Calories in and Calories Out. Is it really that simple?
Options
Replies
-
Head west for 1500 miles is not irrelevant. CICO is not irrelevant either. But if you told me to head west for 1500 miles I'd give you that blank stare. The same blank stare as people get when they answer the question of how did you lose weight. I ate less, moved more.
Agreed, for many eating less is there issue. They know they need to eat less but don't know how to - that's what they need help with.
OP thread - I'm thinking of cutting back on my sugar (or carbs).
Answer from many is: you don't need to do that, it's just about CICO!!!
Face Palm!!!
Surely cutting back on something will help the CI part of the equation?
Q - I struggle with eating small portions, can anyone help?
A - Yes I can! CICO - eat everything, just in smaller portions.
Desk palm!!!
Happens all the time.0 -
Maybe the whole issue just circles around the type of people you hang out with. I've never personally encountered anyone in real life that was felt he/she was greatly enlightened by the concept of "eat less and move more". For the people I encounter, that's all pretty obvious and they'd even be a little insulted for you to insinuate otherwise.
But, I totally also see on these forums some that have been completely shocked by it being that simple -- and have that, "really, is it that simple?" reaction. So maybe, it's just the perspective in the relative intelligence or thinking patterns of people we encounter on a daily basis.0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I do think telling people "CICO is what is important", and "eat less, move more" is simplistic, but still helpful. What is really necessary, is to understand what your individual energy balance is b/w CI vs CO (both at your current weight and activity level, and then as a result of weight loss, increased activity, etc to understand what that does to the balance).
If more people spent time trying to accurately understand their calorie level to maintain their current weight, then it would be simpler to 1) determine how many calories they need to either cut on the CI side, or 2) increase on the CO side in order to affect that energy balance and achieve the desired weight loss.
Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.
I think the other part that people get hung up on is the sustainability portion though - when it comes down to it, what the person ultimately needs to be able to sustain is an appropriate calorie goal and activity level to stay in maintenance after reaching their goal.
But we often see people suggesting that someone not start down a certain path if they can't stick with it long term, particularly when it comes to an eating style. That's just not realistic for most people; our circumstances change over time, and we have to change to adapt to it. I think conversations often get bogged down with specifics and semantics, rather than the big picture, which is do you understand the basics and are you able to apply them when the variables change in a way that keeps you on track?
I think some people get overwhelmed at the idea of "forever," which is why these time-limited diet plans are popular. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to steer people away from them though, just because they aren't necessarily a sustainable plan. Often having the experience of doing something short term helps a person develop a skill that can help them in the long term in creating a plan that is sustainable for them. I don't know anyone on this site is doing the exact same thing now that they were when they started, but they've figured out what is necessary for them to be able to succeed.
The trick, of course, is helping to guide people to figure out what is necessary for them, which is where I feel that focusing simply on the CICO principal fails the user.
This thinking ignores the emotional/behavioral side of things that comes with the concept of "forever" for some people. It can be a VERY loaded thing that often leads to destructive behavior.
There was a study... I'm pressed for time right now, or I'd dig it up, on binging, and it found it rooted in a cyclical behavior trap of restriction and binging. The thinking that "I'm never going to eat this again, I caved so .... BINGE!!!!" is a studied phenomenon, and that's what those of us who sometimes argue for sustainability worry about when it comes to advising other dieters.
The idea of long-term planning has to be something every dieter thinks about. You might find the occasional person who's okay with the idea of not eating cookies or ice cream during the weight loss phase who does just fine adding them back in, in reasonable, measured portions, during maintenance -- or you might not. Were I such a dieter, I frankly couldn't see the point of denying myself such things if I could fit them in... unless I truly never planned to eat them again.
When I low carbed, I low carbed for a very long time. About seven years, IIRC. The thing that did me in? Gluten free oatmeal coming on the market. I decided I just didn't want to live forever without having oatmeal. It was a good lesson for me about food.
I specifically said that some people have issues with the concept of "forever," not all people. For someone with binge/restrict issues, obviously a plan in which they eliminate something could be a problem. For others, proving that they can go for a certain period of time without cookies, or fast food, or whatever, is empowering to them, especially when it forces them out of their comfort zone. They stop with the thought process of "I can't imagine not having _____________" and get to "yeah, I could cut back or eliminate that from my diet and be fine with it." The skill they learn in the process is what's valuable, not the type of food.
If you don't want to do that type of challenge because you find it pointless, don't do it. Other people might enjoy them, and don't feel like just because they decide to do something right now means that they have to be doing the same thing in a year or two years or ten years. You also just proved my point about people being discouraged from doing things unless they plan on doing it forever by getting hung on specifics rather than the larger picture, so thank you for that.
But PeachyCarol also said "some people". She also phrased things from her POV - "If I were such a dieter" "when I low carbed" etc. Are we not allowed to share things from our POV now?
Oh, Blankiefinder already mentioned this. Should have kept reading.
I emphasized that I said some because her first sentence indicated that I was making a general statement that applied to everyone and excluded those for whom the emotional/behavioral side of a time limit would be an issue.
And yes, she is welcome to share things from her POV, just as everyone else is able to share their opinion based on their POV. Nowhere did I say otherwise.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »YESITDOESWORK:
However........I'm sure it will be sub par just like the garbage advice you've been giving out in the weight gain section. You're out of your league kid.
Now for the important question, who's sock puppet are you?
Actually, YESITDOES,I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I have never been to the weight gain section. I suspect that section would do not help me lose weight.
It actually helps if you hit the "quote" button before you reply to a post, so people can see who the heck you're talking to. It is a handy feature that is extremely helpful in threads with a lot of replies.
Sorry. It wasn't a helpful post anyway. See Senecarr above. He quoted the full text.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I do think telling people "CICO is what is important", and "eat less, move more" is simplistic, but still helpful. What is really necessary, is to understand what your individual energy balance is b/w CI vs CO (both at your current weight and activity level, and then as a result of weight loss, increased activity, etc to understand what that does to the balance).
If more people spent time trying to accurately understand their calorie level to maintain their current weight, then it would be simpler to 1) determine how many calories they need to either cut on the CI side, or 2) increase on the CO side in order to affect that energy balance and achieve the desired weight loss.
Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.
I think the other part that people get hung up on is the sustainability portion though - when it comes down to it, what the person ultimately needs to be able to sustain is an appropriate calorie goal and activity level to stay in maintenance after reaching their goal.
But we often see people suggesting that someone not start down a certain path if they can't stick with it long term, particularly when it comes to an eating style. That's just not realistic for most people; our circumstances change over time, and we have to change to adapt to it. I think conversations often get bogged down with specifics and semantics, rather than the big picture, which is do you understand the basics and are you able to apply them when the variables change in a way that keeps you on track?
I think some people get overwhelmed at the idea of "forever," which is why these time-limited diet plans are popular. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to steer people away from them though, just because they aren't necessarily a sustainable plan. Often having the experience of doing something short term helps a person develop a skill that can help them in the long term in creating a plan that is sustainable for them. I don't know anyone on this site is doing the exact same thing now that they were when they started, but they've figured out what is necessary for them to be able to succeed.
The trick, of course, is helping to guide people to figure out what is necessary for them, which is where I feel that focusing simply on the CICO principal fails the user.
This thinking ignores the emotional/behavioral side of things that comes with the concept of "forever" for some people. It can be a VERY loaded thing that often leads to destructive behavior.
There was a study... I'm pressed for time right now, or I'd dig it up, on binging, and it found it rooted in a cyclical behavior trap of restriction and binging. The thinking that "I'm never going to eat this again, I caved so .... BINGE!!!!" is a studied phenomenon, and that's what those of us who sometimes argue for sustainability worry about when it comes to advising other dieters.
The idea of long-term planning has to be something every dieter thinks about. You might find the occasional person who's okay with the idea of not eating cookies or ice cream during the weight loss phase who does just fine adding them back in, in reasonable, measured portions, during maintenance -- or you might not. Were I such a dieter, I frankly couldn't see the point of denying myself such things if I could fit them in... unless I truly never planned to eat them again.
When I low carbed, I low carbed for a very long time. About seven years, IIRC. The thing that did me in? Gluten free oatmeal coming on the market. I decided I just didn't want to live forever without having oatmeal. It was a good lesson for me about food.
I specifically said that some people have issues with the concept of "forever," not all people. For someone with binge/restrict issues, obviously a plan in which they eliminate something could be a problem. For others, proving that they can go for a certain period of time without cookies, or fast food, or whatever, is empowering to them, especially when it forces them out of their comfort zone. They stop with the thought process of "I can't imagine not having _____________" and get to "yeah, I could cut back or eliminate that from my diet and be fine with it." The skill they learn in the process is what's valuable, not the type of food.
If you don't want to do that type of challenge because you find it pointless, don't do it. Other people might enjoy them, and don't feel like just because they decide to do something right now means that they have to be doing the same thing in a year or two years or ten years. You also just proved my point about people being discouraged from doing things unless they plan on doing it forever by getting hung on specifics rather than the larger picture, so thank you for that.
I specifically said some people too. I was expanding on your thinking, and in a way, on something lemurcat said elsewhere.
Your post was entirely focused on the what of eating. I think too little attention is paid on these boards to the why, especially since for many people, the key to finally losing weight for good lays in discovering why they overeat.
I really think it was beneath you to make it personal about me in the second paragraph. Also, I didn't prove any point of yours since I allowed for a changing plan in a plan for forever. Stating that long-term planning needs to happen does not mean that someone needs to stick with one plan the whole time, You didn't see my edits, did you?
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I do think telling people "CICO is what is important", and "eat less, move more" is simplistic, but still helpful. What is really necessary, is to understand what your individual energy balance is b/w CI vs CO (both at your current weight and activity level, and then as a result of weight loss, increased activity, etc to understand what that does to the balance).
If more people spent time trying to accurately understand their calorie level to maintain their current weight, then it would be simpler to 1) determine how many calories they need to either cut on the CI side, or 2) increase on the CO side in order to affect that energy balance and achieve the desired weight loss.
Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.
I think the other part that people get hung up on is the sustainability portion though - when it comes down to it, what the person ultimately needs to be able to sustain is an appropriate calorie goal and activity level to stay in maintenance after reaching their goal.
But we often see people suggesting that someone not start down a certain path if they can't stick with it long term, particularly when it comes to an eating style. That's just not realistic for most people; our circumstances change over time, and we have to change to adapt to it. I think conversations often get bogged down with specifics and semantics, rather than the big picture, which is do you understand the basics and are you able to apply them when the variables change in a way that keeps you on track?
I think some people get overwhelmed at the idea of "forever," which is why these time-limited diet plans are popular. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to steer people away from them though, just because they aren't necessarily a sustainable plan. Often having the experience of doing something short term helps a person develop a skill that can help them in the long term in creating a plan that is sustainable for them. I don't know anyone on this site is doing the exact same thing now that they were when they started, but they've figured out what is necessary for them to be able to succeed.
The trick, of course, is helping to guide people to figure out what is necessary for them, which is where I feel that focusing simply on the CICO principal fails the user.
This thinking ignores the emotional/behavioral side of things that comes with the concept of "forever" for some people. It can be a VERY loaded thing that often leads to destructive behavior.
There was a study... I'm pressed for time right now, or I'd dig it up, on binging, and it found it rooted in a cyclical behavior trap of restriction and binging. The thinking that "I'm never going to eat this again, I caved so .... BINGE!!!!" is a studied phenomenon, and that's what those of us who sometimes argue for sustainability worry about when it comes to advising other dieters.
The idea of long-term planning has to be something every dieter thinks about. You might find the occasional person who's okay with the idea of not eating cookies or ice cream during the weight loss phase who does just fine adding them back in, in reasonable, measured portions, during maintenance -- or you might not. Were I such a dieter, I frankly couldn't see the point of denying myself such things if I could fit them in... unless I truly never planned to eat them again. However, were I such a dieter, having the knowledge of how to change horses midstream would be helpful and necessary.
When I low carbed, I low carbed for a very long time. About seven years, IIRC. The thing that did me in? Gluten free oatmeal coming on the market. I decided I just didn't want to live forever without having oatmeal. It was a good lesson for me about food. It wasn't enough, however, for me to know about sustaining energy balance. My low-carb education just stressed counting carbs.
Clearly, I am in the minority here but I have found the information in these forums to be incredibly helpful. That restriction/binging Peachy mentions was SO me. Oh well, as long as I'm "off" I might as well go nuts . . . I have been able to maintain a weight loss for months now because when I took a break from trying to lose, I didn't need to go off the rails. I was never able to do that before.
I suffered from massive information overload before I came here. Low fat, low carb, clean eating, eat this, not that, I didn't know where to turn. I actually came back to MFP last year because I had decided to start a fad diet and wanted to see how many calories it was giving me. But I'm a reader and I went into the forums and it was like a light bulb. All of that conflicting info was stripped away, along with all of my excuses. The onus is on me. That's a little terrifying at first but incredibly freeing. Maybe I have too high of expectations but I'd expect other adults to be able to figure out how to eat within their calorie goals in a way that works for them. That might require some trial and error, asking more questions and/or doing more research.0 -
CICO... I lost 8 pounds 1st month without exercise. Only 20 more to go. Going to start exercising when I hit a wall.I've yet to have anyone ask me how I lost weight say anything remotely like "Oh, of course. I should have known" when I tell them I just made sure I ate fewer calories. Every last person was sure I'd cut out white foods, or couldn't have sweet things, or couldn't have a cocktail, or must be working out hours a day, or similar.
Keep in mind, I lost weight just through diet. Didn't start exercising until after I was at goal weight (low side of BMI).
Funny thing. Out of maybe ten or so people that asked and were answered, I had only one say, "Really?" and get super excited. She was delighted to hear that if she was careful she could fit in a bit of dessert and it wouldn't make her gain weight. She was the only one that told her friends they were wrong to tell her she had to cut out all sweets, that she'd take the experience of someone she'd seen lose the weight and keep it off over their magazine articles. I don't think it's a coincidence that she works in research and development.
None of the others thinks they can do the same. For some reason I'm a special snowflake in their eyes. Or maybe they think I'm lying, but I'd prefer to believe the former
THIS!!!!!!!!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Water weight is noise, fat loss is signal. It is fairly easy to fix the problem by looking at daily weight as a rolling average and track the trend with something like trendweigh.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
Yes and no. FAT loss is really all about calories. But it's not always simple. The two biggest variables I can think of that make it seem like it’s about more than calories are:
1. Weight loss and fat loss may not be comparable. Water weight can be a big factor in weight loss.
2. There are many medical conditions that can throw a person outside the average categories making all these online calculators incorrect for them.
All of the other nonsense is mostly about money, but also about tyring to make it easier.
Water weight is not noise, it's weight. It makes you big just like fat does. And "easy" is opinion.
Unless you have a medical issue that leads to edema, it is a temporary issue that is a minor annoyance and goes away in a day or three. If you are constantly retaining water, you need to see a doctor.
Yes, I've been there. I have gained water weight as part of PMS, I have gained water weight from too much sodium, I have gained water weight from eating more than my normal amount of carbs, and I have had edema caused by severe anemia that lasted close to a year before finally seeing a doctor. All but the edema were a temporary annoyance. The edema was very uncomfortable, especially in my lower legs and feet.
0 -
I've been waiting for an opportunity to use this:
Carry on.0 -
Yes, in terms of weight loss. If you care about total health and overall well-being, well certainly some choices are better than others. Lol.0
-
lindsey1979 wrote: »Maybe the whole issue just circles around the type of people you hang out with. I've never personally encountered anyone in real life that was felt he/she was greatly enlightened by the concept of "eat less and move more". For the people I encounter, that's all pretty obvious and they'd even be a little insulted for you to insinuate otherwise.
But, I totally also see on these forums some that have been completely shocked by it being that simple -- and have that, "really, is it that simple?" reaction. So maybe, it's just the perspective in the relative intelligence or thinking patterns of people we encounter on a daily basis.
I'm sure it does have to do with the people we hang around with. It's not their level of intelligence, though. Almost everyone I hang out with is either an MD or a PhD. Hazard of my job
Now, it could be an issue of common sense. I'm finding that to be exceedingly rare these days.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I do think telling people "CICO is what is important", and "eat less, move more" is simplistic, but still helpful. What is really necessary, is to understand what your individual energy balance is b/w CI vs CO (both at your current weight and activity level, and then as a result of weight loss, increased activity, etc to understand what that does to the balance).
If more people spent time trying to accurately understand their calorie level to maintain their current weight, then it would be simpler to 1) determine how many calories they need to either cut on the CI side, or 2) increase on the CO side in order to affect that energy balance and achieve the desired weight loss.
Similarly, as others are saying, CICO is the fundamental principal but there are ENDLESS combinations of foods, nutrients, etc that will influence an individual's specific diet and ultimately influence the sustainability and satisfaction level of the process. If people make things too difficult, by cutting out foods they love, or restricting total calories too far - then yes, I think that means that they are more likely to end up getting frustrated and give up on the overall process before achieving their goals, or after they reach a desired weight but think they can go back to their old habits.
I think the other part that people get hung up on is the sustainability portion though - when it comes down to it, what the person ultimately needs to be able to sustain is an appropriate calorie goal and activity level to stay in maintenance after reaching their goal.
But we often see people suggesting that someone not start down a certain path if they can't stick with it long term, particularly when it comes to an eating style. That's just not realistic for most people; our circumstances change over time, and we have to change to adapt to it. I think conversations often get bogged down with specifics and semantics, rather than the big picture, which is do you understand the basics and are you able to apply them when the variables change in a way that keeps you on track?
I think some people get overwhelmed at the idea of "forever," which is why these time-limited diet plans are popular. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to steer people away from them though, just because they aren't necessarily a sustainable plan. Often having the experience of doing something short term helps a person develop a skill that can help them in the long term in creating a plan that is sustainable for them. I don't know anyone on this site is doing the exact same thing now that they were when they started, but they've figured out what is necessary for them to be able to succeed.
The trick, of course, is helping to guide people to figure out what is necessary for them, which is where I feel that focusing simply on the CICO principal fails the user.
This thinking ignores the emotional/behavioral side of things that comes with the concept of "forever" for some people. It can be a VERY loaded thing that often leads to destructive behavior.
There was a study... I'm pressed for time right now, or I'd dig it up, on binging, and it found it rooted in a cyclical behavior trap of restriction and binging. The thinking that "I'm never going to eat this again, I caved so .... BINGE!!!!" is a studied phenomenon, and that's what those of us who sometimes argue for sustainability worry about when it comes to advising other dieters.
The idea of long-term planning has to be something every dieter thinks about. You might find the occasional person who's okay with the idea of not eating cookies or ice cream during the weight loss phase who does just fine adding them back in, in reasonable, measured portions, during maintenance -- or you might not. Were I such a dieter, I frankly couldn't see the point of denying myself such things if I could fit them in... unless I truly never planned to eat them again. However, were I such a dieter, having the knowledge of how to change horses midstream would be helpful and necessary.
When I low carbed, I low carbed for a very long time. About seven years, IIRC. The thing that did me in? Gluten free oatmeal coming on the market. I decided I just didn't want to live forever without having oatmeal. It was a good lesson for me about food. It wasn't enough, however, for me to know about sustaining energy balance. My low-carb education just stressed counting carbs.
Clearly, I am in the minority here but I have found the information in these forums to be incredibly helpful. That restriction/binging Peachy mentions was SO me. Oh well, as long as I'm "off" I might as well go nuts . . . I have been able to maintain a weight loss for months now because when I took a break from trying to lose, I didn't need to go off the rails. I was never able to do that before.
I suffered from massive information overload before I came here. Low fat, low carb, clean eating, eat this, not that, I didn't know where to turn. I actually came back to MFP last year because I had decided to start a fad diet and wanted to see how many calories it was giving me. But I'm a reader and I went into the forums and it was like a light bulb. All of that conflicting info was stripped away, along with all of my excuses. The onus is on me. That's a little terrifying at first but incredibly freeing. Maybe I have too high of expectations but I'd expect other adults to be able to figure out how to eat within their calorie goals in a way that works for them. That might require some trial and error, asking more questions and/or doing more research.
Woo Hoo!
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »Maybe the whole issue just circles around the type of people you hang out with. I've never personally encountered anyone in real life that was felt he/she was greatly enlightened by the concept of "eat less and move more". For the people I encounter, that's all pretty obvious and they'd even be a little insulted for you to insinuate otherwise.
But, I totally also see on these forums some that have been completely shocked by it being that simple -- and have that, "really, is it that simple?" reaction. So maybe, it's just the perspective in the relative intelligence or thinking patterns of people we encounter on a daily basis.
I'm sure it does have to do with the people we hang around with. It's not their level of intelligence, though. Almost everyone I hang out with is either an MD or a PhD. Hazard of my job
Now, it could be an issue of common sense. I'm finding that to be exceedingly rare these days.
I think there are many different forms of intelligence, common sense being one of them. And, yes, it does seem to be far less common these days.
0 -
flippy1234 wrote: »I am so tired of so much diet crap being thrown at us. So many different magic bullets and philosophies. I just want to know, is it really that simple, CICO? If so, then what is all of this other nonsense?
Conceptually? Yes, it's simple.
In practice? It's quite hard, for most people.
It's the difference between theory and the real world.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Maybe the whole issue just circles around the type of people you hang out with. I've never personally encountered anyone in real life that was felt he/she was greatly enlightened by the concept of "eat less and move more". For the people I encounter, that's all pretty obvious and they'd even be a little insulted for you to insinuate otherwise.
But, I totally also see on these forums some that have been completely shocked by it being that simple -- and have that, "really, is it that simple?" reaction. So maybe, it's just the perspective in the relative intelligence or thinking patterns of people we encounter on a daily basis.
I'm sure it does have to do with the people we hang around with. It's not their level of intelligence, though. Almost everyone I hang out with is either an MD or a PhD. Hazard of my job
Now, it could be an issue of common sense. I'm finding that to be exceedingly rare these days.
I think there are many different forms of intelligence, common sense being one of them. And, yes, it does seem to be far less common these days.
"Common sense" is just a collection of biases.
Sometimes they're the right biases, and sometimes they're not.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »Maybe the whole issue just circles around the type of people you hang out with. I've never personally encountered anyone in real life that was felt he/she was greatly enlightened by the concept of "eat less and move more". For the people I encounter, that's all pretty obvious and they'd even be a little insulted for you to insinuate otherwise.
But, I totally also see on these forums some that have been completely shocked by it being that simple -- and have that, "really, is it that simple?" reaction. So maybe, it's just the perspective in the relative intelligence or thinking patterns of people we encounter on a daily basis.
I'm sure it does have to do with the people we hang around with. It's not their level of intelligence, though. Almost everyone I hang out with is either an MD or a PhD. Hazard of my job
Now, it could be an issue of common sense. I'm finding that to be exceedingly rare these days.
Many seem people equate knowledge with intelligence, and ignorance with stupidity. What they tend to forget is that while they are knowledable in their field, they are ignorant of others. This always frustrates me, as I would rather educate than denigrate.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Maybe the whole issue just circles around the type of people you hang out with. I've never personally encountered anyone in real life that was felt he/she was greatly enlightened by the concept of "eat less and move more". For the people I encounter, that's all pretty obvious and they'd even be a little insulted for you to insinuate otherwise.
But, I totally also see on these forums some that have been completely shocked by it being that simple -- and have that, "really, is it that simple?" reaction. So maybe, it's just the perspective in the relative intelligence or thinking patterns of people we encounter on a daily basis.
I'm sure it does have to do with the people we hang around with. It's not their level of intelligence, though. Almost everyone I hang out with is either an MD or a PhD. Hazard of my job
Now, it could be an issue of common sense. I'm finding that to be exceedingly rare these days.
I think there are many different forms of intelligence, common sense being one of them. And, yes, it does seem to be far less common these days.
"Common sense" is just a collection of biases.
Sometimes they're the right biases, and sometimes they're not.
Depending on their biases.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions