Medical Conditions Which Affect Weight: Separating Fact From Fiction
Options
Replies
-
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In any event, it would be like asking everyone to acknowledge that CICO is not absolute even after it's been proven to be flawed. As much as I can try, it isn't going to happen even when some argue that it is absolute because the flaw occurs in a minority of cases (which acknowledges the flaw while simultaneously denying it).
CICO isn't flawed. Medical conditions can either change CI or CO, but they can't change physics; the total amount of energy is remaining constant in the absence of any nuclear fission or fusion occurring in your body.
Ultimately, calories lost because of epithelial malabsorption, calories lost from glycosuria, proteinuria, or lipiduria, etc. are all "calories out", as it's energy-containing substances that leave the body.
"Calories out" is not exactly the same as "calories burned", although in most people it's quite close.
It depends on definition. Most posts I've seen mentioning CICO were based on the definition of CO being RMR + exercise. That seems to be the consensus on the MFP forums.
No, it's not. That's your assumption. I have repeated and keep repeating and many other posters will keep telling yo that all these other things that rankinsect mentioned are included in it.
I wish I could click a like button, rankinsenct was spot on.
I hardly think you are better than me to say what is in "most posts I've seen." Nonetheless, excretion is in addition to what most others in this thread have mentioned. So there is still that flaw.
The flaw is in your perception, not what CICO actually is in a scientific sense. You keep wanting to parse the phrase to make yourself right, and in so doing are derailing this thread.
With all due respect? Please stop.
It has been explained to you again that the real science of CICO is absolute.
I have explained how excretion is outside of CICO, both in how I have seen it used in other threads and how it is used here. I'm sorry you are unable to understand.PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In any event, it would be like asking everyone to acknowledge that CICO is not absolute even after it's been proven to be flawed. As much as I can try, it isn't going to happen even when some argue that it is absolute because the flaw occurs in a minority of cases (which acknowledges the flaw while simultaneously denying it).
CICO isn't flawed. Medical conditions can either change CI or CO, but they can't change physics; the total amount of energy is remaining constant in the absence of any nuclear fission or fusion occurring in your body.
Ultimately, calories lost because of epithelial malabsorption, calories lost from glycosuria, proteinuria, or lipiduria, etc. are all "calories out", as it's energy-containing substances that leave the body.
"Calories out" is not exactly the same as "calories burned", although in most people it's quite close.
It depends on definition. Most posts I've seen mentioning CICO were based on the definition of CO being RMR + exercise. That seems to be the consensus on the MFP forums.
No, it's not. That's your assumption. I have repeated and keep repeating and many other posters will keep telling yo that all these other things that rankinsect mentioned are included in it.
I wish I could click a like button, rankinsenct was spot on.
I hardly think you are better than me to say what is in "most posts I've seen." Nonetheless, excretion is in addition to what most others in this thread have mentioned. So there is still that flaw.
The flaw is in your perception, not what CICO actually is in a scientific sense. You keep wanting to parse the phrase to make yourself right, and in so doing are derailing this thread.
With all due respect? Please stop.
It has been explained to you time and time again that the real science of CICO is absolute.
Yet I've proven that it is not absolute. There is at least one medical condition that I've personally experienced which causes weight change outside of CICO.
Since the whole point of this thread is to "separate fact from fiction" regarding "medical conditions which affect weight," a medical condition that causes weight change outside of CICO is right on topic.
Your intentional misunderstanding does not change the laws of physics. You willfully ignore fact just so you can continue to argue.
Quite simply, everyone except you in this thread has demonstrated the ability to separate fact from fiction.
This. I really really wish the derailment of multiple threads by this ridiculousness would be stopped.
I concur. I've explained in detail and yet other users continue to derail by just arguing that my training and hard-lived experience didn't happen. In a thread where medical conditions that affect weight is the topic, one should reasonably expect that responding users would be interected in discussing medical issues that affect weight.
No, you continue to derail by insisting you're right instead of taking information on board.
Just stop.
I have an analogy for you. Since you feel you have greater knowledge, see if you can get my point.
I used to go to school with a really bright girl who misused really large words all the time. Everyone liked her and knew what she really meant anyway, so no one corrected her. There were some people who didn't know the real meaning of those words and started thinking they meant what she was misusing them as from context clues. In other words, they got the wrong picture.
The thing is, the original meaning of those words didn't change simply because she misused them. As for the people who got the wrong picture? Draw your own conclusion about the point I'm making.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In any event, it would be like asking everyone to acknowledge that CICO is not absolute even after it's been proven to be flawed. As much as I can try, it isn't going to happen even when some argue that it is absolute because the flaw occurs in a minority of cases (which acknowledges the flaw while simultaneously denying it).
CICO isn't flawed. Medical conditions can either change CI or CO, but they can't change physics; the total amount of energy is remaining constant in the absence of any nuclear fission or fusion occurring in your body.
Ultimately, calories lost because of epithelial malabsorption, calories lost from glycosuria, proteinuria, or lipiduria, etc. are all "calories out", as it's energy-containing substances that leave the body.
"Calories out" is not exactly the same as "calories burned", although in most people it's quite close.
It depends on definition. Most posts I've seen mentioning CICO were based on the definition of CO being RMR + exercise. That seems to be the consensus on the MFP forums.
No, it's not. That's your assumption. I have repeated and keep repeating and many other posters will keep telling yo that all these other things that rankinsect mentioned are included in it.
I wish I could click a like button, rankinsenct was spot on.
I hardly think you are better than me to say what is in "most posts I've seen." Nonetheless, excretion is in addition to what most others in this thread have mentioned. So there is still that flaw.
The flaw is in your perception, not what CICO actually is in a scientific sense. You keep wanting to parse the phrase to make yourself right, and in so doing are derailing this thread.
With all due respect? Please stop.
It has been explained to you again that the real science of CICO is absolute.
I have explained how excretion is outside of CICO, both in how I have seen it used in other threads and how it is used here. I'm sorry you are unable to understand.PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In any event, it would be like asking everyone to acknowledge that CICO is not absolute even after it's been proven to be flawed. As much as I can try, it isn't going to happen even when some argue that it is absolute because the flaw occurs in a minority of cases (which acknowledges the flaw while simultaneously denying it).
CICO isn't flawed. Medical conditions can either change CI or CO, but they can't change physics; the total amount of energy is remaining constant in the absence of any nuclear fission or fusion occurring in your body.
Ultimately, calories lost because of epithelial malabsorption, calories lost from glycosuria, proteinuria, or lipiduria, etc. are all "calories out", as it's energy-containing substances that leave the body.
"Calories out" is not exactly the same as "calories burned", although in most people it's quite close.
It depends on definition. Most posts I've seen mentioning CICO were based on the definition of CO being RMR + exercise. That seems to be the consensus on the MFP forums.
No, it's not. That's your assumption. I have repeated and keep repeating and many other posters will keep telling yo that all these other things that rankinsect mentioned are included in it.
I wish I could click a like button, rankinsenct was spot on.
I hardly think you are better than me to say what is in "most posts I've seen." Nonetheless, excretion is in addition to what most others in this thread have mentioned. So there is still that flaw.
The flaw is in your perception, not what CICO actually is in a scientific sense. You keep wanting to parse the phrase to make yourself right, and in so doing are derailing this thread.
With all due respect? Please stop.
It has been explained to you time and time again that the real science of CICO is absolute.
Yet I've proven that it is not absolute. There is at least one medical condition that I've personally experienced which causes weight change outside of CICO.
Since the whole point of this thread is to "separate fact from fiction" regarding "medical conditions which affect weight," a medical condition that causes weight change outside of CICO is right on topic.
Your intentional misunderstanding does not change the laws of physics. You willfully ignore fact just so you can continue to argue.
Quite simply, everyone except you in this thread has demonstrated the ability to separate fact from fiction.
This. I really really wish the derailment of multiple threads by this ridiculousness would be stopped.
I concur. I've explained in detail and yet other users continue to derail by just arguing that my training and hard-lived experience didn't happen. In a thread where medical conditions that affect weight is the topic, one should reasonably expect that responding users would be interected in discussing medical issues that affect weight.
It appears to me that your medical issue has been discussed at great length( 11 of 11 pages). In preschool terms you have had your turn.
eta: I drastically underestimated page #0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In any event, it would be like asking everyone to acknowledge that CICO is not absolute even after it's been proven to be flawed. As much as I can try, it isn't going to happen even when some argue that it is absolute because the flaw occurs in a minority of cases (which acknowledges the flaw while simultaneously denying it).
CICO isn't flawed. Medical conditions can either change CI or CO, but they can't change physics; the total amount of energy is remaining constant in the absence of any nuclear fission or fusion occurring in your body.
Ultimately, calories lost because of epithelial malabsorption, calories lost from glycosuria, proteinuria, or lipiduria, etc. are all "calories out", as it's energy-containing substances that leave the body.
"Calories out" is not exactly the same as "calories burned", although in most people it's quite close.
It depends on definition. Most posts I've seen mentioning CICO were based on the definition of CO being RMR + exercise. That seems to be the consensus on the MFP forums.
No, it's not. That's your assumption. I have repeated and keep repeating and many other posters will keep telling yo that all these other things that rankinsect mentioned are included in it.
I wish I could click a like button, rankinsenct was spot on.
I hardly think you are better than me to say what is in "most posts I've seen." Nonetheless, excretion is in addition to what most others in this thread have mentioned. So there is still that flaw.
The flaw is in your perception, not what CICO actually is in a scientific sense. You keep wanting to parse the phrase to make yourself right, and in so doing are derailing this thread.
With all due respect? Please stop.
It has been explained to you again that the real science of CICO is absolute.
I have explained how excretion is outside of CICO, both in how I have seen it used in other threads and how it is used here. I'm sorry you are unable to understand.PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In any event, it would be like asking everyone to acknowledge that CICO is not absolute even after it's been proven to be flawed. As much as I can try, it isn't going to happen even when some argue that it is absolute because the flaw occurs in a minority of cases (which acknowledges the flaw while simultaneously denying it).
CICO isn't flawed. Medical conditions can either change CI or CO, but they can't change physics; the total amount of energy is remaining constant in the absence of any nuclear fission or fusion occurring in your body.
Ultimately, calories lost because of epithelial malabsorption, calories lost from glycosuria, proteinuria, or lipiduria, etc. are all "calories out", as it's energy-containing substances that leave the body.
"Calories out" is not exactly the same as "calories burned", although in most people it's quite close.
It depends on definition. Most posts I've seen mentioning CICO were based on the definition of CO being RMR + exercise. That seems to be the consensus on the MFP forums.
No, it's not. That's your assumption. I have repeated and keep repeating and many other posters will keep telling yo that all these other things that rankinsect mentioned are included in it.
I wish I could click a like button, rankinsenct was spot on.
I hardly think you are better than me to say what is in "most posts I've seen." Nonetheless, excretion is in addition to what most others in this thread have mentioned. So there is still that flaw.
The flaw is in your perception, not what CICO actually is in a scientific sense. You keep wanting to parse the phrase to make yourself right, and in so doing are derailing this thread.
With all due respect? Please stop.
It has been explained to you time and time again that the real science of CICO is absolute.
Yet I've proven that it is not absolute. There is at least one medical condition that I've personally experienced which causes weight change outside of CICO.
Since the whole point of this thread is to "separate fact from fiction" regarding "medical conditions which affect weight," a medical condition that causes weight change outside of CICO is right on topic.
Your intentional misunderstanding does not change the laws of physics. You willfully ignore fact just so you can continue to argue.
Quite simply, everyone except you in this thread has demonstrated the ability to separate fact from fiction.
This. I really really wish the derailment of multiple threads by this ridiculousness would be stopped.
I concur. I've explained in detail and yet other users continue to derail by just arguing that my training and hard-lived experience didn't happen. In a thread where medical conditions that affect weight is the topic, one should reasonably expect that responding users would be interected in discussing medical issues that affect weight.
You obviously missed my point. YOU are the one derailing multiple threads, even after numerous people have asked you to stop. YOU are the one I am referencing when I say I dont understand why this hasnt been stopped.0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »I just wanted to thank those of you that have shared, you are all truly inspiring.
I wanted to share my health issues too, but although I will talk about it in part talking about all of it is overwhelming to me. I don't know if it's because it's ongoing with no cure or reprieve, or because things change and new problems appear (it all stems from Transverse Myelitis), but I can only cope with it by dealing with one issue at a time.
Having said that, my life changed radically 7 years ago and the weight piled on. I couldn't eat nutritious meals as I wasn't able to prepare or cook them, and I've lost my hunger and satiety signals due to nerve damage. Last year, I got more support with other practical things so now I can use what energy I have to eat properly, and I eat by the clock rather than waiting for signals that aren't going to come. I've always known that CICO works (we used to just call it calorie counting though), but now I've had to learn that my calorie expenditure isn't what it was and adjust accordingly. I've tried to do some exercises with resistance bands, but it's not sustainable for me because it causes too much pain and fatigue. I'm not giving up though, and the weight is coming off just from eating in a deficit. 1st 13lb (27lb) so far, one more pound until I have to fulfil my promise to myself to give up smoking!
Curly, congrats on the loss so far, and good luck with the quitting smoking, you can do it! I have a lot of aunts and uncles who swore they would never quit (my daughter comes by her stubbornness naturally I guess!) and yet, once they decided to do it, they all just did it, and never went back. I've never heard one of them talk about missing it, either, once they got past that initial adjustment.
I hope I never ever hear DKA in any statement that refers to dieting ever, ever again. It is a life threatening medical condition. It is a false argument to say that it negates any rule of CICO. Losing weight because of a medical crisis has nothing to do with deficits or maintenance calories. It should be in the same group as VLCD's, not allowed.
Rabbit, I am just too fast
and GMTA 
@theocine sorry to hear about the cancer diagnosis
0 -
In my early 20s I started to have back problems. It was diagnosed as bulging disks that were pressing on my nerves and causing sciatica and other pain. They bothered me off and on throughout my 20s, where sometimes I was able to exercise and other times I would have to take time off - I referred to it as 'my back went out'.
Then when I was 29, I bent over at the waist one day to feed the cats, and experienced some of the most horrible pain I had felt up to that point. After some imaging, it was discovered that I had torn both of the lower disks in my back . I had to have a 2-level diskectomy and fusion.
It takes a year to recover from that surgery; there's walking on a treadmill involved, but it's a slow pace and certainly no cardio level activity. My life was quite different after the surgery. I found myself the heaviest I'd ever been in my life, other than when I was pregnant. I wasn't obese, but for me, it was a challenge I hadn't had to face before.
I didn't know how to lose the weight the right way. I tried lot of things. I went low carb. I cut out all sugar. I tried eating six small meals per day. Nothing worked. I literally spent years unhappy at that weight. I was suffering through rehab with my back and also dealing with this new weight challenge, and it was a real struggle.
Finally, I found MFP. I started posting in the forums, and I posted my 'woo'. All the things I thought I knew. Which, looking back, was rather foolish, considering that I'd already tried all of them and failed.
I found myself soundly corrected. I argued at first, but then I started to listen. I realized that what I was being told made a lot of sense. Once I listened, I learned, and I started applying what I was learning. I followed the ideas of CICO and moderation. By now i was able to exercise again. I started losing weight. It was a pretty wonderful feeling.
Then I had another setback. The disk above the fusion was bulging out so far it was pushing on another nerve and sending pain throughout my back and left leg. I had to have surgery again.
This time, I used all that I had learned on MFP and kept the weight off. I made it through rehab and when I was able to exercise again, I started another deficit to try to reach another goal weight.
I succeeded! What a great feeling .
Then another setback came along. I was diagnosed with brain cancer. Another surgery, more rehab. and another stretch of dropping my calorie goal to maintain my weight. Still succeeding!
A year after rehab, I was diagnosed with Celiac disease. This made a huge difference in my eating pattern because I had to completely change my diet. However, it was a great change because it sure made a difference in how great I felt, since I had been experiencing so much discomfort most of the time and not knowing why.
Now my back is deteriorating yet again, and I find myself sedentary and unable to move much. Time to adjust the calorie goal. I am confident that I will maintain my weight because I understand CICO, and will be forever grateful to those who taught me when I first showed up here on MFP.
The point I'm trying to make here is that we all experience challenges in life. It's probably actually not typical that a person is perfectly healthy with no challenges to face. CICO works. Calorie deficit works. Even if we have challenges, we can be successful. As long as we make adjustments to the calorie goal dependent on our activity level, we can do it!
You are amazing and I am glad we are friends. Your story is inspiring.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »I just wanted to thank those of you that have shared, you are all truly inspiring.
I wanted to share my health issues too, but although I will talk about it in part talking about all of it is overwhelming to me. I don't know if it's because it's ongoing with no cure or reprieve, or because things change and new problems appear (it all stems from Transverse Myelitis), but I can only cope with it by dealing with one issue at a time.
Having said that, my life changed radically 7 years ago and the weight piled on. I couldn't eat nutritious meals as I wasn't able to prepare or cook them, and I've lost my hunger and satiety signals due to nerve damage. Last year, I got more support with other practical things so now I can use what energy I have to eat properly, and I eat by the clock rather than waiting for signals that aren't going to come. I've always known that CICO works (we used to just call it calorie counting though), but now I've had to learn that my calorie expenditure isn't what it was and adjust accordingly. I've tried to do some exercises with resistance bands, but it's not sustainable for me because it causes too much pain and fatigue. I'm not giving up though, and the weight is coming off just from eating in a deficit. 1st 13lb (27lb) so far, one more pound until I have to fulfil my promise to myself to give up smoking!
Curly, congrats on the loss so far, and good luck with the quitting smoking, you can do it! I have a lot of aunts and uncles who swore they would never quit (my daughter comes by her stubbornness naturally I guess!) and yet, once they decided to do it, they all just did it, and never went back. I've never heard one of them talk about missing it, either, once they got past that initial adjustment.
I hope I never ever hear DKA in any statement that refers to dieting ever, ever again. It is a life threatening medical condition. It is a false argument to say that it negates any rule of CICO. Losing weight because of a medical crisis has nothing to do with deficits or maintenance calories. It should be in the same group as VLCD's, not allowed.
Rabbit, I am just too fast and GMTA
@theocine sorry to hear about the cancer diagnosis
^All of this.
To be clearer, CICO is a scientific concept, and even if we on the boards misuse it colloquially, the factors presumed to be there scientifically are still there whether we "lay people" are aware of them, personally factor them in, or discuss them.
The colloquial usage and understanding of "CICO" does not negate its real scientific meaning, which is indeed absolute and accounts for all factors.0 -
The leaky gut syndrome may have been at the root of my autoimmunity health issues.
youngandraw.com/8-sneaky-causes-of-leaky-gut-that-can-lead-to-weight-gain/0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »I just wanted to thank those of you that have shared, you are all truly inspiring.
I wanted to share my health issues too, but although I will talk about it in part talking about all of it is overwhelming to me. I don't know if it's because it's ongoing with no cure or reprieve, or because things change and new problems appear (it all stems from Transverse Myelitis), but I can only cope with it by dealing with one issue at a time.
Having said that, my life changed radically 7 years ago and the weight piled on. I couldn't eat nutritious meals as I wasn't able to prepare or cook them, and I've lost my hunger and satiety signals due to nerve damage. Last year, I got more support with other practical things so now I can use what energy I have to eat properly, and I eat by the clock rather than waiting for signals that aren't going to come. I've always known that CICO works (we used to just call it calorie counting though), but now I've had to learn that my calorie expenditure isn't what it was and adjust accordingly. I've tried to do some exercises with resistance bands, but it's not sustainable for me because it causes too much pain and fatigue. I'm not giving up though, and the weight is coming off just from eating in a deficit. 1st 13lb (27lb) so far, one more pound until I have to fulfil my promise to myself to give up smoking!
Curly, congrats on the loss so far, and good luck with the quitting smoking, you can do it! I have a lot of aunts and uncles who swore they would never quit (my daughter comes by her stubbornness naturally I guess!) and yet, once they decided to do it, they all just did it, and never went back. I've never heard one of them talk about missing it, either, once they got past that initial adjustment.
I hope I never ever hear DKA in any statement that refers to dieting ever, ever again. It is a life threatening medical condition. It is a false argument to say that it negates any rule of CICO. Losing weight because of a medical crisis has nothing to do with deficits or maintenance calories. It should be in the same group as VLCD's, not allowed.
Rabbit, I am just too fast and GMTA
@theocine sorry to hear about the cancer diagnosis
^All of this.
To be clearer, CICO is a scientific concept, and even if we on the boards misuse it colloquially, the factors presumed to be there scientifically are still there whether we "lay people" are aware of them, personally factor them in, or discuss them.
The colloquial usage and understanding of "CICO" does not negate its real scientific meaning, which is indeed absolute and accounts for all factors.
No, sorry. It is understood in the scientific community that it is neither absolute nor accounts for all factors. The best current model from my readings is the KD Hall model. Even with this model, research to validate it has shown:
"Gilmore et al found that the estimated average energy intake during overfeeding reasonably matched the actual energy intake and the uncertainty of the method amounted to a few hundred kilocalories per day.
It's a good estimator, it is an excellent tool for weight loss but it isn't exact nor absolute.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/3/744.long
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/298/3/E449.abstract?ijkey=bf9a88465582dccc9d7f04bf73034c8ea6ea3a66&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
I don't want to pollute your excellent thread on with this. If someone is interested with those details - it should be in another thread.
By the way, this doesn't negate your criticisms on the CICO denial - the variants are smaller than the majors.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The leaky gut syndrome may have been at the root of my autoimmunity health issues.
youngandraw.com/8-sneaky-causes-of-leaky-gut-that-can-lead-to-weight-gain/
While it is true that there are some autoimmune diseases that have been attributed to increased intestinal permeability (Crohn's disease, Celiac disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Irritable Bowel Disease) , some questionable sites on the internet such as the one you have linked here have taken the results of these studies overblown the results. None of these autoimmune diseases lead to weight gain. In fact, some of them (the intestinal ones, to be sure) can lead to weight loss when not under control. While some foods have been linked to increased intestinal permeability (gluten in the case of Celiac, the foods on the FODMAP list in the case of IBS), it remains to be seen what other foods might be linked, the results tend to have something to do with genetics and how the specific genes in each disease cause the intestines to respond to specific foods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856434/0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »I just wanted to thank those of you that have shared, you are all truly inspiring.
I wanted to share my health issues too, but although I will talk about it in part talking about all of it is overwhelming to me. I don't know if it's because it's ongoing with no cure or reprieve, or because things change and new problems appear (it all stems from Transverse Myelitis), but I can only cope with it by dealing with one issue at a time.
Having said that, my life changed radically 7 years ago and the weight piled on. I couldn't eat nutritious meals as I wasn't able to prepare or cook them, and I've lost my hunger and satiety signals due to nerve damage. Last year, I got more support with other practical things so now I can use what energy I have to eat properly, and I eat by the clock rather than waiting for signals that aren't going to come. I've always known that CICO works (we used to just call it calorie counting though), but now I've had to learn that my calorie expenditure isn't what it was and adjust accordingly. I've tried to do some exercises with resistance bands, but it's not sustainable for me because it causes too much pain and fatigue. I'm not giving up though, and the weight is coming off just from eating in a deficit. 1st 13lb (27lb) so far, one more pound until I have to fulfil my promise to myself to give up smoking!
Curly, congrats on the loss so far, and good luck with the quitting smoking, you can do it! I have a lot of aunts and uncles who swore they would never quit (my daughter comes by her stubbornness naturally I guess!) and yet, once they decided to do it, they all just did it, and never went back. I've never heard one of them talk about missing it, either, once they got past that initial adjustment.
I hope I never ever hear DKA in any statement that refers to dieting ever, ever again. It is a life threatening medical condition. It is a false argument to say that it negates any rule of CICO. Losing weight because of a medical crisis has nothing to do with deficits or maintenance calories. It should be in the same group as VLCD's, not allowed.
Rabbit, I am just too fast and GMTA
@theocine sorry to hear about the cancer diagnosis
^All of this.
To be clearer, CICO is a scientific concept, and even if we on the boards misuse it colloquially, the factors presumed to be there scientifically are still there whether we "lay people" are aware of them, personally factor them in, or discuss them.
The colloquial usage and understanding of "CICO" does not negate its real scientific meaning, which is indeed absolute and accounts for all factors.
No, sorry. It is understood in the scientific community that it is neither absolute nor accounts for all factors. The best current model from my readings is the KD Hall model. Even with this model, research to validate it has shown:
"Gilmore et al found that the estimated average energy intake during overfeeding reasonably matched the actual energy intake and the uncertainty of the method amounted to a few hundred kilocalories per day.
It's a good estimator, it is an excellent tool for weight loss but it isn't exact nor absolute.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/3/744.long
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/298/3/E449.abstract?ijkey=bf9a88465582dccc9d7f04bf73034c8ea6ea3a66&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
I don't want to pollute your excellent thread on with this. If someone is interested with those details - it should be in another thread.
By the way, this doesn't negate your criticisms on the CICO denial - the variants are smaller than the majors.
Fair enough. How about ... how your body operates is absolute outside of our ability to account for it since we're not perfect?
Close enough is good enough and, as you said, doesn't come near validating the CICO denial.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The leaky gut syndrome may have been at the root of my autoimmunity health issues.
youngandraw.com/8-sneaky-causes-of-leaky-gut-that-can-lead-to-weight-gain/
While it is true that there are some autoimmune diseases that have been attributed to increased intestinal permeability (Crohn's disease, Celiac disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Irritable Bowel Disease) , some questionable sites on the internet such as the one you have linked here have taken the results of these studies overblown the results. None of these autoimmune diseases lead to weight gain. In fact, some of them (the intestinal ones, to be sure) can lead to weight loss when not under control. While some foods have been linked to increased intestinal permeability (gluten in the case of Celiac, the foods on the FODMAP list in the case of IBS), it remains to be seen what other foods might be linked, the results tend to have something to do with genetics and how the specific genes in each disease cause the intestines to respond to specific foods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856434/
I had pretty advanced malabsorption with my celiac, and remember reading some and such on leaky gut. I'm not really convinced I ever had it, even after what I went through. I did have pretty drastic weight loss, and it was not a pleasant experience.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Fair enough. How about ... how your body operates is absolute outside of our ability to account for it since we're not perfect?
Close enough is good enough and, as you said, doesn't come near validating the CICO denial.
Exactly. While it can be said that our estimates of intake and output are subject to varying degrees of error, the immutable fact remains that if you manage to get your intake below your output, weight loss will occur. There are factors which can make either end of the equation more difficult/complicated, but it doesn't negate thermodynamics/energy balance.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The leaky gut syndrome may have been at the root of my autoimmunity health issues.
youngandraw.com/8-sneaky-causes-of-leaky-gut-that-can-lead-to-weight-gain/
While it is true that there are some autoimmune diseases that have been attributed to increased intestinal permeability (Crohn's disease, Celiac disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Irritable Bowel Disease) , some questionable sites on the internet such as the one you have linked here have taken the results of these studies overblown the results. None of these autoimmune diseases lead to weight gain. In fact, some of them (the intestinal ones, to be sure) can lead to weight loss when not under control. While some foods have been linked to increased intestinal permeability (gluten in the case of Celiac, the foods on the FODMAP list in the case of IBS), it remains to be seen what other foods might be linked, the results tend to have something to do with genetics and how the specific genes in each disease cause the intestines to respond to specific foods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856434/
I had pretty advanced malabsorption with my celiac, and remember reading some and such on leaky gut. I'm not really convinced I ever had it, even after what I went through. I did have pretty drastic weight loss, and it was not a pleasant experience.
It isn't a certainty in every case - it is still very much in research stage.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Fair enough. How about ... how your body operates is absolute outside of our ability to account for it since we're not perfect?
Close enough is good enough and, as you said, doesn't come near validating the CICO denial.
Exactly. While it can be said that our estimates of intake and output are subject to varying degrees of error, the immutable fact remains that if you manage to get your intake below your output, weight loss will occur. There are factors which can make either end of the equation more difficult/complicated, but it doesn't negate thermodynamics/energy balance.
Works for me. If you're talking about extrinsic estimate error, and we also add that we might also take into account time-dependent variability of intrinsic factors such as biochemical efficiency, imperfect absorption, etc. and that BMR and TDEE are not constant, then ... if you manage to keep your intake below your output over time, weight loss will occur.
Truly, I applaud the sharing of stories in this thread (and much more interesting than then CICO part of the discussion) - not only have a lot of people overcome significant personal barriers but also highlighting some of specifics of their struggles and ways of overcoming them is probably useful to others in similar situations.0 -
oyChihuahua wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »I just wanted to thank those of you that have shared, you are all truly inspiring.
I wanted to share my health issues too, but although I will talk about it in part talking about all of it is overwhelming to me. I don't know if it's because it's ongoing with no cure or reprieve, or because things change and new problems appear (it all stems from Transverse Myelitis), but I can only cope with it by dealing with one issue at a time.
Having said that, my life changed radically 7 years ago and the weight piled on. I couldn't eat nutritious meals as I wasn't able to prepare or cook them, and I've lost my hunger and satiety signals due to nerve damage. Last year, I got more support with other practical things so now I can use what energy I have to eat properly, and I eat by the clock rather than waiting for signals that aren't going to come. I've always known that CICO works (we used to just call it calorie counting though), but now I've had to learn that my calorie expenditure isn't what it was and adjust accordingly. I've tried to do some exercises with resistance bands, but it's not sustainable for me because it causes too much pain and fatigue. I'm not giving up though, and the weight is coming off just from eating in a deficit. 1st 13lb (27lb) so far, one more pound until I have to fulfil my promise to myself to give up smoking!
Curly, congrats on the loss so far, and good luck with the quitting smoking, you can do it! I have a lot of aunts and uncles who swore they would never quit (my daughter comes by her stubbornness naturally I guess!) and yet, once they decided to do it, they all just did it, and never went back. I've never heard one of them talk about missing it, either, once they got past that initial adjustment.
I hope I never ever hear DKA in any statement that refers to dieting ever, ever again. It is a life threatening medical condition. It is a false argument to say that it negates any rule of CICO. Losing weight because of a medical crisis has nothing to do with deficits or maintenance calories. It should be in the same group as VLCD's, not allowed.
Rabbit, I am just too fast and GMTA
@theocine sorry to hear about the cancer diagnosis
^All of this.
To be clearer, CICO is a scientific concept, and even if we on the boards misuse it colloquially, the factors presumed to be there scientifically are still there whether we "lay people" are aware of them, personally factor them in, or discuss them.
The colloquial usage and understanding of "CICO" does not negate its real scientific meaning, which is indeed absolute and accounts for all factors.
No, sorry. It is understood in the scientific community that it is neither absolute nor accounts for all factors. The best current model from my readings is the KD Hall model. Even with this model, research to validate it has shown:
"Gilmore et al found that the estimated average energy intake during overfeeding reasonably matched the actual energy intake and the uncertainty of the method amounted to a few hundred kilocalories per day.
It's a good estimator, it is an excellent tool for weight loss but it isn't exact nor absolute.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/3/744.long
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/298/3/E449.abstract?ijkey=bf9a88465582dccc9d7f04bf73034c8ea6ea3a66&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
I don't want to pollute your excellent thread on with this. If someone is interested with those details - it should be in another thread.
By the way, this doesn't negate your criticisms on the CICO denial - the variants are smaller than the majors.
Suspect that the portion of the population that sat through science or engineering courses remembers how the prof started Monday with some simple proposition like △E =0 and then spent the remainder of the week expanding it to fill all three chalkboards in the room. Then came "magic Friday" when he (they were all males back in my school days) would point to each term, explain why it accounted for relatively little in the greater scheme of things, and then put a big slash through it. (for engineers, anything that was less than 10% was neglected) The end result: a few quantities that yielded a good enough guess to make an airliner fly or a bridge stand.
There are a great deal of variables folded up in "CI" - enough for the prof to spend an entire semester unpacking; everything from percentage of intake that gets absorbed, efficiency of digestive tract, gut bacteria effects, fast carbs and slow carbs, and so forth.
There are just as many variables in "CO"; ability to effectively measure exercise calories, body efficiency in converting food to energy, TEF, closeness of cellular adipose droplets to mitochondria; and so forth.
But none of those factors stands apart from the fundamental balance in energy in and energy out required by the Law of Conservation of Energy. Most would receive the prof's "slash" on Friday. Because at the end of the day, energy is neither created nor destroyed. Even if our ability to measure it is not perfect.
If you stayed away through that
you eventually got to the point where the prof. pointed out that the sum of the excluded terms might need reintroduction when their impact together was significant. Or when you where looking at reducing the impact of the major factors. In terms of weight loss, those minors certainly can count for a lot in people close to their target weight, weightlifters (where macros and meal partitioning can be used to affect satiety and training) or in people with certain disease (like PCOS, where macros can have a significant influence on the success of straight out focus on just CICO).
Engineers that only focus on the majors?
https://youtu.be/j-zczJXSxnw 0 -
Holy cow
That was hypnotic0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions