Cutting carbs is more effective than cutting fat...apparently.
Replies
-
The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
That's 90% of ALL people, including the ones doing lowcarb. So I don't really see your point here.
And the only way you'd lose actual fat twice as fast would be if you created a twice as big deficit, low carb or not.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
2. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
That's 90% of ALL people, including the ones doing lowcarb. So I don't really see your point here.
And the only way you'd lose actual fat twice as fast would be if you created a twice as big deficit, low carb or not.
I'm not saying that low carb is the solution for everyone either. You're wrong about the deficit issue -- read my above post.
0 -
natboosh69 wrote: »http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11963385/Cut-out-carbs-not-fat-if-you-want-to-lose-weight-Harvard-study-finds.html
This was also one of the main stories on the news in the UK this morning, cue mass of low carb diets!
Why is it not mainstream information that cutting calories is all that is needed, not carbs or fat or whatever? Frustrates me so much reading cr*p like this.
Did you read it? Outside the headline and the study results, which were not all that significant, the entire article was about not cutting carbs or fat and instead focusing on health and portion size.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.
Most of these foods (with the exception of crackers, which I've never heard named as a trigger food before) and cocktails, are either also high fat or tend to be eaten with high fat foods (bread, pasta).
One thing is that low carb diets tend to require that such foods be cut out, but "low fat" diets aren't really low fat (more like below 30%) so you can still eat this kind of stuff -- the diet as a whole changes less.
This one examined a wide range of diets, but for example on extremely low fat diets like Ornish or Fuhrman you couldn't eat most of this stuff either, or would do so in a very different way (whole wheat bread, plain; pasta with a vegetable based sauce, no cheese, little olive oil). So it would present just as big a change.
I never get why people want to classify foods that about about half fat (like fries or chips -- both foods that are considered unhealthy more because of the oil typically used than anything about potatoes) as simply "carbs" and then slam the health benefits of carbs based on that. (Not saying you personally are doing this--it's just a pet peeve.)[b/]
No, I'm definitely not doing that. Fries and chips are definitely high fat as well, but within the confines of a low-carb diet, they are absolutely too high in carbohydrates to be included in any fashion. I wasn't trying to categorize any foods into exclusively carbs or fats, I was simply listing foods that are calorie-dense and prone to over-consumption for many folks that are also too high in carbs to include in any significant quantity on a low carb diet.
As I said, the best case scenario is to eat all food groups in moderation. I was simply trying to point out that from an adherence standpoint - which I think EVERYONE can agree is one of the top predictors of success, because it doesn't matter how perfectly tailored or balanced your meal plan/diet is, it is absolutely meaningless if you can't stick to it - low carb may make that easier for some people who tend to over-consume, since a lot of the foods that make that easy are high carb, and eliminating those as an option may mentally make the choice not to over-eat easier.
(Also, for the record, crackers are for SURE a trigger - I can put down a box of Cheez Its like I'm being paid to do it.
)
Ah, Cheez Its. I forgot about those. Crackers to me mean Saltines or similar, which are tasty and all, but I'd only overeat them if I put cheese on them! ;-) I used to gobble down the goldfish, come to think of it, and for some reason haven't had them in forever -- kind of forgot about them too, hmm.
I agree with your basic point about focusing on what makes it easier on an individual basis. I've always been more prone to overeating on fat than carbs, but won't do low fat because, well, I'd be cutting out foods I love, so would get tired of it. So I focus on other strategies, like not snacking, and generally trying to plan my diet around nutrient-dense foods (many of which are carb-based). I can see why low carb would work well for others.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't hold true (though it's theoretical at that point), but that it's usefullness as a weight loss tool becomes more and more limited is such situation. In fact, it gets to the point, where it is nonsensical and/or dangerous if certain factors shift.
So, from my perspective, it's a great starting point. If you're measuring correctly and being reasonable in your estimates about output (and granted, this where most people probably make their mistake), and the expected CICO calculations aren't working, then it's time to look into something else that's causing the shift (i.e. medical issues).
But, for people to just repeat the mantra CICO and a deficit are all you need is simply incorrect and can be dangerous in certain situations. Continuing to cut calories is not always the answer.
For example, if you have a thyroid issue, and you need to cut below 800-1000 to lose or maintain, that's not an example where CICO should be reinforced if it's meant to be just keep cutting. That's a time when you say, okay, the calculations aren't working as expected, something is off -- time to figure out what that is. They'd just tell a person that they're not in a deficit and need to cut more or exercise more -- which is the exact opposite of the advice that should be given/followed.
But some CICO purists on this site don't understand the difference between the simple physics equation and the APPLICATION of that equation to the human body for the purposes of weight loss. They just ASSUME that a body will only store fat when you eat more than you burn. They don't understand that for some, the equation doesn't work that way because their metabolism is off and they can't manipulate the equation the same way a person without such issues can. That such people need the underlying problem TREATED before applying the conventional CICO wisdom.
But, sometimes, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails.
As for the self-diagnosis issues, sure there are people with those issues. And I don't doubt that the most common errors are really in measuring/calculating. I totally agree with you on that. But, medical issues that affect these calculations are incredibly COMMON. Just look at insulin resistance. Nearly HALF of the American adult population has IR at prediabetic or diabetic levels. I bet you if you look at over weight people, the percentage is higher. So, when things like this are so incredibly common, you've got to understand that CICO is not going to apply to them necessarily in the same way -- that there is a reason beside failures in measuring/calculating that the expected CICO calcalations aren't working. And it's not necessarily because they're stupid, lying, in denial, looking for excuses, can't measure/calculate, etc.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
90% of people who lose weight, regain that weight regardless of the methodology used. I used calorie counting to lose weight but I viewed calorie counting as a training tool...it taught me how to eat healthier and make better choices as well as made me aware of portions and I have a pretty good idea now of how many calories are in most things.
I have maintained my weight loss for 2.5 years now without counting because I adopted an overall healthier lifestyle...I eat well and exercise regularly. People fail to maintain their weight because they fail to adopt a new "normal" and go back to old habits as soon as they drop the weight regardless of what diet or plan or methodology they used to lose weight.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
90% of people who lose weight, regain that weight regardless of the methodology used. I used calorie counting to lose weight but I viewed calorie counting as a training tool...it taught me how to eat healthier and make better choices as well as made me aware of portions and I have a pretty good idea now of how many calories are in most things.
I have maintained my weight loss for 2.5 years now without counting because I adopted an overall healthier lifestyle...I eat well and exercise regularly. People fail to maintain their weight because they fail to adopt a new "normal" and go back to old habits as soon as they drop the weight regardless of what diet or plan or methodology they used to lose weight.
I agree with you on that, but that's why it's so important to pick a strategy where it's doable in the longterm. I don't think counting calories meticulously on its own is a realistic longterm strategy for most.
I think that you're right that they need to make lifestyle changes and learn to make better choices -- I'm all for that. I just don't think that calorie counting alone gets that done.
That's why I think it is important to learn about healthier choices and what works best for the individual -- figuring out what foods and macros are best for you. Some will fare better in the longterm with more carbs, some with less carbs. Some will do better to eat everything they like in moderation; some will do better to avoid certain foods. All of those issues will be part of what is the "healthy choice" for them. And it's what they need to figure out.
I personally think that cutting down on added sugar is a good way to do that as well -- not the only way, but a good way. And it's certainly part of what is best for me personally.
0 -
Um.
WHY? Why cut out delicious? Together, they are a match made in heaven (and hell).
*sigh*0 -
eh it is comparing the two current fads...low fat vs low carb and saying low carb works better than low fat.
It probably does...get rid of bread, pasta and potatos bam lots of calories gone.
Fat helps with satiety so of course if you eat fat you feel fuller longer and eat less of other stuff.
The final note in the articleBut doctors said any diet which reduced portion size and focussed on a healthy balanced range of fresh and unprocessed foods could form an effective route to weight loss. Dr Tobias said: "We need to look beyond the ratios of calories from fat, carbs, and protein to a discussion of healthy eating patterns, whole foods, and portion sizes.
<snip>
He said the key message from the research is that overall calorie intake determined the extent of weight loss, however it was achieved.
“In order to control body weight, it still remains sensible advice to eat less (restrict portion size) and avoid consuming excess amounts of fat and sugar especially as fatty meat, deep fried foods, cakes and biscuits and sugar-sweetened beverages,” he said.
This. Exactly.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't hold true (though it's theoretical at that point), but that it's usefullness as a weight loss tool becomes more and more limited is such situation. In fact, it gets to the point, where it is nonsensical and/or dangerous if certain factors shift.
So, from my perspective, it's a great starting point. If you're measuring correctly and being reasonable in your estimates about output (and granted, this where most people probably make their mistake), and the expected CICO calculations aren't working, then it's time to look into something else that's causing the shift (i.e. medical issues).
But, for people to just repeat the mantra CICO and a deficit are all you need is simply incorrect and can be dangerous in certain situations. Continuing to cut calories is not always the answer.
For example, if you have a thyroid issue, and you need to cut below 800-1000 to lose or maintain, that's not an example where CICO should be reinforced if it's meant to be just keep cutting. That's a time when you say, okay, the calculations aren't working as expected, something is off -- time to figure out what that is. They'd just tell a person that they're not in a deficit and need to cut more or exercise more -- which is the exact opposite of the advice that should be given/followed.
But some CICO purists on this site don't understand the difference between the simple physics equation and the APPLICATION of that equation to the human body for the purposes of weight loss. They just ASSUME that a body will only store fat when you eat more than you burn. They don't understand that for some, the equation doesn't work that way because their metabolism is off and they can't manipulate the equation the same way a person without such issues can. That such people need the underlying problem TREATED before applying the conventional CICO wisdom.
But, sometimes, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails.
As for the self-diagnosis issues, sure there are people with those issues. And I don't doubt that the most common errors are really in measuring/calculating. I totally agree with you on that. But, medical issues that affect these calculations are incredibly COMMON. Just look at insulin resistance. Nearly HALF of the American adult population has IR at prediabetic or diabetic levels. I bet you if you look at over weight people, the percentage is higher. So, when things like this are so incredibly common, you've got to understand that CICO is not going to apply to them necessarily in the same way -- that there is a reason beside failures in measuring/calculating that the expected CICO calcalations aren't working. And it's not necessarily because they're stupid, lying, in denial, looking for excuses, can't measure/calculate, etc.
CICO is always, always true. It's science. If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. (Hold on, quote-ee, I'm about to agree with you.)
And a large majority of CICO failures are certainly due to mis-estimating or mis-recording on the "calories in" side, or over-reporting exercise.
However, I think what a lot of CICO stalwarts fail to take into account is that the "CO" side of the equation is NOT one size fits all. There are so, so, SO many individual factors that affect how many calories we burn per day. You can't just pop your age, sex, height, weight, and body fat percentage into a random website or an activity tracker and expect that the number it spits out is going to work perfectly for you. It's an average. It's an estimate. It's what's "typical."
When your rate of gain/loss isn't what you want it to be and you've corrected the "CI" side to be as accurate as possible, it's time to start examining the "CO" side. Unfortunately, there's a lot of information out there - some of it bunk, some of it good science, a lot of it somewhere in-between - on what drives your body to burn fewer (or, heck, more; though you don't really hear about that, at least not as part of this particular conversation) calories than what you'd expect and how to "fix" that. So people throw anything and everything at the wall to see what will stick. It's a desperate feeling to not understand why your hard work isn't paying off.0 -
I love this stuff. Thank you for sharing that.HappyCampr1 wrote: »I'm interested to see if the genetic studies prove genetic predisposition to one type of diet over the other. Preliminary studies show a genetic element which affects which type of diet (low carb or low fat) works best for an individual. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703862704575099742545274032
The NIH is funding further multi-year studies which are due to end in 2017. http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-DK091831-03
This is way over my skill set, but describes more about the initial findings.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/6321133_Genotype-specific_weight_loss_treatment_advice_how_close_are_we
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't hold true (though it's theoretical at that point), but that it's usefullness as a weight loss tool becomes more and more limited is such situation. In fact, it gets to the point, where it is nonsensical and/or dangerous if certain factors shift.
So, from my perspective, it's a great starting point. If you're measuring correctly and being reasonable in your estimates about output (and granted, this where most people probably make their mistake), and the expected CICO calculations aren't working, then it's time to look into something else that's causing the shift (i.e. medical issues).
But, for people to just repeat the mantra CICO and a deficit are all you need is simply incorrect and can be dangerous in certain situations. Continuing to cut calories is not always the answer.
For example, if you have a thyroid issue, and you need to cut below 800-1000 to lose or maintain, that's not an example where CICO should be reinforced if it's meant to be just keep cutting. That's a time when you say, okay, the calculations aren't working as expected, something is off -- time to figure out what that is. They'd just tell a person that they're not in a deficit and need to cut more or exercise more -- which is the exact opposite of the advice that should be given/followed.
But some CICO purists on this site don't understand the difference between the simple physics equation and the APPLICATION of that equation to the human body for the purposes of weight loss. They just ASSUME that a body will only store fat when you eat more than you burn. They don't understand that for some, the equation doesn't work that way because their metabolism is off and they can't manipulate the equation the same way a person without such issues can. That such people need the underlying problem TREATED before applying the conventional CICO wisdom.
But, sometimes, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails.
As for the self-diagnosis issues, sure there are people with those issues. And I don't doubt that the most common errors are really in measuring/calculating. I totally agree with you on that. But, medical issues that affect these calculations are incredibly COMMON. Just look at insulin resistance. Nearly HALF of the American adult population has IR at prediabetic or diabetic levels. I bet you if you look at over weight people, the percentage is higher. So, when things like this are so incredibly common, you've got to understand that CICO is not going to apply to them necessarily in the same way -- that there is a reason beside failures in measuring/calculating that the expected CICO calcalations aren't working. And it's not necessarily because they're stupid, lying, in denial, looking for excuses, can't measure/calculate, etc.
CICO is always, always true. It's science. If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. (Hold on, quote-ee, I'm about to agree with you.)
And a large majority of CICO failures are certainly due to mis-estimating or mis-recording on the "calories in" side, or over-reporting exercise.
However, I think what a lot of CICO stalwarts fail to take into account is that the "CO" side of the equation is NOT one size fits all. There are so, so, SO many individual factors that affect how many calories we burn per day. You can't just pop your age, sex, height, weight, and body fat percentage into a random website or an activity tracker and expect that the number it spits out is going to work perfectly for you. It's an average. It's an estimate. It's what's "typical."
When your rate of gain/loss isn't what you want it to be and you've corrected the "CI" side to be as accurate as possible, it's time to start examining the "CO" side. Unfortunately, there's a lot of information out there - some of it bunk, some of it good science, a lot of it somewhere in-between - on what drives your body to burn fewer (or, heck, more; though you don't really hear about that, at least not as part of this particular conversation) calories than what you'd expect and how to "fix" that. So people throw anything and everything at the wall to see what will stick. It's a desperate feeling to not understand why your hard work isn't paying off.
It's not the science that I have a problem with -- it's the poor application of folks who think they correctly understand the underlying biochemical mechanisms involved in that science and then spout off half-truths not understanding when they apply and when they don't apply. You do realize that there is a REASON that PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY and BIOLOGY are different separate fields of study?
What I think a LOT of people get confused on is the ivory tower abstract concept of CICO and the practical application of CICO to WEIGHT LOSS. The first is a pretty simple discussion on the laws of thermodynamics, the second is not necessarily that simple and can be painfully complex. It literally involves 1000s of biochemical reactions. So, to simplify, we make certain assumptions for the calculations/applications. If you get a situation where those assumptions or variables change, the straightforward application changes dramatically or fails. It doesn't mean necessarily that CICO fails, but the straightforward application of CICO to weight loss can fail (at least based on our limited ability to measure the CO part of the equation these days).
So, you can argue CICO is always true, but that's the beside the point -- it's not always a valuable tool for weightloss. It's value as weight loss tool is limited for folks where the underlying assumptions and variables are not typical -- whether it's thyroid, insulin resistance, etc. Let me give you an example to better illustrate this. And it's not disproving CICO, but it's showing how the simple application of CICO to weightloss is flawed and/or limited in certain circumstances because the underlying assumptions shift.
CICO Assumptions
So, your basic CICO equation looks like this: CI = CO + FS (fat stores) or if you shift the CO to the other side, it looks like CI - CO = FS. So if you burn more than you eat (i.e. your CO is bigger than your CI), your fat stores will go down (i.e. lose fat). That's the basic idea behind eat less and move more, which does work for a LOT of people.
But, and here's the big caveat: this assumes that your metabolism is functioning in a way where your body is able to access all of the energy in your CI for energy needed in CO. But what if that wasn't the case? What if you couldn't access some of it and your body automatically turned some of it into fat stores even though you needed more? What would be the result? Your body would shut down non-essential functions to drop you CO to compensate -- things like fatigue, lower body temp, hair growth stops, get dry skin/hair, brittle nails, etc. Pretty much a lot of the very things you see with an underperforming thyroid. Or you'd eat even more to get the energy you need and more would be stored as fat -- resulting in that "unexplained weight gain" -- a symptom of hypothyroid.
So, to put this into tangible numbers, let's say your TDEE (or CO) should be 1700 or so per the normal CICO calculators. So, if you eat only 1400, you should have a 300 deficit and lose weight. But, let's say your body has this problem and can't fully access the 1400 for energy. Let's say your body can only access 1200 of the 1400 and the other 200 goes towards fat storage. So even though you're eating less than your expected CO, some is still going into fat storage (which wouldn't be the case with a normal person). Then your body compensates and drops your actual CO to account for the lower energy of only 1200. And how does the body do that? By lowering non-essential functions. What would those be? Things like awful fatigue, hair loss, lower body, temp, etc. The exact symptoms of hypothyroid!! So now you have these horrible symptoms and you're not losing weight -- because that 200 is going to fat storage.
CICO Weight Loss Application Limitations
So, if you've got this going on, you just can't manipulate the CICO equation like normal people do -- so saying things like "it's always true -- it's science!" misses the point. You can keep cutting, but you'll just feel worse and worse (and possibly develop worse issues and it can become dangerous). Most of my doc's thyroid patients (including me) lost when they got into the 800-1000 calorie range, but they feel horrible, can't function like a normal person because of the fatigue, etc. and so continuing to cut isn't the correct solution. Instead, you've got to figure out why your body isn't metabolizing things correctly like a normal person -- whether that's from thyroid, insulin resistance, liver issues, etc. Then, you figure that out and treat them, you'll start responding to the normal CICO calculations.
But some CICO fundamentalists don't understand this difference and get into fights over the laws of thermodynamics. And this doesn't violate CICO at all -- in fact, it's totally in line with it. It simply means that the application is different with people with these issues because the assumptions are different about being able to metabolize all your CI for CO.
To me, this shows why people with medical issues may need to adjust strategies. Or the converse is true -- that those who aren't getting the expected results from the traditional CICO calculations, then it may be time to investigate if they have a medical/metabolic issue in play that they didn't know about. They definitely need to figure out the underlying issues and get them treated. And part of that may require diet changes -- such as eating more or less carbs --HOW they create a deficit may result in dramatically different results. This is exactly what led me to finding out about my issues. And it doesn't mean CICO is wrong or invalid, just that it can't be applied to someone with a medical issue in the same way it is to people without those issues -- at least not for weightloss purposes.
Common Medical Conditions
And before someone goes on about how rare medical conditions are, that's simply inaccurate. Thyroid issues affect 8-10% of the population. Insulin resistance affects almost HALF of the US adult population -- over 46% have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels. These are not 1 in a 1000 special snowflakes. For overweight people (since weight gain is a symptom of both), I'd imagine the percentages are even higher. These are incredibly common.
Conclusion
I think CICO is a great guideline. I think it's where everyone should start -- including accurately measuring their CI (by weighing all their food). But, it has its limitations in regard to practical application of weight loss. If people are applying it correctly, it's possible that there is something else going on. Inaccurate measuring, lying to themselves, being delusional, making excuses, etc. aren't the only possibilities. They could legitimately have an undiagnosed or undertreated medical condition.
So saying "CICO is always, always true. It's science." misses the point and just shows how you little you understand in how to correctly apply that science to weightloss.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't hold true (though it's theoretical at that point), but that it's usefullness as a weight loss tool becomes more and more limited is such situation. In fact, it gets to the point, where it is nonsensical and/or dangerous if certain factors shift.
So, from my perspective, it's a great starting point. If you're measuring correctly and being reasonable in your estimates about output (and granted, this where most people probably make their mistake), and the expected CICO calculations aren't working, then it's time to look into something else that's causing the shift (i.e. medical issues).
But, for people to just repeat the mantra CICO and a deficit are all you need is simply incorrect and can be dangerous in certain situations. Continuing to cut calories is not always the answer.
For example, if you have a thyroid issue, and you need to cut below 800-1000 to lose or maintain, that's not an example where CICO should be reinforced if it's meant to be just keep cutting. That's a time when you say, okay, the calculations aren't working as expected, something is off -- time to figure out what that is. They'd just tell a person that they're not in a deficit and need to cut more or exercise more -- which is the exact opposite of the advice that should be given/followed.
But some CICO purists on this site don't understand the difference between the simple physics equation and the APPLICATION of that equation to the human body for the purposes of weight loss. They just ASSUME that a body will only store fat when you eat more than you burn. They don't understand that for some, the equation doesn't work that way because their metabolism is off and they can't manipulate the equation the same way a person without such issues can. That such people need the underlying problem TREATED before applying the conventional CICO wisdom.
But, sometimes, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails.
As for the self-diagnosis issues, sure there are people with those issues. And I don't doubt that the most common errors are really in measuring/calculating. I totally agree with you on that. But, medical issues that affect these calculations are incredibly COMMON. Just look at insulin resistance. Nearly HALF of the American adult population has IR at prediabetic or diabetic levels. I bet you if you look at over weight people, the percentage is higher. So, when things like this are so incredibly common, you've got to understand that CICO is not going to apply to them necessarily in the same way -- that there is a reason beside failures in measuring/calculating that the expected CICO calcalations aren't working. And it's not necessarily because they're stupid, lying, in denial, looking for excuses, can't measure/calculate, etc.
CICO is always, always true. It's science. If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. (Hold on, quote-ee, I'm about to agree with you.)
And a large majority of CICO failures are certainly due to mis-estimating or mis-recording on the "calories in" side, or over-reporting exercise.
However, I think what a lot of CICO stalwarts fail to take into account is that the "CO" side of the equation is NOT one size fits all. There are so, so, SO many individual factors that affect how many calories we burn per day. You can't just pop your age, sex, height, weight, and body fat percentage into a random website or an activity tracker and expect that the number it spits out is going to work perfectly for you. It's an average. It's an estimate. It's what's "typical."
When your rate of gain/loss isn't what you want it to be and you've corrected the "CI" side to be as accurate as possible, it's time to start examining the "CO" side. Unfortunately, there's a lot of information out there - some of it bunk, some of it good science, a lot of it somewhere in-between - on what drives your body to burn fewer (or, heck, more; though you don't really hear about that, at least not as part of this particular conversation) calories than what you'd expect and how to "fix" that. So people throw anything and everything at the wall to see what will stick. It's a desperate feeling to not understand why your hard work isn't paying off.
It's not the science that I have a problem with -- it's the poor application of folks who think they correctly understand the underlying biochemical mechanisms involved in that science and then spout off half-truths not understanding when they apply and when they don't apply. You do realize that there is a REASON that PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY and BIOLOGY are different separate fields of study?
What I think a LOT of people get confused on is the ivory tower abstract concept of CICO and the practical application of CICO to WEIGHT LOSS. The first is a pretty simple discussion on the laws of thermodynamics, the second is not necessarily that simple and can be painfully complex. It literally involves 1000s of biochemical reactions. So, to simplify, we make certain assumptions for the calculations/applications. If you get a situation where those assumptions or variables change, the straightforward application changes dramatically or fails. It doesn't mean necessarily that CICO fails, but the straightforward application of CICO to weight loss can fail (at least based on our limited ability to measure the CO part of the equation these days).
So, you can argue CICO is always true, but that's the beside the point -- it's not always a valuable tool for weightloss. It's value as weight loss tool is limited for folks where the underlying assumptions and variables are not typical -- whether it's thyroid, insulin resistance, etc. Let me give you an example to better illustrate this. And it's not disproving CICO, but it's showing how the simple application of CICO to weightloss is flawed and/or limited in certain circumstances because the underlying assumptions shift.
CICO Assumptions
So, your basic CICO equation looks like this: CI = CO + FS (fat stores) or if you shift the CO to the other side, it looks like CI - CO = FS. So if you burn more than you eat (i.e. your CO is bigger than your CI), your fat stores will go down (i.e. lose fat). That's the basic idea behind eat less and move more, which does work for a LOT of people.
But, and here's the big caveat: this assumes that your metabolism is functioning in a way where your body is able to access all of the energy in your CI for energy needed in CO. But what if that wasn't the case? What if you couldn't access some of it and your body automatically turned some of it into fat stores even though you needed more? What would be the result? Your body would shut down non-essential functions to drop you CO to compensate -- things like fatigue, lower body temp, hair growth stops, get dry skin/hair, brittle nails, etc. Pretty much a lot of the very things you see with an underperforming thyroid. Or you'd eat even more to get the energy you need and more would be stored as fat -- resulting in that "unexplained weight gain" -- a symptom of hypothyroid.
So, to put this into tangible numbers, let's say your TDEE (or CO) should be 1700 or so per the normal CICO calculators. So, if you eat only 1400, you should have a 300 deficit and lose weight. But, let's say your body has this problem and can't fully access the 1400 for energy. Let's say your body can only access 1200 of the 1400 and the other 200 goes towards fat storage. So even though you're eating less than your expected CO, some is still going into fat storage (which wouldn't be the case with a normal person). Then your body compensates and drops your actual CO to account for the lower energy of only 1200. And how does the body do that? By lowering non-essential functions. What would those be? Things like awful fatigue, hair loss, lower body, temp, etc. The exact symptoms of hypothyroid!! So now you have these horrible symptoms and you're not losing weight -- because that 200 is going to fat storage.
CICO Weight Loss Application Limitations
So, if you've got this going on, you just can't manipulate the CICO equation like normal people do -- so saying things like "it's always true -- it's science!" misses the point. You can keep cutting, but you'll just feel worse and worse (and possibly develop worse issues and it can become dangerous). Most of my doc's thyroid patients (including me) lost when they got into the 800-1000 calorie range, but they feel horrible, can't function like a normal person because of the fatigue, etc. and so continuing to cut isn't the correct solution. Instead, you've got to figure out why your body isn't metabolizing things correctly like a normal person -- whether that's from thyroid, insulin resistance, liver issues, etc. Then, you figure that out and treat them, you'll start responding to the normal CICO calculations.
But some CICO fundamentalists don't understand this difference and get into fights over the laws of thermodynamics. And this doesn't violate CICO at all -- in fact, it's totally in line with it. It simply means that the application is different with people with these issues because the assumptions are different about being able to metabolize all your CI for CO.
To me, this shows why people with medical issues may need to adjust strategies. Or the converse is true -- that those who aren't getting the expected results from the traditional CICO calculations, then it may be time to investigate if they have a medical/metabolic issue in play that they didn't know about. They definitely need to figure out the underlying issues and get them treated. And part of that may require diet changes -- such as eating more or less carbs --HOW they create a deficit may result in dramatically different results. This is exactly what led me to finding out about my issues. And it doesn't mean CICO is wrong or invalid, just that it can't be applied to someone with a medical issue in the same way it is to people without those issues -- at least not for weightloss purposes.
Common Medical Conditions
And before someone goes on about how rare medical conditions are, that's simply inaccurate. Thyroid issues affect 8-10% of the population. Insulin resistance affects almost HALF of the US adult population -- over 46% have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels. These are not 1 in a 1000 special snowflakes. For overweight people (since weight gain is a symptom of both), I'd imagine the percentages are even higher. These are incredibly common.
Conclusion
I think CICO is a great guideline. I think it's where everyone should start -- including accurately measuring their CI (by weighing all their food). But, it has its limitations in regard to practical application of weight loss. If people are applying it correctly, it's possible that there is something else going on. Inaccurate measuring, lying to themselves, being delusional, making excuses, etc. aren't the only possibilities. They could legitimately have an undiagnosed or undertreated medical condition.
So saying "CICO is always, always true. It's science." misses the point and just shows how you little you understand in how to correctly apply that science to weightloss.
Dude. DUDE. Did you read one single word after my first sentence? Because I even let you know right frigging there in that very first paragraph that I AGREED with you. And I do. Or did you get all rage-blinded and start typing without hearing me out?
I literally said exactly what you did, but in far fewer than 12 rant-y paragraphs and with far fewer shouty bolds and capitals. I maybe didn't include as much detail as you did and worded it a bit differently, but I'm absolutely a supporter of the concept that while the laws of thermodynamics do apply to everyone, people MUST take into account the concept that everyone's "calories out" side of the equation is extremely unique to each individual and there are many factors that could drive it down. I believe that was quite clear.
It's really, really good information that I think a lot of people should read. I was also happy to read it because it contained a lot of good info and some perspectives I hadn't considered. But, your ire is mis-directed at me. Please re-read what I wrote before you tell me "how little I understand science," because that was quite uncalled for.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
That's 90% of ALL people, including the ones doing lowcarb. So I don't really see your point here.
And the only way you'd lose actual fat twice as fast would be if you created a twice as big deficit, low carb or not.
Yep. Because a calorie deficit is the only requirement for weight loss. Everything else falls into preference or MD orders due to a medical condition.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't hold true (though it's theoretical at that point), but that it's usefullness as a weight loss tool becomes more and more limited is such situation. In fact, it gets to the point, where it is nonsensical and/or dangerous if certain factors shift.
So, from my perspective, it's a great starting point. If you're measuring correctly and being reasonable in your estimates about output (and granted, this where most people probably make their mistake), and the expected CICO calculations aren't working, then it's time to look into something else that's causing the shift (i.e. medical issues).
But, for people to just repeat the mantra CICO and a deficit are all you need is simply incorrect and can be dangerous in certain situations. Continuing to cut calories is not always the answer.
For example, if you have a thyroid issue, and you need to cut below 800-1000 to lose or maintain, that's not an example where CICO should be reinforced if it's meant to be just keep cutting. That's a time when you say, okay, the calculations aren't working as expected, something is off -- time to figure out what that is. They'd just tell a person that they're not in a deficit and need to cut more or exercise more -- which is the exact opposite of the advice that should be given/followed.
But some CICO purists on this site don't understand the difference between the simple physics equation and the APPLICATION of that equation to the human body for the purposes of weight loss. They just ASSUME that a body will only store fat when you eat more than you burn. They don't understand that for some, the equation doesn't work that way because their metabolism is off and they can't manipulate the equation the same way a person without such issues can. That such people need the underlying problem TREATED before applying the conventional CICO wisdom.
But, sometimes, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails.
As for the self-diagnosis issues, sure there are people with those issues. And I don't doubt that the most common errors are really in measuring/calculating. I totally agree with you on that. But, medical issues that affect these calculations are incredibly COMMON. Just look at insulin resistance. Nearly HALF of the American adult population has IR at prediabetic or diabetic levels. I bet you if you look at over weight people, the percentage is higher. So, when things like this are so incredibly common, you've got to understand that CICO is not going to apply to them necessarily in the same way -- that there is a reason beside failures in measuring/calculating that the expected CICO calcalations aren't working. And it's not necessarily because they're stupid, lying, in denial, looking for excuses, can't measure/calculate, etc.
CICO is always, always true. It's science. If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. (Hold on, quote-ee, I'm about to agree with you.)
And a large majority of CICO failures are certainly due to mis-estimating or mis-recording on the "calories in" side, or over-reporting exercise.
However, I think what a lot of CICO stalwarts fail to take into account is that the "CO" side of the equation is NOT one size fits all. There are so, so, SO many individual factors that affect how many calories we burn per day. You can't just pop your age, sex, height, weight, and body fat percentage into a random website or an activity tracker and expect that the number it spits out is going to work perfectly for you. It's an average. It's an estimate. It's what's "typical."
When your rate of gain/loss isn't what you want it to be and you've corrected the "CI" side to be as accurate as possible, it's time to start examining the "CO" side. Unfortunately, there's a lot of information out there - some of it bunk, some of it good science, a lot of it somewhere in-between - on what drives your body to burn fewer (or, heck, more; though you don't really hear about that, at least not as part of this particular conversation) calories than what you'd expect and how to "fix" that. So people throw anything and everything at the wall to see what will stick. It's a desperate feeling to not understand why your hard work isn't paying off.
It's not the science that I have a problem with -- it's the poor application of folks who think they correctly understand the underlying biochemical mechanisms involved in that science and then spout off half-truths not understanding when they apply and when they don't apply. You do realize that there is a REASON that PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY and BIOLOGY are different separate fields of study?
What I think a LOT of people get confused on is the ivory tower abstract concept of CICO and the practical application of CICO to WEIGHT LOSS. The first is a pretty simple discussion on the laws of thermodynamics, the second is not necessarily that simple and can be painfully complex. It literally involves 1000s of biochemical reactions. So, to simplify, we make certain assumptions for the calculations/applications. If you get a situation where those assumptions or variables change, the straightforward application changes dramatically or fails. It doesn't mean necessarily that CICO fails, but the straightforward application of CICO to weight loss can fail (at least based on our limited ability to measure the CO part of the equation these days).
So, you can argue CICO is always true, but that's the beside the point -- it's not always a valuable tool for weightloss. It's value as weight loss tool is limited for folks where the underlying assumptions and variables are not typical -- whether it's thyroid, insulin resistance, etc. Let me give you an example to better illustrate this. And it's not disproving CICO, but it's showing how the simple application of CICO to weightloss is flawed and/or limited in certain circumstances because the underlying assumptions shift.
CICO Assumptions
So, your basic CICO equation looks like this: CI = CO + FS (fat stores) or if you shift the CO to the other side, it looks like CI - CO = FS. So if you burn more than you eat (i.e. your CO is bigger than your CI), your fat stores will go down (i.e. lose fat). That's the basic idea behind eat less and move more, which does work for a LOT of people.
But, and here's the big caveat: this assumes that your metabolism is functioning in a way where your body is able to access all of the energy in your CI for energy needed in CO. But what if that wasn't the case? What if you couldn't access some of it and your body automatically turned some of it into fat stores even though you needed more? What would be the result? Your body would shut down non-essential functions to drop you CO to compensate -- things like fatigue, lower body temp, hair growth stops, get dry skin/hair, brittle nails, etc. Pretty much a lot of the very things you see with an underperforming thyroid. Or you'd eat even more to get the energy you need and more would be stored as fat -- resulting in that "unexplained weight gain" -- a symptom of hypothyroid.
So, to put this into tangible numbers, let's say your TDEE (or CO) should be 1700 or so per the normal CICO calculators. So, if you eat only 1400, you should have a 300 deficit and lose weight. But, let's say your body has this problem and can't fully access the 1400 for energy. Let's say your body can only access 1200 of the 1400 and the other 200 goes towards fat storage. So even though you're eating less than your expected CO, some is still going into fat storage (which wouldn't be the case with a normal person). Then your body compensates and drops your actual CO to account for the lower energy of only 1200. And how does the body do that? By lowering non-essential functions. What would those be? Things like awful fatigue, hair loss, lower body, temp, etc. The exact symptoms of hypothyroid!! So now you have these horrible symptoms and you're not losing weight -- because that 200 is going to fat storage.
CICO Weight Loss Application Limitations
So, if you've got this going on, you just can't manipulate the CICO equation like normal people do -- so saying things like "it's always true -- it's science!" misses the point. You can keep cutting, but you'll just feel worse and worse (and possibly develop worse issues and it can become dangerous). Most of my doc's thyroid patients (including me) lost when they got into the 800-1000 calorie range, but they feel horrible, can't function like a normal person because of the fatigue, etc. and so continuing to cut isn't the correct solution. Instead, you've got to figure out why your body isn't metabolizing things correctly like a normal person -- whether that's from thyroid, insulin resistance, liver issues, etc. Then, you figure that out and treat them, you'll start responding to the normal CICO calculations.
But some CICO fundamentalists don't understand this difference and get into fights over the laws of thermodynamics. And this doesn't violate CICO at all -- in fact, it's totally in line with it. It simply means that the application is different with people with these issues because the assumptions are different about being able to metabolize all your CI for CO.
To me, this shows why people with medical issues may need to adjust strategies. Or the converse is true -- that those who aren't getting the expected results from the traditional CICO calculations, then it may be time to investigate if they have a medical/metabolic issue in play that they didn't know about. They definitely need to figure out the underlying issues and get them treated. And part of that may require diet changes -- such as eating more or less carbs --HOW they create a deficit may result in dramatically different results. This is exactly what led me to finding out about my issues. And it doesn't mean CICO is wrong or invalid, just that it can't be applied to someone with a medical issue in the same way it is to people without those issues -- at least not for weightloss purposes.
Common Medical Conditions
And before someone goes on about how rare medical conditions are, that's simply inaccurate. Thyroid issues affect 8-10% of the population. Insulin resistance affects almost HALF of the US adult population -- over 46% have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels. These are not 1 in a 1000 special snowflakes. For overweight people (since weight gain is a symptom of both), I'd imagine the percentages are even higher. These are incredibly common.
Conclusion
I think CICO is a great guideline. I think it's where everyone should start -- including accurately measuring their CI (by weighing all their food). But, it has its limitations in regard to practical application of weight loss. If people are applying it correctly, it's possible that there is something else going on. Inaccurate measuring, lying to themselves, being delusional, making excuses, etc. aren't the only possibilities. They could legitimately have an undiagnosed or undertreated medical condition.
So saying "CICO is always, always true. It's science." misses the point and just shows how you little you understand in how to correctly apply that science to weightloss.
Dude. DUDE. Did you read one single word after my first sentence? Because I even let you know right frigging there in that very first paragraph that I AGREED with you. And I do. Or did you get all rage-blinded and start typing without hearing me out?
I literally said exactly what you did, but in far fewer than 12 rant-y paragraphs and with far fewer shouty bolds and capitals. I maybe didn't include as much detail as you did and worded it a bit differently, but I'm absolutely a supporter of the concept that while the laws of thermodynamics do apply to everyone, people MUST take into account the concept that everyone's "calories out" side of the equation is extremely unique to each individual and there are many factors that could drive it down. I believe that was quite clear.
It's really, really good information that I think a lot of people should read. I was also happy to read it because it contained a lot of good info and some perspectives I hadn't considered. But, your ire is mis-directed at me. Please re-read what I wrote before you tell me "how little I understand science," because that was quite uncalled for.
My apologies for focusing on not all of your message, but I still think you missed some of the point of my example -- and it's not just that the CO part is hard to calculate or measure, but also that the underlying assumptions change, the simple application can fail because the fundamental application shifts considerably. But, perhaps we are closer than I first thought we were.
I just think arguing that CICO is always correct (when we're talking about weight loss) is a poor starting point. Although it is likely true from a technical standpoint, the practical purpose of it is very different and/or not applicable. And, here, we're really only interested in the practical understanding as it applies to weightloss.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »Common Medical Conditions
And before someone goes on about how rare medical conditions are, that's simply inaccurate. Thyroid issues affect 8-10% of the population. Insulin resistance affects almost HALF of the US adult population -- over 46% have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels. These are not 1 in a 1000 special snowflakes. For overweight people (since weight gain is a symptom of both), I'd imagine the percentages are even higher. These are incredibly common.
Insulin resistance, though, is the opposite problem of having someone who overproduces fat - insulin resistance actually makes it harder to produce new fat and easier to break down existing fat, which is why plasma fatty acid levels are terrible. It can be beneficial for insulin resistant people to go low carb but that's not because they turn carbs to fat, but because they can't store excess carbohydrates (as either fat or glycogen) and thus blood glucose levels can become dangerous. And any caloric deficit or weight loss will help improve insulin sensitivity, not just low-carb diets.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Common Medical Conditions
And before someone goes on about how rare medical conditions are, that's simply inaccurate. Thyroid issues affect 8-10% of the population. Insulin resistance affects almost HALF of the US adult population -- over 46% have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels. These are not 1 in a 1000 special snowflakes. For overweight people (since weight gain is a symptom of both), I'd imagine the percentages are even higher. These are incredibly common.
Insulin resistance, though, is the opposite problem of having someone who overproduces fat - insulin resistance actually makes it harder to produce new fat and easier to break down existing fat, which is why plasma fatty acid levels are terrible. It can be beneficial for insulin resistant people to go low carb but that's not because they turn carbs to fat, but because they can't store excess carbohydrates (as either fat or glycogen) and thus blood glucose levels can become dangerous. And any caloric deficit or weight loss will help improve insulin sensitivity, not just low-carb diets.
That's not necessarily true. Difficulty losing/maintain weight is a symptom of insulin resistance for a reason as are strong cravings for carbs/sweets, hunger, lethargy and extra fat storage around the waist/midsection.
Essentially, one path that can be taken is this: the body's cells have become resistant to insulin, so they won't take up the glucose in the blood for energy even though it's available (and you get high blood glucose). The body compensates by pumping out more insulin, provided it's still able to do this. Insulin levels spike, glucose is forced from the blood into the cells. To the extent that glucose is not used for immediate energy needs, it gets turned into fat. Plus, your blood glucose falls dramatically, which triggers a hunger cue.
So people get get into a vicious cycle of overeating because they go from not enough energy (in the form of glucose getting into the cells), to too much and the excess being stored as fat and then dropping again, which triggers the need to eat again. When you can't stabilize your blood sugar, this roller coaster often leads to overeating and extra fat storage (especially around the midsection). If you don't overeat, you often suffer the consequences of low blood sugar, strong cravings, etc. And when the body can no longer produce enough insulin, you're an insulin-dependent type 2 diabetic.
High levels of insulin make it very difficult to access your fat stores for energy -- that's why those with IR tend to struggle with weight loss through conventional calorie restriction if they aren't also adopting other strategies. Those with mild IR, it may not make a difference, but for those with moderate/severe IR, it can feel nearly impossible.
There are other paths IR can take, but this is a common one that leads to overeating and inefficient fat storage because the body is not regulating intake through proper metabolism with energy needs. One of the ways to help this is to avoid and/or limit carbs or certain carbs. It's a reason why many IR folks do well with a LCHF diet. Exercise and weight loss also help.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't hold true (though it's theoretical at that point), but that it's usefullness as a weight loss tool becomes more and more limited is such situation. In fact, it gets to the point, where it is nonsensical and/or dangerous if certain factors shift.
So, from my perspective, it's a great starting point. If you're measuring correctly and being reasonable in your estimates about output (and granted, this where most people probably make their mistake), and the expected CICO calculations aren't working, then it's time to look into something else that's causing the shift (i.e. medical issues).
But, for people to just repeat the mantra CICO and a deficit are all you need is simply incorrect and can be dangerous in certain situations. Continuing to cut calories is not always the answer.
For example, if you have a thyroid issue, and you need to cut below 800-1000 to lose or maintain, that's not an example where CICO should be reinforced if it's meant to be just keep cutting. That's a time when you say, okay, the calculations aren't working as expected, something is off -- time to figure out what that is. They'd just tell a person that they're not in a deficit and need to cut more or exercise more -- which is the exact opposite of the advice that should be given/followed.
But some CICO purists on this site don't understand the difference between the simple physics equation and the APPLICATION of that equation to the human body for the purposes of weight loss. They just ASSUME that a body will only store fat when you eat more than you burn. They don't understand that for some, the equation doesn't work that way because their metabolism is off and they can't manipulate the equation the same way a person without such issues can. That such people need the underlying problem TREATED before applying the conventional CICO wisdom.
But, sometimes, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails.
As for the self-diagnosis issues, sure there are people with those issues. And I don't doubt that the most common errors are really in measuring/calculating. I totally agree with you on that. But, medical issues that affect these calculations are incredibly COMMON. Just look at insulin resistance. Nearly HALF of the American adult population has IR at prediabetic or diabetic levels. I bet you if you look at over weight people, the percentage is higher. So, when things like this are so incredibly common, you've got to understand that CICO is not going to apply to them necessarily in the same way -- that there is a reason beside failures in measuring/calculating that the expected CICO calcalations aren't working. And it's not necessarily because they're stupid, lying, in denial, looking for excuses, can't measure/calculate, etc.
CICO is always, always true. It's science. If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. (Hold on, quote-ee, I'm about to agree with you.)
And a large majority of CICO failures are certainly due to mis-estimating or mis-recording on the "calories in" side, or over-reporting exercise.
However, I think what a lot of CICO stalwarts fail to take into account is that the "CO" side of the equation is NOT one size fits all. There are so, so, SO many individual factors that affect how many calories we burn per day. You can't just pop your age, sex, height, weight, and body fat percentage into a random website or an activity tracker and expect that the number it spits out is going to work perfectly for you. It's an average. It's an estimate. It's what's "typical."
When your rate of gain/loss isn't what you want it to be and you've corrected the "CI" side to be as accurate as possible, it's time to start examining the "CO" side. Unfortunately, there's a lot of information out there - some of it bunk, some of it good science, a lot of it somewhere in-between - on what drives your body to burn fewer (or, heck, more; though you don't really hear about that, at least not as part of this particular conversation) calories than what you'd expect and how to "fix" that. So people throw anything and everything at the wall to see what will stick. It's a desperate feeling to not understand why your hard work isn't paying off.
It's not the science that I have a problem with -- it's the poor application of folks who think they correctly understand the underlying biochemical mechanisms involved in that science and then spout off half-truths not understanding when they apply and when they don't apply. You do realize that there is a REASON that PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY and BIOLOGY are different separate fields of study?
What I think a LOT of people get confused on is the ivory tower abstract concept of CICO and the practical application of CICO to WEIGHT LOSS. The first is a pretty simple discussion on the laws of thermodynamics, the second is not necessarily that simple and can be painfully complex. It literally involves 1000s of biochemical reactions. So, to simplify, we make certain assumptions for the calculations/applications. If you get a situation where those assumptions or variables change, the straightforward application changes dramatically or fails. It doesn't mean necessarily that CICO fails, but the straightforward application of CICO to weight loss can fail (at least based on our limited ability to measure the CO part of the equation these days).
So, you can argue CICO is always true, but that's the beside the point -- it's not always a valuable tool for weightloss. It's value as weight loss tool is limited for folks where the underlying assumptions and variables are not typical -- whether it's thyroid, insulin resistance, etc. Let me give you an example to better illustrate this. And it's not disproving CICO, but it's showing how the simple application of CICO to weightloss is flawed and/or limited in certain circumstances because the underlying assumptions shift.
CICO Assumptions
So, your basic CICO equation looks like this: CI = CO + FS (fat stores) or if you shift the CO to the other side, it looks like CI - CO = FS. So if you burn more than you eat (i.e. your CO is bigger than your CI), your fat stores will go down (i.e. lose fat). That's the basic idea behind eat less and move more, which does work for a LOT of people.
But, and here's the big caveat: this assumes that your metabolism is functioning in a way where your body is able to access all of the energy in your CI for energy needed in CO. But what if that wasn't the case? What if you couldn't access some of it and your body automatically turned some of it into fat stores even though you needed more? What would be the result? Your body would shut down non-essential functions to drop you CO to compensate -- things like fatigue, lower body temp, hair growth stops, get dry skin/hair, brittle nails, etc. Pretty much a lot of the very things you see with an underperforming thyroid. Or you'd eat even more to get the energy you need and more would be stored as fat -- resulting in that "unexplained weight gain" -- a symptom of hypothyroid.
So, to put this into tangible numbers, let's say your TDEE (or CO) should be 1700 or so per the normal CICO calculators. So, if you eat only 1400, you should have a 300 deficit and lose weight. But, let's say your body has this problem and can't fully access the 1400 for energy. Let's say your body can only access 1200 of the 1400 and the other 200 goes towards fat storage. So even though you're eating less than your expected CO, some is still going into fat storage (which wouldn't be the case with a normal person). Then your body compensates and drops your actual CO to account for the lower energy of only 1200. And how does the body do that? By lowering non-essential functions. What would those be? Things like awful fatigue, hair loss, lower body, temp, etc. The exact symptoms of hypothyroid!! So now you have these horrible symptoms and you're not losing weight -- because that 200 is going to fat storage.
CICO Weight Loss Application Limitations
So, if you've got this going on, you just can't manipulate the CICO equation like normal people do -- so saying things like "it's always true -- it's science!" misses the point. You can keep cutting, but you'll just feel worse and worse (and possibly develop worse issues and it can become dangerous). Most of my doc's thyroid patients (including me) lost when they got into the 800-1000 calorie range, but they feel horrible, can't function like a normal person because of the fatigue, etc. and so continuing to cut isn't the correct solution. Instead, you've got to figure out why your body isn't metabolizing things correctly like a normal person -- whether that's from thyroid, insulin resistance, liver issues, etc. Then, you figure that out and treat them, you'll start responding to the normal CICO calculations.
But some CICO fundamentalists don't understand this difference and get into fights over the laws of thermodynamics. And this doesn't violate CICO at all -- in fact, it's totally in line with it. It simply means that the application is different with people with these issues because the assumptions are different about being able to metabolize all your CI for CO.
To me, this shows why people with medical issues may need to adjust strategies. Or the converse is true -- that those who aren't getting the expected results from the traditional CICO calculations, then it may be time to investigate if they have a medical/metabolic issue in play that they didn't know about. They definitely need to figure out the underlying issues and get them treated. And part of that may require diet changes -- such as eating more or less carbs --HOW they create a deficit may result in dramatically different results. This is exactly what led me to finding out about my issues. And it doesn't mean CICO is wrong or invalid, just that it can't be applied to someone with a medical issue in the same way it is to people without those issues -- at least not for weightloss purposes.
Common Medical Conditions
And before someone goes on about how rare medical conditions are, that's simply inaccurate. Thyroid issues affect 8-10% of the population. Insulin resistance affects almost HALF of the US adult population -- over 46% have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels. These are not 1 in a 1000 special snowflakes. For overweight people (since weight gain is a symptom of both), I'd imagine the percentages are even higher. These are incredibly common.
Conclusion
I think CICO is a great guideline. I think it's where everyone should start -- including accurately measuring their CI (by weighing all their food). But, it has its limitations in regard to practical application of weight loss. If people are applying it correctly, it's possible that there is something else going on. Inaccurate measuring, lying to themselves, being delusional, making excuses, etc. aren't the only possibilities. They could legitimately have an undiagnosed or undertreated medical condition.
So saying "CICO is always, always true. It's science." misses the point and just shows how you little you understand in how to correctly apply that science to weightloss.
Dude. DUDE. Did you read one single word after my first sentence? Because I even let you know right frigging there in that very first paragraph that I AGREED with you. And I do. Or did you get all rage-blinded and start typing without hearing me out?
I literally said exactly what you did, but in far fewer than 12 rant-y paragraphs and with far fewer shouty bolds and capitals. I maybe didn't include as much detail as you did and worded it a bit differently, but I'm absolutely a supporter of the concept that while the laws of thermodynamics do apply to everyone, people MUST take into account the concept that everyone's "calories out" side of the equation is extremely unique to each individual and there are many factors that could drive it down. I believe that was quite clear.
It's really, really good information that I think a lot of people should read. I was also happy to read it because it contained a lot of good info and some perspectives I hadn't considered. But, your ire is mis-directed at me. Please re-read what I wrote before you tell me "how little I understand science," because that was quite uncalled for.
My apologies for focusing on not all of your message, but I still think you missed some of the point of my example -- and it's not just that the CO part is hard to calculate or measure, but also that the underlying assumptions change, the simple application can fail because the fundamental application shifts considerably. But, perhaps we are closer than I first thought we were.
I just think arguing that CICO is always correct (when we're talking about weight loss) is a poor starting point. Although it is likely true from a technical standpoint, the practical purpose of it is very different and/or not applicable. And, here, we're really only interested in the practical understanding as it applies to weightloss.
I think it's just semantics at this point. We're saying the same thing. For a variety of reasons, the traditional CICO equation as it is typically referenced and described in these forums (aka, using whatever TDEE estimation that exists for your stats and eating less than that), can break down, such that ultimately even though you "should" be burning fat (or LBM), your body is no longer (or never was) using more calories than you're eating and your rate of gain/loss does not reflect what you would expect based on the surplus/deficit that you believe is being created.
You do have a point that arguing that CICO is always correct holds some danger, even though it's true from a very very simplified science standpoint, but that's because people in these forums won't see beyond that for the rest of the argument (case in point, your first response to me). I'll definitely give you that. However, arguing that the CICO equation doesn't apply to everyone, even though it's true when the "CO" side is based only on the estimations in which so many people put so much weight, is that people in these forums will assume you're (using your paraphrased words) logging inaccurately, making excuses, lying to yourself, lazy, etc., and they won't read the rest of the argument. You know? I think we're on the same side here, though. It's an uphill battle, no matter how you argue it.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »That's not necessarily true. Difficulty losing/maintain weight is a symptom of insulin resistance for a reason as are strong cravings for carbs/sweets, hunger, lethargy and extra fat storage around the waist/midsection.
Actually, the causality is almost certainly reversed on the last one - the high levels of body fat cause the insulin resistance, not the other way around.Essentially, one path that can be taken is this: the body's cells have become resistant to insulin, so they won't take up the glucose in the blood for energy even though it's available (and you get high blood glucose). The body compensates by pumping out more insulin, provided it's still able to do this. Insulin levels spike, glucose is forced from the blood into the cells. To the extent that glucose is not used for immediate energy needs, it gets turned into fat. Plus, your blood glucose falls dramatically, which triggers a hunger cue.
No cells in the body need insulin to utilize glucose for their metabolism. Insulin is an energy storage hormone - there are really only four major targets in the body: the muscles and liver, as a signal to store glycogen, the fat cells, as a signal to store fat, and the brain, as a signal to reduce appetite. The accumulation of glucose isn't because cells aren't using it for energy - they are - but because excess glucose isn't being stored, and in fact when insulin resistant, the liver will produce even more glucose because the resistance is causing insulin to fail to inhibit gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis.High levels of insulin make it very difficult to access your fat stores for energy
Only in people whose fat cells aren't insulin resistant. In the insulin resistant population, fat is actually significantly overmobilized (as, of course, is glucose).0 -
rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »That's not necessarily true. Difficulty losing/maintain weight is a symptom of insulin resistance for a reason as are strong cravings for carbs/sweets, hunger, lethargy and extra fat storage around the waist/midsection.
Actually, the causality is almost certainly reversed on the last one - the high levels of body fat cause the insulin resistance, not the other way around.Essentially, one path that can be taken is this: the body's cells have become resistant to insulin, so they won't take up the glucose in the blood for energy even though it's available (and you get high blood glucose). The body compensates by pumping out more insulin, provided it's still able to do this. Insulin levels spike, glucose is forced from the blood into the cells. To the extent that glucose is not used for immediate energy needs, it gets turned into fat. Plus, your blood glucose falls dramatically, which triggers a hunger cue.
No cells in the body need insulin to utilize glucose for their metabolism. Insulin is an energy storage hormone - there are really only four major targets in the body: the muscles and liver, as a signal to store glycogen, the fat cells, as a signal to store fat, and the brain, as a signal to reduce appetite. The accumulation of glucose isn't because cells aren't using it for energy - they are - but because excess glucose isn't being stored, and in fact when insulin resistant, the liver will produce even more glucose because the resistance is causing insulin to fail to inhibit gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis.High levels of insulin make it very difficult to access your fat stores for energy
Only in people whose fat cells aren't insulin resistant. In the insulin resistant population, fat is actually significantly overmobilized (as, of course, is glucose).
That's not necessarily accurate. Being overweight is a risk factor, but it's not a sole cause. Because then everyone that is overweight would have insulin resistance and they don't. And no one would have insulin resistance if they were normal weight and yet some normal weight people do. I'm sure being overweight contributes to it, but there are other factors as well.
They don't fully understand the cause and effect, though we know some things. Weight loss and exercise help IR. Being overweight increases your risk of IR, but it can also be very difficult to lose/maintain if you have IR without adopting certain strategies. Restricting carbs (and it can be done in a variety of ways) also helps most with IR. There are a lot of overlaps and some catch-22s.
One of insulin's jobs is to shuttles glucose from the blood into cells -- muscle, liver, etc. Without it, you die. That's why some people need to take insulin. The accumulation of excess glucose is absolutely in part because the glucose is not getting from the blood into cells that require it for energy.
What you describe is also part of the process and possible path, but it isn't the only path/result from IR."There is no question that insulin causes weight gain. Insulin is a hormone secreted by the pancreas in response to sugar intake usually in the diet. Its role is to drive sugar into the cells of the body where it is used as a source of energy (measured in calories). Insulin therefore pumps calories into cells. If this energy (sugar) is not used by the cells or is more than is needed, it is converted into an energy storage form known as fat. Because of these actions insulin is called an “anabolic” hormone"
http://www.dailystrength.org/health_blogs/squevedo/article/insulin-weight-gain
0 -
I think it's just semantics at this point. We're saying the same thing. For a variety of reasons, the traditional CICO equation as it is typically referenced and described in these forums (aka, using whatever TDEE estimation that exists for your stats and eating less than that), can break down, such that ultimately even though you "should" be burning fat (or LBM), your body is no longer (or never was) using more calories than you're eating and your rate of gain/loss does not reflect what you would expect based on the surplus/deficit that you believe is being created.
You do have a point that arguing that CICO is always correct holds some danger, even though it's true from a very very simplified science standpoint, but that's because people in these forums won't see beyond that for the rest of the argument (case in point, your first response to me). I'll definitely give you that. However, arguing that the CICO equation doesn't apply to everyone, even though it's true when the "CO" side is based only on the estimations in which so many people put so much weight, is that people in these forums will assume you're (using your paraphrased words) logging inaccurately, making excuses, lying to yourself, lazy, etc., and they won't read the rest of the argument. You know? I think we're on the same side here, though. It's an uphill battle, no matter how you argue it.
I wouldn't go as far to say that it's not applicable, just that it has its limitations as a simple, practical weight loss tool. I think it's a great starting point and it's really important for folks to know exactly how much they're eating as that is a very common error.
But, what drives me nuts on these forums, is how people hold it as an absolute, infallible truth in application, and so if people are not getting the expected results, then the only conclusion is that they're not measuring correctly, liars, in denial, etc. To me, that's not mere semantics (though it may be between the two of us), but a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory/equation applies to the body.
After you establish someone is measuring correctly, then the next step to me is to figure out why the calculations aren't working for you. Most don't want to acknowledge this issue so they just declare that it doesn't exist. But, the lacking is really in their understanding of the complexity of the issue, not in the equation itself.
Plus, you also see differences in losses with isocaloric diets -- like the one where different levels of fats/carb resulted in different amount of weight loss for those with different insulin sensitivities/resistance. To me, that says there is something else that we're not understanding about metabolism and/or how CICO works. Because if all calories were equal as CICO assumes, then you wouldn't see these differences. And yet, we do.
Perhaps it's affecting the CO part of the equation, but if it is, then we haven't found a way to detect that fully yet. I'd guess there is something else going on with the metabolism that shifts the equation, but there are other alternative possibilities.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »That's not necessarily accurate. Being overweight is a risk factor, but it's not a sole cause. Because then everyone that is overweight would have insulin resistance and they don't. And no one would have insulin resistance if they were normal weight and yet some normal weight people do. I'm sure being overweight contributes to it, but there are other factors as well.
The single biggest determining factor is actually the average size of individual fat cells. Some people who are obese have a larger number of smaller fat cells, and some have a smaller number of larger fat cells."There is no question that insulin causes weight gain. Insulin is a hormone secreted by the pancreas in response to sugar intake usually in the diet. Its role is to drive sugar into the cells of the body where it is used as a source of energy (measured in calories). Insulin therefore pumps calories into cells. If this energy (sugar) is not used by the cells or is more than is needed, it is converted into an energy storage form known as fat. Because of these actions insulin is called an “anabolic” hormone"
http://www.dailystrength.org/health_blogs/squevedo/article/insulin-weight-gain
First, that assumes a non-resistant individual. The goal of insulin, in a non-resistant individual, is to store excess glucose as fat or glycogen, and to stop processes that produce more glucose. Insulin itself doesn't cause weight gain - the calorie surplus is the cause, insulin is the mechanism to take a surplus and put it somewhere that isn't going to be toxic to the body (as your blood can only have a very tiny amount of glucose it it at any time - only a couple of grams in a normal individual).
Second, insulin is not needed for any tissue to take up glucose for the cell to use for energy. Of the four types of glucose transporters that cells have, only the GLUT4 transporter is insulin-dependent (in that insulin causes more GLUT4 transporters to move to the cell surface, increasing the rate of glucose uptake). GLUT4 is expressed only in fat cells and skeletal muscle cells. These are the only cells that can increase or decrease their uptake of glucose in response to insulin.
All the rest of your cells use the transporters GLUT1 (for most of your body), GLUT2 (for the liver), or GLUT3 (for your brain) to bring glucose into the cell, and insulin has no effect on these transporters; they can move glucose into the cell equally effectively with or without insulin. Even your muscle cells have enough glucose transporters to meet their normal energy needs - the GLUT4 transporter is used so that muscle can take a big influx of surplus glucose and store it as glycogen.0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »Only because when I eat cake, I eat 9 pieces and I don't stop until the Entire Pizza is gone.
Nothing to do with the secret magic in a Carb Calorie as opposed to, say, a Bacon Calorie.
this0 -
rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Common Medical Conditions
And before someone goes on about how rare medical conditions are, that's simply inaccurate. Thyroid issues affect 8-10% of the population. Insulin resistance affects almost HALF of the US adult population -- over 46% have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels. These are not 1 in a 1000 special snowflakes. For overweight people (since weight gain is a symptom of both), I'd imagine the percentages are even higher. These are incredibly common.
Insulin resistance, though, is the opposite problem of having someone who overproduces fat - insulin resistance actually makes it harder to produce new fat and easier to break down existing fat, which is why plasma fatty acid levels are terrible. It can be beneficial for insulin resistant people to go low carb but that's not because they turn carbs to fat, but because they can't store excess carbohydrates (as either fat or glycogen) and thus blood glucose levels can become dangerous. And any caloric deficit or weight loss will help improve insulin sensitivity, not just low-carb diets.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but i think you are wrong. IR makes it easier to store fat because you end up with excess glucose in the blood and that glucose has to go somewhere. It ends up getting made into fat because the insulin resistance makes it hard for the cells to use the glucose for fuel.
Yes, eating at a deficit will help with insulin sensitivity, but so will low carb. I guess it is a choice between eating at a deficit for life, or eating low, or at least lowered, carb.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions