Fun debate about CICO
Options
Replies
-
Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes - this is essentially her modus operandi. While trying to disprove CICO she only reinforces the essential principle behind CICO - eat less, move more.
I don't think she is trying to disprove CI<CO, but make the point that it is harder to attain for some. Those hormones make it more difficult to move more and eat less unless you find a way of eating (low carb for many who are IR) that puts you back on a level playing field.
JMO
If that's so, she's off topic.
There are really two separate questions:
(1) How does weight loss work? What causes a person to lose fat? Answer: burning more calories than you take in (CICO). Period. As IronFeline said, you don't start putting on net fat when eating below your maintenance level just because you ate a donut. Depending on who you are, maybe eating the donut will make it harder to not eat 6 more donuts, maybe it won't. Claiming that you can't lose fat if you eat a donut is obviously false, however.
(2) Why am I having so much trouble maintaining a deficit/losing weight? The answer to this may have to do with common sense strategies, food choice, medical issues, so on. It's a question that has to be considered on an individual level. And is has nothing to do with the CICO point that OP seemed to be asking about.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes - this is essentially her modus operandi. While trying to disprove CICO she only reinforces the essential principle behind CICO - eat less, move more.
I don't think she is trying to disprove CI<CO, but make the point that it is harder to attain for some. Those hormones make it more difficult to move more and eat less unless you find a way of eating (low carb for many who are IR) that puts you back on a level playing field.
JMO
If that's so, she's off topic.
There are really two separate questions:
(1) How does weight loss work? What causes a person to lose fat? Answer: burning more calories than you take in (CICO). Period. As IronFeline said, you don't start putting on net fat when eating below your maintenance level just because you ate a donut. Depending on who you are, maybe eating the donut will make it harder to not eat 6 more donuts, maybe it won't. Claiming that you can't lose fat if you eat a donut is obviously false, however.
(2) Why am I having so much trouble maintaining a deficit/losing weight? The answer to this may have to do with common sense strategies, food choice, medical issues, so on. It's a question that has to be considered on an individual level. And is has nothing to do with the CICO point that OP seemed to be asking about.
I don't know. Seems on topic to me.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »The perennial debate has come up with a friend today about the only thing mattering being CICO.
He argues food affects how many calories are stored as fat due hormone interruption. So what you eat matters. As someone who does the moderation thing I refute this.
I argue science and that health contains can affect BMR but 3500 calories remains 1lb for everyone.
Good sources and opinion to back me up or discredit me please!
Going back to the beginning.
I don't think we can be too absolutist that what you eat doesn't matter (holding calories equal). Specifically, isn't it commonly understood that eating enough protein (to a certain point) will help prevent loss of muscle if you also do exercise (or strength training specifically)? And similarly when trying to put on muscle without putting on too much fat, macros matter.
I don't think this really changes your point -- I think we should assume rational macros and a non extreme diet (no 100% donuts) in these discussions -- but I guess a minor limitation.
That is an important point but it isn't what was really being discussed. It was whether your food interrupts/alters hormones and therefore interferes with weight loss/gain etc.
It is also my understanding that unless you have very specific fitness goals the macros aren't too important on that front? As long as you have a well rounded diet it's just fine for the average person and whatever works for satiety is really the key.
I think we are saying the same thing. I'm not sure how much it does vary, and I don't think it matters only if you have specific fitness goals, as certainly I want to lose as much fat and as little muscle as possible. BUT, I think it makes sense for these conversations to assume rational macros/a well rounded diet, so that being the case I doubt there'd be much difference. (Same with the arguments that protein has a higher TEF.)
I don't think food choice affects hormones in a way that mechanistically affects the speed or effectiveness of weight loss or gain. I do think hormones can do that by affecting metabolism (getting this from Lyle McDonald), but I haven't read anything suggesting that's about food choice. And as we seem to have cleared up, the arguments about IR,etc. relate to increasing desire to eat/decreasing exercise.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes - this is essentially her modus operandi. While trying to disprove CICO she only reinforces the essential principle behind CICO - eat less, move more.
I don't think she is trying to disprove CI<CO, but make the point that it is harder to attain for some. Those hormones make it more difficult to move more and eat less unless you find a way of eating (low carb for many who are IR) that puts you back on a level playing field.
JMO
If that's so, she's off topic.
There are really two separate questions:
(1) How does weight loss work? What causes a person to lose fat? Answer: burning more calories than you take in (CICO). Period. As IronFeline said, you don't start putting on net fat when eating below your maintenance level just because you ate a donut. Depending on who you are, maybe eating the donut will make it harder to not eat 6 more donuts, maybe it won't. Claiming that you can't lose fat if you eat a donut is obviously false, however.
(2) Why am I having so much trouble maintaining a deficit/losing weight? The answer to this may have to do with common sense strategies, food choice, medical issues, so on. It's a question that has to be considered on an individual level. And is has nothing to do with the CICO point that OP seemed to be asking about.
If used as a strategy of identifying possible root causes and eliminating them, then yes it is very on-topic. The problem with the methodology used is that it become a never ending circular logic cycle and used as an excuse of why people can't lose weight rather than providing solutions to lose weight.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes - this is essentially her modus operandi. While trying to disprove CICO she only reinforces the essential principle behind CICO - eat less, move more.
I don't think she is trying to disprove CI<CO, but make the point that it is harder to attain for some. Those hormones make it more difficult to move more and eat less unless you find a way of eating (low carb for many who are IR) that puts you back on a level playing field.
JMO
If that's so, she's off topic.
There are really two separate questions:
(1) How does weight loss work? What causes a person to lose fat? Answer: burning more calories than you take in (CICO). Period. As IronFeline said, you don't start putting on net fat when eating below your maintenance level just because you ate a donut. Depending on who you are, maybe eating the donut will make it harder to not eat 6 more donuts, maybe it won't. Claiming that you can't lose fat if you eat a donut is obviously false, however.
(2) Why am I having so much trouble maintaining a deficit/losing weight? The answer to this may have to do with common sense strategies, food choice, medical issues, so on. It's a question that has to be considered on an individual level. And is has nothing to do with the CICO point that OP seemed to be asking about.
If used as a strategy of identifying possible root causes and eliminating them, then yes it is very on-topic. The problem with the methodology used is that it become a never ending circular logic cycle and used as an excuse of why people can't lose weight rather than providing solutions to lose weight.
Unless I misunderstood, OP's question was more like the first one. Specifically, in the theoretical context, does food choice affect how much fat is stored. The answer is that it does not -- how much one eats or moves of course does.
The IR argument is that IR plus food choice (for some) may affect how much people eat or move. I happen to agree that that's so (though hardly unique and not a valid excuse). But saying CICO does not work because of that is, of course, wrong, and saying that one would store more fat at equal levels of calories and movement also seems wrong, which is why I think it's off the topic of this thread, as set up by OP.
It's rather like someone saying "a calorie isn't a calorie since if I eat pizza I overeat and go way over my calories." That's not about how weight loss works in general, it's about someone's specific issues that make it hard for them to do what they need to do (eat less) to lose weight.
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't see OP's post as asking whether food choice might make it harder to maintain a deficit but about whether it would mean that fat loss would not happen despite a deficit.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes - this is essentially her modus operandi. While trying to disprove CICO she only reinforces the essential principle behind CICO - eat less, move more.
I don't think she is trying to disprove CI<CO, but make the point that it is harder to attain for some. Those hormones make it more difficult to move more and eat less unless you find a way of eating (low carb for many who are IR) that puts you back on a level playing field.
JMO
If that's so, she's off topic.
There are really two separate questions:
(1) How does weight loss work? What causes a person to lose fat? Answer: burning more calories than you take in (CICO). Period. As IronFeline said, you don't start putting on net fat when eating below your maintenance level just because you ate a donut. Depending on who you are, maybe eating the donut will make it harder to not eat 6 more donuts, maybe it won't. Claiming that you can't lose fat if you eat a donut is obviously false, however.
(2) Why am I having so much trouble maintaining a deficit/losing weight? The answer to this may have to do with common sense strategies, food choice, medical issues, so on. It's a question that has to be considered on an individual level. And is has nothing to do with the CICO point that OP seemed to be asking about.
If used as a strategy of identifying possible root causes and eliminating them, then yes it is very on-topic. The problem with the methodology used is that it become a never ending circular logic cycle and used as an excuse of why people can't lose weight rather than providing solutions to lose weight.
Is melatonin a hormone we're considering here? Getting myself on a consistent sleep/wake/exercise schedule did the most to help me stick to a larger deficit than any tweaks I've made to my macros or way of eating. CICO always works for me to maintain, but having an effective deficit where I still had enough energy for my lifestyle was tough.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes - this is essentially her modus operandi. While trying to disprove CICO she only reinforces the essential principle behind CICO - eat less, move more.
I don't think she is trying to disprove CI<CO, but make the point that it is harder to attain for some. Those hormones make it more difficult to move more and eat less unless you find a way of eating (low carb for many who are IR) that puts you back on a level playing field.
JMO
If that's so, she's off topic.
There are really two separate questions:
(1) How does weight loss work? What causes a person to lose fat? Answer: burning more calories than you take in (CICO). Period. As IronFeline said, you don't start putting on net fat when eating below your maintenance level just because you ate a donut. Depending on who you are, maybe eating the donut will make it harder to not eat 6 more donuts, maybe it won't. Claiming that you can't lose fat if you eat a donut is obviously false, however.
(2) Why am I having so much trouble maintaining a deficit/losing weight? The answer to this may have to do with common sense strategies, food choice, medical issues, so on. It's a question that has to be considered on an individual level. And is has nothing to do with the CICO point that OP seemed to be asking about.
If used as a strategy of identifying possible root causes and eliminating them, then yes it is very on-topic. The problem with the methodology used is that it become a never ending circular logic cycle and used as an excuse of why people can't lose weight rather than providing solutions to lose weight.
Is melatonin a hormone we're considering here? Getting myself on a consistent sleep/wake/exercise schedule did the most to help me stick to a larger deficit than any tweaks I've made to my macros or way of eating. CICO always works for me to maintain, but having an effective deficit where I still had enough energy for my lifestyle was tough.
I think the hormone people are willing to use any hormone for their point.
Hormones will all affect behavior to an extent, but they aren't a determinant.
Melatonin alone isn't the sleep cycle. Sleep is actually a bit beyond our understanding in many ways at this point (please note, this doesn't mean you can substitute the woo of your choice here). Lack of sleep will drive a lot of other hormones. Neurotransmitters can greatly impact sleep as well, and affect compliance.
The IR / hormone people, however, seem to want to say actual metabolism, irrespective of compliance, is affected by hormones.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes - this is essentially her modus operandi. While trying to disprove CICO she only reinforces the essential principle behind CICO - eat less, move more.
I don't think she is trying to disprove CI<CO, but make the point that it is harder to attain for some. Those hormones make it more difficult to move more and eat less unless you find a way of eating (low carb for many who are IR) that puts you back on a level playing field.
JMO
If that's so, she's off topic.
There are really two separate questions:
(1) How does weight loss work? What causes a person to lose fat? Answer: burning more calories than you take in (CICO). Period. As IronFeline said, you don't start putting on net fat when eating below your maintenance level just because you ate a donut. Depending on who you are, maybe eating the donut will make it harder to not eat 6 more donuts, maybe it won't. Claiming that you can't lose fat if you eat a donut is obviously false, however.
(2) Why am I having so much trouble maintaining a deficit/losing weight? The answer to this may have to do with common sense strategies, food choice, medical issues, so on. It's a question that has to be considered on an individual level. And is has nothing to do with the CICO point that OP seemed to be asking about.
If used as a strategy of identifying possible root causes and eliminating them, then yes it is very on-topic. The problem with the methodology used is that it become a never ending circular logic cycle and used as an excuse of why people can't lose weight rather than providing solutions to lose weight.
Is melatonin a hormone we're considering here? Getting myself on a consistent sleep/wake/exercise schedule did the most to help me stick to a larger deficit than any tweaks I've made to my macros or way of eating. CICO always works for me to maintain, but having an effective deficit where I still had enough energy for my lifestyle was tough.
Hormone regulation is an issue, but your caloric intake and output has by far the largest impact. I'm hypothyroid and even at my worst this has maybe a 15% impact. I'm conducting a study later this month to check this impact and put some real data behind it.
Anything and everything has some level of impact, but only as much as you allow it.0 -
Reading Lindsey's explanation of how IR affects CICO has me really confused.
She says IR makes you feel more hungry even after you've eaten and makes you feel more fatigued, so you eat more and move less and therefore lose weight more slowly than someone who didn't eat more in response to the hunger signals triggered by IR.
Does this not essentially prove the basics of CICO?
I mean, I see how it shows the difficulty of maintaining a deficit when you continue to eat because your brain keeps telling you you're not full. But I'm still confused how it's changing the effectiveness of the basic principle. Am I missing a key element of her side of the argument? If so, explain it to me like I'm 10.
Yes. This is a point I tried to make sort of sarcastically because that's how I roll when my nonsense meter goes off full-tilt.
It's also a rather dramatic interpretation of what happens to people with IR from hearing other people who aren't her describe it. It's not quite that dire.
0
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
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions