's in reasonable amounts.Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
No, I just mean they pack more product in the container than it says it contains.
Ahhh, well that is easily solved by weighing your food. I'm pretty sure the post you were responding to was talking about calories though.
Oh. My bad. Not paying enough attention.0 -
Alluminati wrote: »No, no, no guys. Did you miss the the turn from OP? This thread is really about how rude and short people are with their answers.
That's okay. I've also noticed how rude and short many of those in this thread complaining about people being rude and short have been. It's all about perspective for me. I don't mind though since I realize that I can easily ignore those who I perceive as rude and short and put my energy towards those who I do not perceive that way. I don't use my energy and time trying to change people to come to my way of seeing, thinking and feeling...instead I use my energy seeking out those who share my perspective and learning what I can from those that I do not.
I find the people trying so hard to get errbody to "be nice" generally are much nastier than those whom they are complaining against.0 -
Interesting thread
I noticed it mentioned that people continually ask the same questions.
Move more and follow CICO is the standard answer.
If you look at that data and make a business decision...
One could determine the answer may indeed be correct by not exactly useful.
Of course part of it may be newbies don't read the stickies....?
Every time I jump in one of these discussions and offer to be helpful I get a half dozen friend requests.
I feel people want friendly help. Maybe from someone that has done it and wants to help others succeed, not just win an argument. I love to get friendly help that makes me better. Kind of why I come here.
If you do have experience and knowledge to share, being nice helps.
I learned a few new things yesterday and messaged people for further explanation. Found out I was mixed up on one thing. It is nice to talk and not argue.
Have a good Sunday and rock your workouts!!
I'm finally getting a new carbon fiber bike!!! Getting fitted today!!!0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »No, no, no guys. Did you miss the the turn from OP? This thread is really about how rude and short people are with their answers.
That's okay. I've also noticed how rude and short many of those in this thread complaining about people being rude and short have been. It's all about perspective for me. I don't mind though since I realize that I can easily ignore those who I perceive as rude and short and put my energy towards those who I do not perceive that way. I don't use my energy and time trying to change people to come to my way of seeing, thinking and feeling...instead I use my energy seeking out those who share my perspective and learning what I can from those that I do not.
I find the people trying so hard to get errbody to "be nice" generally are much nastier than those whom they are complaining against.
+10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions