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
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »The typical response based on CICO to someone who wants to lose faster is to cut calorie intake or increase calorie expenditure. In the case I provided as a personal example, that approach did not work.
This is a very common claim, but not one that has ever (to my knowledge) been supported empirically. What happens when you take people who "cannot lose weight" or for whom "CICO doesn't work" and put them in an experimental environment where all access to food is controlled and monitored? Somehow magically they start losing weight at the predicted rate. This has been confirmed time and time again... the short version is that people are REALLY bad at tracking caloric intake and expenditures. The law of thermodynamics doesn't magically not apply to people.
17 -
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)?2
-
Wicked_Seraph wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
I... really don't like the word "excuse", to be honest. It implies a fault, flaw, or moral failing that one is trying to justify. I don't think being overweight or obese is a fault or flaw.
I'm not trying to be a pedantic jerk, but it really is important to be careful about the words we use. "Reasons" for being overweight/obese? Fine. Reasons do not carry a connotation of fault or the implication that the respondent should feel ashamed.
I had plenty of reasons for being overweight. I didn't know my maintenance calories. I ate to deal with negative (and positive!) emotions. I was in denial. I really like food. I figured it was due to HBC and/or PCOS I likely don't actually have.
I wouldn't consider any of these things excuses. To say that they were excuses implies that the "right" thing to do is lose weight. Losing weight is a very personal decision, and not one to give moral overtones.
I think you make a fair point. But I would also argue that some people do use things as an excuse.
I used to say that my health problems were 50% responsible for my weight and that I was responsible for the rest. Well, hey, I owned 50% of it, but I wasn't doing anything about that half I couldn't excuse. In reality the health problems contributed to physical inactivity but I was 100% responsible for the portions I consumed. Feeling tired and in pain didn't make me fat. My hands and mouth did. I was making excuses, and making those health problems worse. I am not hurt by anyone pointing that out. It's the truth.
Now the health issues are being addressed and obviously I'm doing well. No one would be doing me any favors to be sympathetic to my past. They don't have to be jerks, but truth is truth.
Yes, but there is a world of difference, I think, in saying that you weren't taking responsibility for your health vs saying that you were making excuses for being overweight.
"Excuse" puts a moral slant on something that really shouldn't have it. Being obese or overweight is neither good nor bad - it's simply how someone is at that point in time. I don't consider those who are obese - like myself, for one - to have committed some kind of moral failing. We simply made mistakes, and ultimately it's our choice whether or not to continue going down the same path or do something different.
I will 100% say that I wasn't taking personal responsibility for my health. I will agree that having the truth sugar-coated did nothing to help me - it made it so much easier to pretend that MY CHOICES weren't the cause of my obesity. I wanted desperately to think that I wasn't losing weight because of something else... because surely it wouldn't be because I was insufficient in some way? It's easier to attribute failure to one's genetics or metabolism than, as much as it sucks, admitting that you eat too much and need to knock that *kitten* off. I agree that in many cases, people are refusing to acknowledge their own shortcomings. But again... phrasing it as "making excuses" is shaming and puts people on the defensive.
To the bolded: Not necessarily. At least that's not how I think of it. I have zero interest in fat shaming. If someone chooses to remain overweight, it's their choice. I chose to stay fat for years. (I might assign a minor demerit, though only in my head, if I feel like they're making disastrous choices that impose serious costs on others).
To me, if someone asserts that they really, really want to lose weight, and then tells me stories about factors clearly under their control, claiming that those factors are somehow not in their hands, they are making excuses.
If they really, really want to lose weight, yet have factors outside their control that limit their ability to lose weight, those are reasons. If they explicitly choose to remain overweight, any explanation of how or why would also constitute reasons.
The "moral" implications (and "moral" is too strong a word for it IMO), if any, arise from the self-deception, unwillingness to work toward their own stated goals, refusal to accept responsibility for changing things they can in pursuit of those stated goals, and, yeah, kinda whiny-ness about all of the above.
It's not about the "being fat," "not taking responsibility for health," etc., in my view. It's about claiming to have goals, but refusing to strive.4 -
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.1 -
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.1 -
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....?
3 -
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 CICO math to make sense.
This is why I knew so much about health during the entire time... I've been under the care of an endocrinologist for more than 20 years.1 -
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.
11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.
I never said they couldn't. However, it would mean they would need to become even leaner than they were at the younger age, and that the weight gain isn't necessarily unhealthy. I'm not quite sure why you can't grasp this concept.
2 -
Sure, but not enough to lower TDEE to 100. Even a 40% reduction in BMR is about the limit after months of starvation. An untreated thyroid condition that produced that level of metabolic slowdown would product severe health issues and likely death in a relatively short period of time.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)?
Also, Hashimoto's is very manageable. There are a number of people here who suffer from Hashimoto's and have still achieved great results.
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.
Truth. Especially, since you have so many app or web options. It's not like back in the day when people had to actually look up the amount of calories a food had in a book. It's literally a version of googling nowadays.3 -
wackyfunster wrote: »
Sure, but not enough to lower TDEE to 100. Even a 40% reduction in BMR is about the limit after months of starvation. An untreated thyroid condition that produced that level of metabolic slowdown would product severe health issues and likely death in a relatively short period of time.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)?
Also, Hashimoto's is very manageable. There are a number of people here who suffer from Hashimoto's and have still achieved great results.
My daughter has Hashimoto's. I just asked because it was mentioned earlier he had a condition but never said what he had.0 -
There are a lot of theories floating around out there. One I was looking at recently is that the balance or lack of balance of gut flora and other microorganisms in your body play a part in determining what you crave and when you reach satiety. So yeh, I'd say my resident microorganisms are separate; they aren't human tissue.1
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
If we must rely on measurements in order to assess CICO, and there is no practical way to accurately measure all factors 100% percent of the time, isn't feasible that conventional concepts of CICO will prove ineffective in practice for some people?
I suppose you could say that people who use CICO as a concept put into practice sometimes fail at it, and then when they use other methods based on non-CICO concepts (like low-carb, or the grapefruit diet, or whatnot) perhaps they can have more success. That doesn't mean the underlying concept is false, it just means that sometimes people need to use mental heuristics or models that don't necessarily translate into rational, logical, real-world mechanisms in order to exist.
But when people say "CICO didn't work for me" that, to me (with my annoyingly literal brain, as my girlfriend always tells me) that sounds as nonsensical as "gravity didn't work for me." Gravity always works. The law of Conservation of Energy applies to everyone, all the time. You can't generate fat spontaneously without a calorie surplus, you can't lose weight without a calorie deficit - it's simply, physically impossible, period.
BTW they've done studies on this over and over using animal and human models. It's expensive and cumbersome in probably most cases, but it's certainly feasible in laboratory conditions to with almost complete precision keep track of calorie inputs and calorie outputs in humans and animals - and I am not aware of a single instance where a person or animal spontaneously generated visceral body mass without a corresponding caloric input.
Bold 1: Or that the methodologies for measuring either side of the energy equation are less effective for certain people.
Bold 2: While gravity always works, its effects are not always felt, for example in outer space.
What would be an example of the effects of CICO not being felt? The only one I can think of is when CI=CO. Are there other cases?
0 -
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?0 -
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?
If the time frame was short enough, the probability of this starts approaching 1. Can someone fill me in? It's been pages and I don't want to search for where he gets into specifics.2 -
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.
1 -
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?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
If we must rely on measurements in order to assess CICO, and there is no practical way to accurately measure all factors 100% percent of the time, isn't feasible that conventional concepts of CICO will prove ineffective in practice for some people?
I suppose you could say that people who use CICO as a concept put into practice sometimes fail at it, and then when they use other methods based on non-CICO concepts (like low-carb, or the grapefruit diet, or whatnot) perhaps they can have more success. That doesn't mean the underlying concept is false, it just means that sometimes people need to use mental heuristics or models that don't necessarily translate into rational, logical, real-world mechanisms in order to exist.
But when people say "CICO didn't work for me" that, to me (with my annoyingly literal brain, as my girlfriend always tells me) that sounds as nonsensical as "gravity didn't work for me." Gravity always works. The law of Conservation of Energy applies to everyone, all the time. You can't generate fat spontaneously without a calorie surplus, you can't lose weight without a calorie deficit - it's simply, physically impossible, period.
BTW they've done studies on this over and over using animal and human models. It's expensive and cumbersome in probably most cases, but it's certainly feasible in laboratory conditions to with almost complete precision keep track of calorie inputs and calorie outputs in humans and animals - and I am not aware of a single instance where a person or animal spontaneously generated visceral body mass without a corresponding caloric input.
Bold 1: Or that the methodologies for measuring either side of the energy equation are less effective for certain people.
Bold 2: While gravity always works, its effects are not always felt, for example in outer space.
What would be an example of the effects of CICO not being felt? The only one I can think of is when CI=CO. Are there other cases?
It seems like there's often a lot of effort to make this more complicated than it is. Here are assumption I make about all this:
1) No one here on these boards are able to precisely measure CI or CO.
2) Therefore, our calorie and exercise logging is based on estimates. Which are subject to instrumentation and human error (systematic and otherwise).
3) You can't violate the principle of Conservation of Energy (e.g., or "calories in, calories out")
Ergo, *any* person here who claims they gain weight on a calorie deficit is wrong. It's measurement error.8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
If we must rely on measurements in order to assess CICO, and there is no practical way to accurately measure all factors 100% percent of the time, isn't feasible that conventional concepts of CICO will prove ineffective in practice for some people?
I suppose you could say that people who use CICO as a concept put into practice sometimes fail at it, and then when they use other methods based on non-CICO concepts (like low-carb, or the grapefruit diet, or whatnot) perhaps they can have more success. That doesn't mean the underlying concept is false, it just means that sometimes people need to use mental heuristics or models that don't necessarily translate into rational, logical, real-world mechanisms in order to exist.
But when people say "CICO didn't work for me" that, to me (with my annoyingly literal brain, as my girlfriend always tells me) that sounds as nonsensical as "gravity didn't work for me." Gravity always works. The law of Conservation of Energy applies to everyone, all the time. You can't generate fat spontaneously without a calorie surplus, you can't lose weight without a calorie deficit - it's simply, physically impossible, period.
BTW they've done studies on this over and over using animal and human models. It's expensive and cumbersome in probably most cases, but it's certainly feasible in laboratory conditions to with almost complete precision keep track of calorie inputs and calorie outputs in humans and animals - and I am not aware of a single instance where a person or animal spontaneously generated visceral body mass without a corresponding caloric input.
Bold 1: Or that the methodologies for measuring either side of the energy equation are less effective for certain people.
Bold 2: While gravity always works, its effects are not always felt, for example in outer space.
What would be an example of the effects of CICO not being felt? The only one I can think of is when CI=CO. Are there other cases?
It seems like there's often a lot of effort to make this more complicated than it is. Here are assumption I make about all this:
1) No one here on these boards are able to precisely measure CI or CO.
2) Therefore, our calorie and exercise logging is based on estimates. Which are subject to instrumentation and human error (systematic and otherwise).
3) You can't violate the principle of Conservation of Energy (e.g., or "calories in, calories out")
Ergo, *any* person here who claims they gain weight on a calorie deficit is wrong. It's measurement error.
I know all that, but @moe0303 compared the effects of gravity not always being felt to the effects of CICO not always being felt. I was just curious when, in his opinion, that might be the case aside from when CI=CO.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions