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
-
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.
Interesting. So far we've got the perspective of experienced users (MFP does piss me off too when it's being glitchy), but I wonder if the "no, logging won't work for me" response mainly comes from people who haven't even tried it? That was my assumption, anyway, basically people just writing it off without really ever putting in the effort.2 -
I have for now given up on the recipe builder. sigh. (Katie, you can see my diary,) that's why I enter each salad, sandwich, or omelet ingredient separately.1
-
So the diary is closed because he's not logging or because he was in the hospital for dka? So confused.......0
-
What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.6 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.
Snark is not really intended - please note that you are in the "debate" section of the forums where members are not trying to sugar coat their discussions.
That is a very interesting point that you make about the special needs adults that you work with. People of different heights, ages and activity levels need different amounts of calories to maintain their weight - and men/women have quite significant differences in their caloric needs. It is absolutely expected that giving these adults all the same number of calories would result in their weights being all over the place, because the number of calories each individual requires will differ by quite a lot.9 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.
Snark is not really intended - please note that you are in the "debate" section of the forums where members are not trying to sugar coat their discussions.
That is a very interesting point that you make about the special needs adults that you work with. People of different heights, ages and activity levels need different amounts of calories to maintain their weight - and men/women have quite significant differences in their caloric needs. It is absolutely expected that giving these adults all the same number of calories would result in their weights being all over the place, because the number of calories each individual requires will differ by quite a lot.
I also wonder if just because they're special needs, the previous poster could really be certain that all they eat is what they're fed at meal time?2 -
Do you count calories in olestra? It contains as much chemical energy as any other fat but you can not absorb it.
If not then what about lactose calories in people who do not produce lactase?
How do you count the extra calories burned after resistance training?
1 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.
Snark is not really intended - please note that you are in the "debate" section of the forums where members are not trying to sugar coat their discussions.
That is a very interesting point that you make about the special needs adults that you work with. People of different heights, ages and activity levels need different amounts of calories to maintain their weight - and men/women have quite significant differences in their caloric needs. It is absolutely expected that giving these adults all the same number of calories would result in their weights being all over the place, because the number of calories each individual requires will differ by quite a lot.
There are not just differences in needs. There are differences in abilities to absorb calories.
The most obvious example would people who do not produce lactase.
There are also differences in calorie expenditure.2 -
extra_medium wrote: »
And winning a game is all about scoring more points than the other team?0 -
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.
And calories in isn't so simple either.
Portions and carbs have 4 calories per gram but it makes a difference which of those two you eat.0 -
CanadianStephen wrote: »Do you count calories in olestra? It contains as much chemical energy as any other fat but you can not absorb it.
If not then what about lactose calories in people who do not produce lactase?
How do you count the extra calories burned after resistance training?
I would call this majoring in minors. Counting calories is fairly simple and very customizable to the individual. The process is simple: count your calories as accurately as you can so that the logging part is consistent, eat some (a static percentage) or all of your exercise calories back (or don't - but stay consistent), then see if actual average weight loss matches predictions, if it doesn't, adjust up or down.
It's a means to an end: weight loss. How accurately you pinpoint the exact numbers is irrelevant. Based on my observations I have a sedentary maintenance of about 1900 calories and I consistently lose a pound a week reducing my intake to 1400. My actual maintenance could be 1000 or 3000 for all I care. Even if there is a large margin of error, if I'm always wrong by the same margin of error my results will be consistent.7 -
CanadianStephen wrote: »Galadrial60 wrote: »What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.
Snark is not really intended - please note that you are in the "debate" section of the forums where members are not trying to sugar coat their discussions.
That is a very interesting point that you make about the special needs adults that you work with. People of different heights, ages and activity levels need different amounts of calories to maintain their weight - and men/women have quite significant differences in their caloric needs. It is absolutely expected that giving these adults all the same number of calories would result in their weights being all over the place, because the number of calories each individual requires will differ by quite a lot.
There are not just differences in needs. There are differences in abilities to absorb calories.
The most obvious example would people who do not produce lactase.
There are also differences in calorie expenditure.
Your first two lines can only contribute to Calories In being lower than expected, which will contribute to weight loss.
Your last line means that one's individual caloric intake must match one's individual caloric needs. There are ways to measure it accurately if one wants.0 -
CanadianStephen wrote: »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.
And calories in isn't so simple either.
Portions and carbs have 4 calories per gram but it makes a difference which of those two you eat.
Not for everyone. Know thyself.0 -
CanadianStephen wrote: »Do you count calories in olestra? It contains as much chemical energy as any other fat but you can not absorb it.
If not then what about lactose calories in people who do not produce lactase?
How do you count the extra calories burned after resistance training?
I agree with the comment that this is majoring in minors.
I don't consume olestra. People who don't produce lactase probably should not consume lactose (unless with lactase, I guess, not my issue). Calories after resistance training are bonus, or adjust if you are losing more than you want -- I don't count exercise calories but estimate TDEE based on results.1 -
I would think she's probably referring to genetics which I agree does have a hand in your ability to gain and lose weight and weight distribution. But that's only part of the problem.2
-
I really don't like people who use excuses for being overweight. Unless you're really suffering from a condition that prevents you to lose or gain, then I won't understand. But if you're happy the way you are, then you do you, but just try to eat healthier for your life and not for the "bikini body".
Some excuses I've heard:
"My metabolism is so slow, yours is just fast"
"Food is so good" (I know. I just eat what everyone does in moderation)
"Men/women like curves/the dad body"
"It's too hard to diet and just eat fruits and vegetables!"
"*Explains fad diet and how it didn't work and gave up bc it will never work*"
"I was born big-boned" Thought I was too, til I started losing weight
That and a lot more. I actually used to say some of these excuses when people expressed their concern for my weight (170 lbs at 5'2/5'3!), so while I do know how it feels about saying excuses to lose weight, I just don't find as much sympathy if people keep throwing these excuses and then complain about being unhealthy or overweight.6 -
I use to be one of those people who blamed everything and everyone else for my being overweight. Now I know better. Its my fault and I'm not afraid to admit. Sure there were circumstances in my past that led to me being overweight at a younge age but as I got older I could've done something about it. I chose not to and I'm paying the price for it. I would do anything to go back and shake some sense into my young self, but alas that cannot happen. Lol. It is what is now. I've learned my lesson and now I'm working my butt trying to be a healthier, better version of myself.
9 -
Before kids my body would always stay at 180...I could lose weight, gain weight... With no effort, my weight would be 180 again. I wore a medium/size 10 jeans loose so I wasn't that chubby...I just seemed stuck. After I had kids...no matter how much I gain with my pregnancies, I drop to 215, but it seems to be impossible to get below 205 no matter how much I follow my personal trainers and nutritionists. Stockiness runs in my family in the men and occasionally the women, and I am pretty muscular...so I am pretty sure that it may be my genetics working against me. I have seen an endocrinologist and have been diagnosed with PCOS, which is a endocrine syndrome that messes with your hormones.0
-
I have always believed it is not simply CICO, up until about 10 years ago i could eat anything and everything and my weight remained low and stable, little did i know that wouldn't last forever.
The CICO is likely 80% of ppl and the other 20%, for a myriad of reasons, will never have cico be applicable to them----hopefully you are finding ways to control your weight that work for you.midwesterner85 wrote: »It is really easy, especially for those who found the path to success is easy (or they are done and forgot how difficult it was), to assume that absolutely everybody will find the path to successful weight loss just as easily. It is also easy to blame everyone who hasn't found success for being lazy and making excuses. So here is my explanation for how I became heavy to begin with... if you think this is my fault, I would ask for an explanation as to how you arrived at that conclusion:
When I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, I was underweight for my height and age (by about 10 lbs.). At that time, the treatment for type 1 was not nearly as advanced as it is today. Basically, the treatment was insulin shots for both a basal and bolus (some today still are on MDI, though many of us are on pumps that allow greater flexibility) and a rigid meal plan. The meal plan was setup to eat exactly the same amount of the same types of foods at exactly the same times every single day.
Within the first month, I gained 20 lbs. and was overweight. Within the first year, I had doubled my weight. Over the next 2 years (3 total), I had more than tripled my weight and was obese. This was on the insulin and meal plan given to me by a CDE and dietition working for an endocrinologist. Though I had more training on type 1 diabetes by the time I was 10 years old than most U.S. physicians (according to those who spent weeks training me), and though there was an even better educated healthcare team involved, a way to stop gaining didn't come until I went to a pump several years later - the pump allowed much more flexibility for timing and quantities of meals.
I started out taking pork insulin before things like Apidra, Humalog, Lantus, Levemir, and other newer insulins were available - you can forget about Symlin until much later. As technology, medications, and treatment methods improved, I was able to finally start losing weight... slowly. I had some pretty good losses at first, but then had serious low BG's. During the 4th month (so after 3.5 months), I had a serious low BG day. For about 14 hours, without taking a single bolus and while using a temp. basal of 0 during part of that time, I needed over 600g of carbs to treat persistent low BG. Things like that make it extremely difficult to lose weight. Sure, you could argue that I could just eat less... but that also means that I could die.
I've had unusual experiences with weight loss - times where I had long plateaus followed by large "whooshes" and a time where I've gained weight after cutting calories further (when losing weight slowly prior to cutting calories). I've seen huge increases in losses by changing macros without changing total calories. CICO is just not that simple for me.
So my point is that there are some of us who are not fat because we are lazy, but because of circumstances over which we have little or no control; and that CICO is not as straight-forward as many here believe.
0 -
How could CICO not apply to people? I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean.
It's common for people to gain weight with age -- the equilibrium changes.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »How could CICO not apply to people? I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean.
It's common for people to gain weight with age -- the equilibrium changes.
What that means is that CICO just plain does not work. I understand the science behind some of why it hasn't worked for me, but other experiences I've had are things that I don't understand. It may be that experts who research such things understand it, and it may be that the current body of scientific knowledge is lacking on some specific instances. For example, there was a time that I was losing at a very slow rate (less than 1/2 lb. / week) and wanted to increase the rate of loss. CICO purists would suggest cutting calorie intake or increasing calorie expenditure. So I cut calorie intake by 500 / day. For the next 3 weeks, I started gaining rapidly (almost 2 lbs. / week) until I raised calories to the previous level. Someone who does not want to believe that result might suggest that my scale stopped being accurate at the exact time that I cut calories and started working again at the exact time I raised calories. That doesn't make a lot of sense, of course, but to someone who is unwilling to accept the fact that a reduced calorie level caused a shift from a small loss to a fast gain, they will convince themselves that there is an explanation that fits within CICO. It is just that some people reject the possibility that there is something they don't understand.2 -
I have always believed it is not simply CICO, up until about 10 years ago i could eat anything and everything and my weight remained low and stable, little did i know that wouldn't last forever.
The CICO is likely 80% of ppl and the other 20%, for a myriad of reasons, will never have cico be applicable to them----hopefully you are finding ways to control your weight that work for you.
Sorry, CICO applies to *everyone*.
If you're gaining weight, you're simply eating too much for your current activity level and age, and/or you have thyroid issues that can be corrected.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How could CICO not apply to people? I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean.
It's common for people to gain weight with age -- the equilibrium changes.
What that means is that CICO just plain does not work. I understand the science behind some of why it hasn't worked for me, but other experiences I've had are things that I don't understand. It may be that experts who research such things understand it, and it may be that the current body of scientific knowledge is lacking on some specific instances. For example, there was a time that I was losing at a very slow rate (less than 1/2 lb. / week) and wanted to increase the rate of loss. CICO purists would suggest cutting calorie intake or increasing calorie expenditure. So I cut calorie intake by 500 / day. For the next 3 weeks, I started gaining rapidly (almost 2 lbs. / week) until I raised calories to the previous level. Someone who does not want to believe that result might suggest that my scale stopped being accurate at the exact time that I cut calories and started working again at the exact time I raised calories. That doesn't make a lot of sense, of course, but to someone who is unwilling to accept the fact that a reduced calorie level caused a shift from a small loss to a fast gain, they will convince themselves that there is an explanation that fits within CICO. It is just that some people reject the possibility that there is something they don't understand.
If cico doesn't work for you then you need to make an appointment with a physicist and not a physician because you have broken the laws of physics and need to be studied.13 -
This content has been removed.
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