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

1911131415

Replies

  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    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.
  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,412 Member
    edited June 2016
    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.
  • SuperMelinator
    SuperMelinator Posts: 80 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »

    For how long?

    How long for what?

    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).
  • VividVegan
    VividVegan Posts: 200 Member
    edited June 2016
    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.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    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.
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    ruzz3ii wrote: »
    CICO -- simple solution to a complex problem. Getting metabolism burning is more important than simply cutting calories. Otherwise, I agree that people like to make excuses.

    No, it's all about calories. Your metabolism never stops burning, or you'd be dead.
  • MlleKelly
    MlleKelly Posts: 356 Member
    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 :)
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 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?
  • jquizzle10
    jquizzle10 Posts: 18 Member
    chel325 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    GoKelsey 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?
  • jquizzle10
    jquizzle10 Posts: 18 Member
    jquizzle10 wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    GoKelsey 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.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    jquizzle10 wrote: »
    jquizzle10 wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    GoKelsey 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?
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    edited June 2016
    jquizzle10 wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    GoKelsey 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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    DrEnalg 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.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    DrEnalg 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.
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    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.
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • Char231023
    Char231023 Posts: 700 Member
    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.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    moe0303 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! :smiley:
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited June 2016
    chel325 wrote: »
    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.
This discussion has been closed.