CICO
Replies
-
jennifer_417 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »So wait, this entire thread is completely academic, based on OPs opinion that it can't be as simple as CICO?
Yup. It's all theory. Because... well, if I said what I was really thinking I don't think the mods would like it.
You have totally missed my point.
No, we really haven't.
Sorry, I was replying to who you were replying to.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »So wait, this entire thread is completely academic, based on OPs opinion that it can't be as simple as CICO?
Yup. It's all theory. Because... well, if I said what I was really thinking I don't think the mods would like it.
You have totally missed my point.
No, we really haven't.
Sorry, I was replying to who you were replying to.
And I was replying to you. We have not missed your point. You're not exactly the 1st person to stumble into the forums claiming to be a special snowflake.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
What she said doesn't hold up. It's not a new story around these parts. And it's not true. There's very little (not even statistically significant) individual variation.
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
I do not concur. I have known people who force fed themselves (me) and couldn't gain weight.
You were burning more than you were eating. Simple.
Or I was excreting it.
They should really study you. You might be the answer to our world's obesity crisis.
Little snarky but not bad.
Gah. No matter what I say I sound like a jerk. But I'm serious - if you really excrete fat and can lose or maintain without having to exercise or moderate your eating, you're an anomaly.
Haven't you seen people like that? What if someone is deficient in the enzymes to store fat? Wouldn't they have a hard time putting it on and consequently they would stay thin?0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »So wait, this entire thread is completely academic, based on OPs opinion that it can't be as simple as CICO?
Yup. It's all theory. Because... well, if I said what I was really thinking I don't think the mods would like it.
You have totally missed my point.
No, we really haven't.
Sorry, I was replying to who you were replying to.
And I was replying to you. We have not missed your point. You're not exactly the 1st person to stumble into the forums claiming to be a special snowflake.
I haven't claimed to be anything! I'm proposing an idea that we should get more knowledge so that we can use it. You obviously have not got my points. Good grief!0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
What she said doesn't hold up. It's not a new story around these parts. And it's not true. There's very little (not even statistically significant) individual variation.
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
I do not concur. I have known people who force fed themselves (me) and couldn't gain weight.
You were burning more than you were eating. Simple.
Or I was excreting it.
They should really study you. You might be the answer to our world's obesity crisis.
Little snarky but not bad.
Gah. No matter what I say I sound like a jerk. But I'm serious - if you really excrete fat and can lose or maintain without having to exercise or moderate your eating, you're an anomaly.
Haven't you seen people like that? What if someone is deficient in the enzymes to store fat? Wouldn't they have a hard time putting it on and consequently they would stay thin?
It would realistically be impossible to "see people like that," because you would have to calculate their TDEE and track all their intake to prove that. With that said, I've never seen science to back this up. I would think a deficit in enzymes of fat storage would lead to a condition requiring hospitalization and diagnosis so such a thing would show up in science.0 -
I have a detail obsessed friends that we used to talk diets and nutrition with from 4 or so years back.
It was always looking for some magic diet that was an eat all you want of something diet.
I just went low calorie and low junk food. Sneaky calories were in those pastries at the grocery store. Chocolate dipped elephant ears had more than a few calories.
4 years later I have kept my 100+ pounds off for 2 years. They are still all heavy or heavier
Eat a healthy diet at a calorie defecit and do some activity you enjoy.
There is no voiding of CICO. There may be arguments for efficiency of certain functions, or even if you eat more early in the day that you have more energy to be more active. But that is still CICO, with an adjustment to CO by activity level
There is no magic diet
Claiming to break the basic CICO premise is a fools errand.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
What she said doesn't hold up. It's not a new story around these parts. And it's not true. There's very little (not even statistically significant) individual variation.
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
I do not concur. I have known people who force fed themselves (me) and couldn't gain weight.
You were burning more than you were eating. Simple.
Or I was excreting it.
They should really study you. You might be the answer to our world's obesity crisis.
Little snarky but not bad.
Gah. No matter what I say I sound like a jerk. But I'm serious - if you really excrete fat and can lose or maintain without having to exercise or moderate your eating, you're an anomaly.
Haven't you seen people like that? What if someone is deficient in the enzymes to store fat? Wouldn't they have a hard time putting it on and consequently they would stay thin?
It would realistically be impossible to "see people like that," because you would have to calculate their TDEE and track all their intake to prove that. With that said, I've never seen science to back this up. I would think a deficit in enzymes of fat storage would lead to a condition requiring hospitalization and diagnosis so such a thing would show up in science.
The evedence I gave was antedotal. Yes to prove that you would have to do studies.0 -
Working2BLean wrote: »I have a detail obsessed friends that we used to talk diets and nutrition with from 4 or so years back.
It was always looking for some magic diet that was an eat all you want of something diet.
I just went low calorie and low junk food. Sneaky calories were in those pastries at the grocery store. Chocolate dipped elephant ears had more than a few calories.
4 years later I have kept my 100+ pounds off for 2 years. They are still all heavy or heavier
Eat a healthy diet at a calorie defecit and do some activity you enjoy.
There is no voiding of CICO. There may be arguments for efficiency of certain functions, or even if you eat more early in the day that you have more energy to be more active. But that is still CICO, with an adjustment to CO by activity level
There is no magic diet
Claiming to break the basic CICO premise is a fools errand.
Please, for the umpteenth time I haven't said anything about breaking CICO.0 -
There's actually a rare congenital disease that allows for zero accumulation of body fat. However, it isn't selective as @blambo61 seems to be implying, meaning that you don't age out of it.
I couldn't find the name of the condition, but a woman with it has discussed how it has affected her life. Long story short, the internet found her and labelled her the "Ugliest Woman in the World" because there are some awful corners of the internet. She has to eat every 15 minutes or so.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
What she said doesn't hold up. It's not a new story around these parts. And it's not true. There's very little (not even statistically significant) individual variation.
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
I do not concur. I have known people who force fed themselves (me) and couldn't gain weight.
You were burning more than you were eating. Simple.
Or I was excreting it.
They should really study you. You might be the answer to our world's obesity crisis.
Little snarky but not bad.
Gah. No matter what I say I sound like a jerk. But I'm serious - if you really excrete fat and can lose or maintain without having to exercise or moderate your eating, you're an anomaly.
Haven't you seen people like that? What if someone is deficient in the enzymes to store fat? Wouldn't they have a hard time putting it on and consequently they would stay thin?
It would realistically be impossible to "see people like that," because you would have to calculate their TDEE and track all their intake to prove that. With that said, I've never seen science to back this up. I would think a deficit in enzymes of fat storage would lead to a condition requiring hospitalization and diagnosis so such a thing would show up in science.
The evedence I gave was antedotal. Yes to prove that you would have to do studies.
There have been some studies done in mice with SCD-1 and lepthin in mice as it relates to fat synthesis, but most of them are related to liver expression and hypercholesteremia or insulin resistance issues. It's interesting, but for obvious reasons, it hasn't made it to humans yet. Genome studies forthcoming, it's interesting and hopefully will help some day.0 -
Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
Do you not see the logic fail in your post?0 -
@blambo61
For the record, I completely understand your wanting to nail things down to the more complex systems and drivers involved. Being that I simply read your posts rather than try to read between the lines and imply things, I won't even suggest that you need to justify any reason to figure things out better. You can do it for whatever reason you want, and it's obvious that you're not readily influenced by majority opinion that there is no need.
But as you can clearly see, most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them. Well, with the exception that most of them log and track their food. And might use TDEE or other calculators outside of the MFP app/program. Ooops, and possibly think that the only way to gain muscle is through a structured lifting program. Oh, and track macro's, especially the extra protein for lifting brah! Don't forget about understanding weight fluctuations, sodium consumption, and water retention. Maybe that better be charted. And for some I think they must limit their study of actual science to a single or at least few sources. Otherwise it would probably be hard to attach and absolute value to something that even the in depth studies and science community experts can't agree on.
Because, you see, that is SIMPLE. And here I thought eating less and moving more to lose weight was simple, and working out more to gain muscle was simple, both without any logging.
But I suspect that a great deal of the desire to mute your thread is due to the fact that many people simply only accept what they want to accept, and many here seem to think that the only method that is simple is the method they use. Some of these same people will attempt to judge what you do as right or wrong, twist your words, question your intentions for seeking greater knowledge, and judge your relationship with food. Maybe because people like to play internet psychologist, maybe because they struggle with their own relationships. But in any case, they are attaching their perceived baggage as your own.
As for myself, though I enjoy understanding more about the physiology, chemistry, and biology involved, I simple do so in the specific areas that I feel are desires of my own, and much as yourself for reasons purely my own. And that includes quite a bit beyond CICO, well up into the unknowns such as the psychology of things.
I would think that the model formulas you are seeking would be very difficult due to variables, and would require an almost lab animal type environment to really properly test. And I'm sure at some point all of the advances will explain these things currently not explained. But I doubt even science can do so without a decent margin of error involved.
And for now, this "special snowflake" is going to help my daughter bake a cake. Because I've seen it implied here that lack of rewarding food could lead to a decay in my mental state and cause an unhealthy relationship with food. Which I find ridiculous personally. But I like cake.1 -
robertw486 wrote: »@blambo61
For the record, I completely understand your wanting to nail things down to the more complex systems and drivers involved. Being that I simply read your posts rather than try to read between the lines and imply things, I won't even suggest that you need to justify any reason to figure things out better. You can do it for whatever reason you want, and it's obvious that you're not readily influenced by majority opinion that there is no need.
But as you can clearly see, most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them. Well, with the exception that most of them log and track their food. And might use TDEE or other calculators outside of the MFP app/program. Ooops, and possibly think that the only way to gain muscle is through a structured lifting program. Oh, and track macro's, especially the extra protein for lifting brah! Don't forget about understanding weight fluctuations, sodium consumption, and water retention. Maybe that better be charted. And for some I think they must limit their study of actual science to a single or at least few sources. Otherwise it would probably be hard to attach and absolute value to something that even the in depth studies and science community experts can't agree on.
Because, you see, that is SIMPLE. And here I thought eating less and moving more to lose weight was simple, and working out more to gain muscle was simple, both without any logging.
But I suspect that a great deal of the desire to mute your thread is due to the fact that many people simply only accept what they want to accept, and many here seem to think that the only method that is simple is the method they use. Some of these same people will attempt to judge what you do as right or wrong, twist your words, question your intentions for seeking greater knowledge, and judge your relationship with food. Maybe because people like to play internet psychologist, maybe because they struggle with their own relationships. But in any case, they are attaching their perceived baggage as your own.
As for myself, though I enjoy understanding more about the physiology, chemistry, and biology involved, I simple do so in the specific areas that I feel are desires of my own, and much as yourself for reasons purely my own. And that includes quite a bit beyond CICO, well up into the unknowns such as the psychology of things.
I would think that the model formulas you are seeking would be very difficult due to variables, and would require an almost lab animal type environment to really properly test. And I'm sure at some point all of the advances will explain these things currently not explained. But I doubt even science can do so without a decent margin of error involved.
And for now, this "special snowflake" is going to help my daughter bake a cake. Because I've seen it implied here that lack of rewarding food could lead to a decay in my mental state and cause an unhealthy relationship with food. Which I find ridiculous personally. But I like cake.
That wasn't passive aggressive or sarcastic at all.
For the record, some of us are having an adult conversation. No need to insult everyone just because I happen to believe some things you don't.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »@blambo61
For the record, I completely understand your wanting to nail things down to the more complex systems and drivers involved. Being that I simply read your posts rather than try to read between the lines and imply things, I won't even suggest that you need to justify any reason to figure things out better. You can do it for whatever reason you want, and it's obvious that you're not readily influenced by majority opinion that there is no need.
But as you can clearly see, most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them. Well, with the exception that most of them log and track their food. And might use TDEE or other calculators outside of the MFP app/program. Ooops, and possibly think that the only way to gain muscle is through a structured lifting program. Oh, and track macro's, especially the extra protein for lifting brah! Don't forget about understanding weight fluctuations, sodium consumption, and water retention. Maybe that better be charted. And for some I think they must limit their study of actual science to a single or at least few sources. Otherwise it would probably be hard to attach and absolute value to something that even the in depth studies and science community experts can't agree on.
Because, you see, that is SIMPLE. And here I thought eating less and moving more to lose weight was simple, and working out more to gain muscle was simple, both without any logging.
But I suspect that a great deal of the desire to mute your thread is due to the fact that many people simply only accept what they want to accept, and many here seem to think that the only method that is simple is the method they use. Some of these same people will attempt to judge what you do as right or wrong, twist your words, question your intentions for seeking greater knowledge, and judge your relationship with food. Maybe because people like to play internet psychologist, maybe because they struggle with their own relationships. But in any case, they are attaching their perceived baggage as your own.
As for myself, though I enjoy understanding more about the physiology, chemistry, and biology involved, I simple do so in the specific areas that I feel are desires of my own, and much as yourself for reasons purely my own. And that includes quite a bit beyond CICO, well up into the unknowns such as the psychology of things.
I would think that the model formulas you are seeking would be very difficult due to variables, and would require an almost lab animal type environment to really properly test. And I'm sure at some point all of the advances will explain these things currently not explained. But I doubt even science can do so without a decent margin of error involved.
And for now, this "special snowflake" is going to help my daughter bake a cake. Because I've seen it implied here that lack of rewarding food could lead to a decay in my mental state and cause an unhealthy relationship with food. Which I find ridiculous personally. But I like cake.
Aaaannnddd now the white kniting has begun. *cue dumpster fire*0 -
Robert,
It seems you are deliberately misrepresenting what people say so that you can then argue against the lie you create.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
Do you not see the logic fail in your post?
No, please show me.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »@blambo61
For the record, I completely understand your wanting to nail things down to the more complex systems and drivers involved. Being that I simply read your posts rather than try to read between the lines and imply things, I won't even suggest that you need to justify any reason to figure things out better. You can do it for whatever reason you want, and it's obvious that you're not readily influenced by majority opinion that there is no need.
But as you can clearly see, most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them. Well, with the exception that most of them log and track their food. And might use TDEE or other calculators outside of the MFP app/program. Ooops, and possibly think that the only way to gain muscle is through a structured lifting program. Oh, and track macro's, especially the extra protein for lifting brah! Don't forget about understanding weight fluctuations, sodium consumption, and water retention. Maybe that better be charted. And for some I think they must limit their study of actual science to a single or at least few sources. Otherwise it would probably be hard to attach and absolute value to something that even the in depth studies and science community experts can't agree on.
Because, you see, that is SIMPLE. And here I thought eating less and moving more to lose weight was simple, and working out more to gain muscle was simple, both without any logging.
But I suspect that a great deal of the desire to mute your thread is due to the fact that many people simply only accept what they want to accept, and many here seem to think that the only method that is simple is the method they use. Some of these same people will attempt to judge what you do as right or wrong, twist your words, question your intentions for seeking greater knowledge, and judge your relationship with food. Maybe because people like to play internet psychologist, maybe because they struggle with their own relationships. But in any case, they are attaching their perceived baggage as your own.
As for myself, though I enjoy understanding more about the physiology, chemistry, and biology involved, I simple do so in the specific areas that I feel are desires of my own, and much as yourself for reasons purely my own. And that includes quite a bit beyond CICO, well up into the unknowns such as the psychology of things.
I would think that the model formulas you are seeking would be very difficult due to variables, and would require an almost lab animal type environment to really properly test. And I'm sure at some point all of the advances will explain these things currently not explained. But I doubt even science can do so without a decent margin of error involved.
And for now, this "special snowflake" is going to help my daughter bake a cake. Because I've seen it implied here that lack of rewarding food could lead to a decay in my mental state and cause an unhealthy relationship with food. Which I find ridiculous personally. But I like cake.
That wasn't passive aggressive or sarcastic at all.
For the record, some of us are having an adult conversation. No need to insult everyone just because I happen to believe some things you don't.
I agree and totally unnecessary.0 -
There is NO WAY you were logging accurately. You can eat more than 1200 calories (and absolutely should be) and still lose. I guarantee it. What you're doing is unhealthy.
The 800 - 1000 was doctor supervised by a bariatric specialist.
As to the 1200 target now- recent visit with my primary doctor and I talked about my frustration with my weight in relation to what I eat since every calculator says 1600 should equal at least a weight at 160. She said that once women start perimenopause you will gain if you eat over 1400 calories.
I'm trying to lose, so 1000 - 1200.
And I exercise too. While I was on that 800 - 1000 I at minimum walked an hour, some days did water aerobics and hour and then walked a half hour.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
What she said.
What she said doesn't hold up. It's not a new story around these parts. And it's not true. There's very little (not even statistically significant) individual variation.
There are no naturally "thin" or "thick" people.
I do not concur. I have known people who force fed themselves (me) and couldn't gain weight.
You were burning more than you were eating. Simple.
Or I was excreting it.
They should really study you. You might be the answer to our world's obesity crisis.
Little snarky but not bad.
Gah. No matter what I say I sound like a jerk. But I'm serious - if you really excrete fat and can lose or maintain without having to exercise or moderate your eating, you're an anomaly.
Haven't you seen people like that? What if someone is deficient in the enzymes to store fat? Wouldn't they have a hard time putting it on and consequently they would stay thin?
It would realistically be impossible to "see people like that," because you would have to calculate their TDEE and track all their intake to prove that. With that said, I've never seen science to back this up. I would think a deficit in enzymes of fat storage would lead to a condition requiring hospitalization and diagnosis so such a thing would show up in science.
The evedence I gave was antedotal. Yes to prove that you would have to do studies.
There have been some studies done in mice with SCD-1 and lepthin in mice as it relates to fat synthesis, but most of them are related to liver expression and hypercholesteremia or insulin resistance issues. It's interesting, but for obvious reasons, it hasn't made it to humans yet. Genome studies forthcoming, it's interesting and hopefully will help some day.
Thanks!0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
Do you not see the logic fail in your post?
No, please show me.
You magically created a new calories out via excretion .... still a CO ... although not one that happens in humans as you "believe ".
There are simply too many others to highlight and it isn't worth the effort to separate from your walls of text.0 -
There is NO WAY you were logging accurately. You can eat more than 1200 calories (and absolutely should be) and still lose. I guarantee it. What you're doing is unhealthy.
The 800 - 1000 was doctor supervised by a bariatric specialist.
As to the 1200 target now- recent visit with my primary doctor and I talked about my frustration with my weight in relation to what I eat since every calculator says 1600 should equal at least a weight at 160. She said that once women start perimenopause you will gain if you eat over 1400 calories.
I'm trying to lose, so 1000 - 1200.
And I exercise too. While I was on that 800 - 1000 I at minimum walked an hour, some days did water aerobics and hour and then walked a half hour.
I'm glad the VLCD was supervised. As for your current doc- she's wrong. Your calorie needs are based on age, gender, size, etc. you can't base caloric intake on just one factor (female) and discount age, size, starting point, etc.
Also, you're supposed to NET 1200 minimum so when you're exercising, I hope you're eating back those burns.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
You are not the first person to make these sorts of comparisons/assertions.
Most of the time, assessments like these, were they to be actually scientifically scrutinized, don't bear up.
The fact is that, barring extreme medical circumstances, there really, truly is very little individual variation. No matter how much you want there to be.
You're looking in the wrong place for your answers.
This. I read a couple of articles at different times talking about the effect of fidgeting. My individual variation is that I am unusually good at staying still. So my brother and I rode our bikes etc. But then we went home and I read a book while he did whatever non-readers do, in any case resulting in higher CO for him than turning pages after pages.0 -
Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
so now you are saying that people gain weight in a caloric deficit, really???????????????
the user you are quoting most obviously did not accurately track calories and ate more then they thought/estimated.0 -
Working2BLean wrote: »I have a detail obsessed friends that we used to talk diets and nutrition with from 4 or so years back.
It was always looking for some magic diet that was an eat all you want of something diet.
I just went low calorie and low junk food. Sneaky calories were in those pastries at the grocery store. Chocolate dipped elephant ears had more than a few calories.
4 years later I have kept my 100+ pounds off for 2 years. They are still all heavy or heavier
Eat a healthy diet at a calorie defecit and do some activity you enjoy.
There is no voiding of CICO. There may be arguments for efficiency of certain functions, or even if you eat more early in the day that you have more energy to be more active. But that is still CICO, with an adjustment to CO by activity level
There is no magic diet
Claiming to break the basic CICO premise is a fools errand.
Please, for the umpteenth time I haven't said anything about breaking CICO.
you said earlier that people create fat in a calorie deficit, which would break CICO if true…which I do not believe it is.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »@blambo61
For the record, I completely understand your wanting to nail things down to the more complex systems and drivers involved. Being that I simply read your posts rather than try to read between the lines and imply things, I won't even suggest that you need to justify any reason to figure things out better. You can do it for whatever reason you want, and it's obvious that you're not readily influenced by majority opinion that there is no need.
But as you can clearly see, most seem to oppose sharing any knowledge greater than CICO. Because as they have stated over and over, that's all that matters to them. Well, with the exception that most of them log and track their food. And might use TDEE or other calculators outside of the MFP app/program. Ooops, and possibly think that the only way to gain muscle is through a structured lifting program. Oh, and track macro's, especially the extra protein for lifting brah! Don't forget about understanding weight fluctuations, sodium consumption, and water retention. Maybe that better be charted. And for some I think they must limit their study of actual science to a single or at least few sources. Otherwise it would probably be hard to attach and absolute value to something that even the in depth studies and science community experts can't agree on.
Because, you see, that is SIMPLE. And here I thought eating less and moving more to lose weight was simple, and working out more to gain muscle was simple, both without any logging.
But I suspect that a great deal of the desire to mute your thread is due to the fact that many people simply only accept what they want to accept, and many here seem to think that the only method that is simple is the method they use. Some of these same people will attempt to judge what you do as right or wrong, twist your words, question your intentions for seeking greater knowledge, and judge your relationship with food. Maybe because people like to play internet psychologist, maybe because they struggle with their own relationships. But in any case, they are attaching their perceived baggage as your own.
As for myself, though I enjoy understanding more about the physiology, chemistry, and biology involved, I simple do so in the specific areas that I feel are desires of my own, and much as yourself for reasons purely my own. And that includes quite a bit beyond CICO, well up into the unknowns such as the psychology of things.
I would think that the model formulas you are seeking would be very difficult due to variables, and would require an almost lab animal type environment to really properly test. And I'm sure at some point all of the advances will explain these things currently not explained. But I doubt even science can do so without a decent margin of error involved.
And for now, this "special snowflake" is going to help my daughter bake a cake. Because I've seen it implied here that lack of rewarding food could lead to a decay in my mental state and cause an unhealthy relationship with food. Which I find ridiculous personally. But I like cake.
Thanks for the support. I've read your posts in the thread before this that I bailed on and you took over as whipping boy after I left. I appreciate your insight and clear writing (better than me).
What is funny is I mainly count calories to have some data that I'm loosing much faster than CICO says I should. I think one of the reasons I am is because of the fasting diet I'm on and it's effects. Now how simple is that compared to counting calories which is a pain. I don't know if the fasting is helping me or if my maintenance cal needs are just higher than mfp estimates. My diet plays into the psychology of weight loss too because I can lose weight by doing almost no meal planning, eating tell stuffed each evening, and I don't have to count cals to do it. How simple is that! If fasting really is the reason, isn't that something very practical that could help people and cost less in time and money than strict calorie counting. But no! Let's not learn anything. I've lost 32 lbs in 14 weeks which probably is better than most strict, non-fasting calorie counters and I've done it by eating 1800 to 2400 cals a day and I'm probably underestimating since I don't always log everything. Fasting is one of the things I want to learn more about to see if it really helps. Antedotal evidence so far shows it might.0 -
Working2BLean wrote: »I have a detail obsessed friends that we used to talk diets and nutrition with from 4 or so years back.
It was always looking for some magic diet that was an eat all you want of something diet.
I just went low calorie and low junk food. Sneaky calories were in those pastries at the grocery store. Chocolate dipped elephant ears had more than a few calories.
4 years later I have kept my 100+ pounds off for 2 years. They are still all heavy or heavier
Eat a healthy diet at a calorie defecit and do some activity you enjoy.
There is no voiding of CICO. There may be arguments for efficiency of certain functions, or even if you eat more early in the day that you have more energy to be more active. But that is still CICO, with an adjustment to CO by activity level
There is no magic diet
Claiming to break the basic CICO premise is a fools errand.
Please, for the umpteenth time I haven't said anything about breaking CICO.
you said earlier that people create fat in a calorie deficit, which would break CICO if true…which I do not believe it is.
Where did I say that?0 -
Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I really believe there are people for when CI is greater than CO, they won't put on fat and it is excreted. Why? Can we turn that on in all of us? I used to be like that.
so now you are saying that people gain weight in a caloric deficit, really???????????????
the user you are quoting most obviously did not accurately track calories and ate more then they thought/estimated.
CI greater than CO is an excess and not a deficit. I said I think there are people that are in an excess or surplus state that don't gain weight. That is the opposite of what you thought I said.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »So wait, this entire thread is completely academic, based on OPs opinion that it can't be as simple as CICO?
Yup. It's all theory. Because... well, if I said what I was really thinking I don't think the mods would like it.
You have totally missed my point.
No, we really haven't.
Sorry, I was replying to who you were replying to.
And I was replying to you. We have not missed your point. You're not exactly the 1st person to stumble into the forums claiming to be a special snowflake.
I haven't claimed to be anything! I'm proposing an idea that we should get more knowledge so that we can use it. You obviously have not got my points. Good grief!
This is the part that confuses me. There are whole areas of serious academic research devoted to learning more about how human bodies work - eating, digestion, rare extreme genetic variants, effects of diseases & conditions, the role of gut bacteria, lots more, you name it. These researchers pursue their research full time, and publish results in peer-reviewed journals. It's complicated, kinda arcane stuff. Some of it includes mathematical models of sub-parts, but the "grand unified theory" seems at best to be way out there in the future somewhere.
We can read the journals if we want to, and learn more details. We can talk about the research results here on the forums. People do it all the time.
But I don't understand how we're going to crowd-source a better, more usable and useful model here on the MFP forum than the relevant scientific community (assisted, sometimes ably, by journalists, trainers, communications specialists, etc.) is able to put together. The idea seems waaaay quixotic (among other things) to me.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »So wait, this entire thread is completely academic, based on OPs opinion that it can't be as simple as CICO?
Yup. It's all theory. Because... well, if I said what I was really thinking I don't think the mods would like it.
You have totally missed my point.
No, we really haven't.
Sorry, I was replying to who you were replying to.
And I was replying to you. We have not missed your point. You're not exactly the 1st person to stumble into the forums claiming to be a special snowflake.
I haven't claimed to be anything! I'm proposing an idea that we should get more knowledge so that we can use it. You obviously have not got my points. Good grief!
This is the part that confuses me. There are whole areas of serious academic research devoted to learning more about how human bodies work - eating, digestion, rare extreme genetic variants, effects of diseases & conditions, the role of gut bacteria, lots more, you name it. These researchers pursue their research full time, and publish results in peer-reviewed journals. It's complicated, kinda arcane stuff. Some of it includes mathematical models of sub-parts, but the "grand unified theory" seems at best to be way out there in the future somewhere.
We can read the journals if we want to, and learn more details. We can talk about the research results here on the forums. People do it all the time.
But I don't understand how we're going to crowd-source a better, more usable and useful model here on the MFP forum than the relevant scientific community (assisted, sometimes ably, by journalists, trainers, communications specialists, etc.) is able to put together. The idea seems waaaay quixotic (among other things) to me.
Your right, we are not going to crowd source it. I've stated that. I have only brought up the possibility cico can be improved upon. Why I get so much flak and not very many ideas on possible things to look into baffles me.
0 -
This content has been removed.
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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