Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Interesting way that people excuse their overweight / obesity
Replies
-
Bluejedi79 wrote: »honestly, if weight loss was as easily as CICO or hey fatty-put down the donut and go for a jog aaannndd we're good the diet, weight loss, fitness and supplement industry would not be worth the billions its currently worth.
You have it backwards.
As it's been pointed out on this very thread, just admitting that we're eating too much is sometimes too difficult. People want to eliminate that one magical food that is making them fat. They want to speed up their metabolism, take a pill, drink magic goo, anything that will make the fat go away quickly. They will pay just about anything to get there. My own mother wanted to do something called a "twilight sleep" where you're in a medically induced coma, lose the weight and wake up transformed as if no time had passed. I mean, come on.
Logging calories, owning portion sizes, sticking with it over the long haul isn't simple. It's hard work. People would rather do dangerous and silly things to avoid it.12 -
I lost a dramatic amount of weight quickly that time I had dysentery.
Unfortunately it didn't stay off as it was pretty much massive dehydration.4 -
Bluejedi79 wrote: »honestly, if weight loss was as easily as CICO or hey fatty-put down the donut and go for a jog aaannndd we're good the diet, weight loss, fitness and supplement industry would not be worth the billions its currently worth.
It's actually because so many people believe what you just typed that makes the industry worth billions.19 -
It certainly is feasible to lose over 20 lbs rapidly when in severe DKA, a life-threatening condition that leads to severe dehydration and rapid weight loss. People with this condition can lose more than 10% of their body weight in a very short period of time, which would be consistent with a greater than 20lb weight loss in an individual who weighs 200lbs. It's almost all water.2
-
I know that CI must be less than CO in order to lose weight. Weight loss without CI<CO is impossible beyond amputation and large water fluctuations. To lose fat without surgery, then CI<CO.
That being said, CI and CO can be affected in ways that aren't obvious and make a TDEE calculation difficult, usually due to health issues and fitness, and sometimes genetics and food choices.
Protein and fat require more energy to digest than carbs. If one switched from a carb heavy diet to a protein and fat heavy diet, they could burn up to 100-300 extra kcal per day just due to food choices. TDEE will be off.
A very fit person will burn more calories than a less fit person, even when doing the same activities. TDEE will be off.
High levels of insulin (especially in T1D's or advanced T2D's) can lead to fat accumuation and TDEE will be off.
Hormones that affect metabolism, such as T3, T4, GH, IGF-1 can vary and affect a person's TDEE.
Automimmune diseases like celiac disease, which causes malabsorption, or other diseases that cause inflammation can affect TDEE.
And some of these issues can occur accutely and all of a sudden. For example, I have been having an autoimmune flare-up, and I recently was glutened (celiac). While this was going on, I gained close to ten pounds in about 3 weeks, during which time I started walking 30-90 minutes per day. I was eating a bit more than normal and a few more carbs than normal (in a vain search for energy) but not the thousand extra calories per day that my weight gain would suggest. Some of that weight was inflammation but some was fat. Once I recovered from the gluten I lost about 4 pounds in a couple of days but there is still extra fat there that was not just a month ago. I have no idea why I gained so much. Yeah, I was eating more than normal (an extra serving of snap peas or nuts, or a larger helping of a veggie cheese casserole), but it probably should not have amounted to more than a couple of pounds.
Anyways, my point is that calculating a TDEE and using that to guide to how much you eat doesn't work for everyone. CI or CO may be affected by other factors that need to be addressed before weightloss occurs of comes easily. That was my experience. Once the other factors are addressed, weight control becomes easier or even possible when previously it may not have been. Of course, this will not apply to everybody.
JMO5 -
SuperMelinator wrote: »
Cutting your calories down to certain levels (and logging accurately). A lot of people reduce or count calories for a couple weeks and say it doesn't work, but generally you need to allow more time than that, around two months
My calories being that low was actually unintentional. My day-to-day eating habits are pretty "routine", and I don't really do sweets just because they don't satisfy me. I started counting calories in Feb using Sparkpeople because I was trying to show someone how much I was actually eating - they thought I was probably overeating, and I told them there was no way I could be. Then I switched back and forth b/t that and MFP. I counted them probably up until May, but I intentionally increased cals during that time when I realized how low the numbers actually were. Since I increased cals, I haven't gained any weight, but I've lost 2" on my waist and dropped a couple percent of body fat (last measurement was probably 6 weeks ago tho).0 -
I was overweight from eating too much obviously (although back then I blamed it on birth control, meds, depression, etc). I had a fairly high body fat (DEXA scan as proof) and was very overweight. Lost a major amount of weight through CICO, however my body fat didn't decrease much (another DEXA scan confirmed this as well as my body comp). It wasn't until I began strength training and tracking macros that my body fat made a dramatic decrease while my weight barely budged (because I had already lost so much weight and adjusted to my TDEE accordingly). CICO is necessary for weight loss but for body composition it gets a bit more complicated.3
-
Calories Out can get very complicated. If your body doesn't correctly process what you eat, because of hypothyroidism, diabetes, and other conditions, it can be important to change your macros as directed by your doctor, for example if your body does icky things with simple carbohydrates. I don't know the precise medical science but the calories out will be reduced by eating too many carbs when you have certain conditions. If you cut those down and increase protein, calories out will be much more normal. Some people haven't tested positive for a condition (yet?) but still have this kind of experience.0
-
-
stevencloser wrote: »The things you listed were simply wrong.
CICO works for everyone as it is based on a law of physics.
Starvation mode like that doesn't exist.
Amount of meals per day doesn't matter.
We can tell you that you're wrong BECAUSE we heard it all before. Do you think you're the first to come here talking about this stuff?
I'm not wrong. I simply had a different experience than you. CICO alone did not work for ME. Therefore, you cannot say "everyone". I tried it for 7 months (I was quite determined!), but didn't lose a single pound. As soon as I started tracking my macros in addition to calories (went from 1300 cals to 1400 cals/day and increased protein), I dropped 10 lbs in 8 weeks. Physics may work for you, but science/biology worked for me. And the amount of meals each day mattered for me. Some people eat 1 meal/day and that works for them. You may not choose to do that for yourself, but different things work for different people.
If you've heard of macros before and the benefits of tracking them, then why do you disbelieve it? Somebody had to tell you about CICO, why did you not question them? For some people, there's more to weightloss than CICO. It doesn't change the fact that CICO works for you/others. Lucky you, by the way. You don't have to track macros to meet your goals.
All that means is that you weren't tracking either your CI or your CO properly. You can't defy the laws of physics. You can't gain fat if you're in a calorie deficit.6 -
Wickedfaery73 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »
It isn't that people will criticize what I eat, it is that people will argue I must be lying. Like I said, this has happened in the past more than once where someone will claim it is not even possible to eat a particular combination of foods.
Do you mean you eat what someone thought was weird ? Raisin bran with tomato soup? Yogurt with sardines? If thats what you like to eat then fug'em who don't like it! LOL
My son used to love still frozen waffles and ketchup...
I had a friend who liked cheese whiz on brownies. That's pretty worthy of criticism.8 -
I think the OP's girlfriend has a point, though.
Every BODY is arranged differently; where fat accumulates, metabolic rates, ease/difficulty in building muscle.
I naturally have an hourglass type figure. If I want to have a teeny, tiny butt, I could possibly do it, but I'd have to work REALLY REALLY hard at it...crazy strict diet, all kinds of cardio and avoid squats, lunges, etc in my lifting routine. I could theoretically shrink the size of my booty, but once I stop working so hard at it, the fat will come back in and it will resume its fullness.
But that's not an excuse for why I'm overweight. I like my butt. And I also like cheese and wine. But I do love working out, so...
Really, you just have to find a balance and decide how hard you're willing to work for the body you want. I want to lose another 10-15lbs, but I'm not willing to give up my wine and cheese altogether to get there ASAP. I'll take the baby steps
1 -
Wrt midwesterner85's situation, why do we assume that the cause of the anomaly falls on the CI side of the equation? While I agree that this would be a common cause, he has related that his situation is not normal. There are a number of factors on either side of the equation (besides inaccurate logging) which could cause the change he described.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
The possibility that something nondescript and non-specific might maybe be going on? The next step in a situation like that is to attempt to nail down and/or eliminate some possibilities. He doesn't feel comfortable progressing to that step, so like I said, I don't really see the point in continuing to theorize
Seemed pretty specific to me. He says he decreased caloric intake, according to his normal routine for measuring CI, by 500 calories and gained weight. Many seem to doubt the veracity of that statement that he decreased CI and gained weight at the same time. They seem to say that this situation would contradict the concept of CICO. I don't think that is necessarily true.
Logging details have been requested and he elected not to provide.
To be fair, we might have said that certain food combinations weren't possible to eat.0 -
extra_medium wrote: »Wrt midwesterner85's situation, why do we assume that the cause of the anomaly falls on the CI side of the equation? While I agree that this would be a common cause, he has related that his situation is not normal. There are a number of factors on either side of the equation (besides inaccurate logging) which could cause the change he described.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
The possibility that something nondescript and non-specific might maybe be going on? The next step in a situation like that is to attempt to nail down and/or eliminate some possibilities. He doesn't feel comfortable progressing to that step, so like I said, I don't really see the point in continuing to theorize
Seemed pretty specific to me. He says he decreased caloric intake, according to his normal routine for measuring CI, by 500 calories and gained weight. Many seem to doubt the veracity of that statement that he decreased CI and gained weight at the same time. They seem to say that this situation would contradict the concept of CICO. I don't think that is necessarily true.
Logging details have been requested and he elected not to provide.
To be fair, we might have said that certain food combinations weren't possible to eat.
Like what?0 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?2 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?
This still doesn't negate CICO. Your hormones being out of whack somehow will impact the CO side of the equation, and your diet can affect your hormones. CICO still applies, but models based on averages, where average is a person with no medical/hormonal issues, will not give a good estimation of CO.7 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?
I don't understand why saying our bodies are not bomb calorimeters is so often used to try to disprove CICO.
If a bomb calorimeter determines that the amount of calories available from a certain food is X, then X is the maximum amount of calories available to a person who eats it. This can only contribute to a deficit--never a surplus--in the case of a person who counts calories.
To illustrate: If a bomb calorimeter determines that a serving of nuts has 350 calories, that's the limit to what would be available to a human body. But, if I have poor digestion my body might pass part of those calories right through my system, giving me an actual CI of less than 350. If I had logged the serving as 350, I would then have a slight deficit that I wouldn't know about.
The fact that our bodies are not bomb calorimeters works to the favor of the calorie counter.6 -
mskessler89 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?
This still doesn't negate CICO. Your hormones being out of whack somehow will impact the CO side of the equation, and your diet can affect your hormones. CICO still applies, but models based on averages, where average is a person with no medical/hormonal issues, will not give a good estimation of CO.
Of course energy balance plays some role, but a minor one overall. The hormonal response to the types of foods you consume and your lifestyle is of overriding importance. Calorie restriction in the long term is not sustainable and uncomfortable for many, especially if those foods you consume stimulate those fat storing hormones and hunger.1 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?
This still doesn't negate CICO. Your hormones being out of whack somehow will impact the CO side of the equation, and your diet can affect your hormones. CICO still applies, but models based on averages, where average is a person with no medical/hormonal issues, will not give a good estimation of CO.
Of course energy balance plays some role, but a minor one overall. The hormonal response to the types of foods you consume and your lifestyle is of overriding importance. Calorie restriction in the long term is not sustainable and uncomfortable for many, especially if those foods you consume stimulate those fat storing hormones and hunger.
Reputable citations needed. Especially "a minor one overall".
5 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?
This still doesn't negate CICO. Your hormones being out of whack somehow will impact the CO side of the equation, and your diet can affect your hormones. CICO still applies, but models based on averages, where average is a person with no medical/hormonal issues, will not give a good estimation of CO.
Of course energy balance plays some role, but a minor one overall. The hormonal response to the types of foods you consume and your lifestyle is of overriding importance. Calorie restriction in the long term is not sustainable and uncomfortable for many, especially if those foods you consume stimulate those fat storing hormones and hunger.
Are you trying to say that some people simply cannot lose weight?2 -
mskessler89 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?
This still doesn't negate CICO. Your hormones being out of whack somehow will impact the CO side of the equation, and your diet can affect your hormones. CICO still applies, but models based on averages, where average is a person with no medical/hormonal issues, will not give a good estimation of CO.
^Yeah, that.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
I'm saying that there was an occasion where I cut calorie intake by 500 calories per day and the results were that I went from a small loss before to gaining 2 lbs/ week after cutting calories. I am not suggesting that it was any particular type of weight, because I really don't know. It very well could have water retention for some reason.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
Sure it can. There are only so many conclusions which could be reached about the logging details. We could list those possibilities and analyze their feasibility.
I guess I don't see the fun in a purely speculative analysis of someone's diet when there is absolutely no information to go on, but I suppose it could be an interesting exercise in logic the same way hypothesizing about what it would take to sustain a population of great apes in the American Northwest is an exercise in logic.
If you want to make a list of all the ways someone's logging can be inaccurate, I won't stand in your way.
There seems to be a majority consensus that what he proposes is impossible. The data you seek will neither prove nor disprove that assertion. Therefore, it is unnecessary.
Uhh...I'm not seeking data. I think the whole thing is rather silly. I already said what I think happened, but I don't really care one way or the other.
Also, I just want to say that I only meant for my last post to be humorous, not to sound belittling. I actually do think that a list of all the ways that one's logging could be unwittingly incorrect would make an interesting thread.
Regarding that post, I took no offense.
You said:I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
I took that as a call for more information. JaneiR also mentioned relevant data earlier.
All I am saying is that it is conceivable for someone with his history, in particular, to have difficulty perceiving a meaningful affect from conventional CICO implementation due to the fact that he is an anomaly and as such, would be unlikely to have accurate caloric estimations while using conventional formulas.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
I'm saying that there was an occasion where I cut calorie intake by 500 calories per day and the results were that I went from a small loss before to gaining 2 lbs/ week after cutting calories. I am not suggesting that it was any particular type of weight, because I really don't know. It very well could have water retention for some reason.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
Sure it can. There are only so many conclusions which could be reached about the logging details. We could list those possibilities and analyze their feasibility.
I guess I don't see the fun in a purely speculative analysis of someone's diet when there is absolutely no information to go on, but I suppose it could be an interesting exercise in logic the same way hypothesizing about what it would take to sustain a population of great apes in the American Northwest is an exercise in logic.
If you want to make a list of all the ways someone's logging can be inaccurate, I won't stand in your way.
There seems to be a majority consensus that what he proposes is impossible. The data you seek will neither prove nor disprove that assertion. Therefore, it is unnecessary.
Uhh...I'm not seeking data. I think the whole thing is rather silly. I already said what I think happened, but I don't really care one way or the other.
Also, I just want to say that I only meant for my last post to be humorous, not to sound belittling. I actually do think that a list of all the ways that one's logging could be unwittingly incorrect would make an interesting thread.
Regarding that post, I took no offense.
You said:I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
I took that as a call for more information. JaneiR also mentioned relevant data earlier.
All I am saying is that it is conceivable for someone with his history, in particular, to have difficulty perceiving a meaningful affect from conventional CICO implementation due to the fact that he is an anomaly and as such, would be unlikely to have accurate caloric estimations while using conventional formulas.
I see what you're saying. Thanks for explaining it so clearly.
And I'm glad you didn't take offense. I thought later that maybe my post sounded snarky.0 -
Why do people who are overweight or obese need to make an "excuse" for their weight?
How and why a persons body is what it is, is really not the issue. If someone wants to change their body, good for them and good luck. If they don't, what's it to you?
Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect no matter their bmi.7 -
cindylou234 wrote: »Why do people who are overweight or obese need to make an "excuse" for their weight?
How and why a persons body is what it is, is really not the issue. If someone wants to change their body, good for them and good luck. If they don't, what's it to you?
Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect no matter their bmi.
I agree with that.
However, I interpreted the discussion to be relative to the site we are on. Excuse making does happen here with some frequency. And there are those that make it a very public matter. Whitney Thore saying PCOS is why she weighs nearly 400lbs, for instance. This discussion is in response to those who are vocal about it. At least that's my read.6 -
It is easier to lie to ones self than to work hard to improve. People do it in fitness, finances, moral decisions...you name it. Why does this surprise people?
What amazes me is how people pointing fingers like to hold others accountable to standards they themselves don't hold. But wutevs.3 -
extra_medium wrote: »Wrt midwesterner85's situation, why do we assume that the cause of the anomaly falls on the CI side of the equation? While I agree that this would be a common cause, he has related that his situation is not normal. There are a number of factors on either side of the equation (besides inaccurate logging) which could cause the change he described.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
The possibility that something nondescript and non-specific might maybe be going on? The next step in a situation like that is to attempt to nail down and/or eliminate some possibilities. He doesn't feel comfortable progressing to that step, so like I said, I don't really see the point in continuing to theorize
Seemed pretty specific to me. He says he decreased caloric intake, according to his normal routine for measuring CI, by 500 calories and gained weight. Many seem to doubt the veracity of that statement that he decreased CI and gained weight at the same time. They seem to say that this situation would contradict the concept of CICO. I don't think that is necessarily true.
Logging details have been requested and he elected not to provide.
To be fair, we might have said that certain food combinations weren't possible to eat.
Like what?
I have no idea, that was one of the reasons given for the closed diary.0 -
To me personally, people that make excuses for the reasons they are fat are trying to justify it to themselves, If people are truly happy being fat they shouldn't have to justify it to anyone. You can be happy and fat but in most cases the overweight are not happy that they are fat for health reasons or being uncomfortable, other wise the weigh loss industry would bnot be a billion dollar industry.
Whitney Thore likes the excuse that she has PCOS, but actually she ate her way to 400 Lbs.3 -
extra_medium wrote: »extra_medium wrote: »Wrt midwesterner85's situation, why do we assume that the cause of the anomaly falls on the CI side of the equation? While I agree that this would be a common cause, he has related that his situation is not normal. There are a number of factors on either side of the equation (besides inaccurate logging) which could cause the change he described.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
The possibility that something nondescript and non-specific might maybe be going on? The next step in a situation like that is to attempt to nail down and/or eliminate some possibilities. He doesn't feel comfortable progressing to that step, so like I said, I don't really see the point in continuing to theorize
Seemed pretty specific to me. He says he decreased caloric intake, according to his normal routine for measuring CI, by 500 calories and gained weight. Many seem to doubt the veracity of that statement that he decreased CI and gained weight at the same time. They seem to say that this situation would contradict the concept of CICO. I don't think that is necessarily true.
Logging details have been requested and he elected not to provide.
To be fair, we might have said that certain food combinations weren't possible to eat.
Like what?
I have no idea, that was one of the reasons given for the closed diary.
Oh ok. I thought you meant you were one that had previously seen his diary and told him that what he was eating is impossible. I've been wracking my brain to figure out what food combination would be impossible!
1 -
One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
The thing I find hardest is controlling my MFP addiction, which makes it seem like I'm calorie counting a lot longer than 10 minutes a day!!
Though really, because I cook in small batches, it takes longer than 10 minutes a day. Especially when MFP is glitching and refuses to give my searches appropriate results or won't save time and time again, making me have to redo so much calorie counting. Really wish their recipe builder would pull up the same entries I use when I enter ingredients into my diary individually.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions