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
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Picking out some unusual medical condition that should not be happening and must be corrected ASAP does not support the claim that CICO only works for about 80% of people (which was made above). Or really that it doesn't work at all.
When I have a virus (assuming I could eat) I will presumably not gain weight due to inability to keep stuff in (ugh, I know). That doesn't mean CICO doesn't work for me.
I don't know what the percentage is, but I agree that CICO works for most. I disagree that it works for 100%. If I mention that it doesn't work as understood for some, the response that it does work for most proves my point to be correct.
Crucial words (IMO) bolded. But "as understood" by whom?
Personally, I think there are misunderstandings (and "not yet knowns") on both sides of this debate.
Some people equate "CICO works" to "online calorie-requirement calculators give correct answers for everyone, or close". That's just silly.
As understood = as argued here.0 -
-
@FridayApril01st2016
Will watch this now if i can stay awake, it is almost an hour long, but will post to you after viewing.FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »
0 -
@FridayApril01st2016
Will watch this now if i can stay awake, it is almost an hour long, but will post to you after viewing.FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »
Okay!0 -
NOTHING is always accurate for everyone, there are always exceptions.
That wasn't the part of your statement that I was questioning. Yes there are exceptions however:nutmegoreo wrote: »The people who are doing the posting on this website and who have interest in their health are a small subset of society, i originally joined MFP so that i would be more exercise compliant, it wasn't because i was overweight. So we are mostly not typical.
Typical..what i see in my everyday life, is overweight people and they would like to be slim. THOSE PEOPLE are proof that CICO does not work because all of those ppl are not overeating, the body is more complex than CICO---i've never been overweight and i'm an OUTLIER, yes CICO is accurate for most, but not for all.
NOTHING is always accurate for everyone, there are always exceptions.
How do you know they aren't overeating if they aren't keeping track of their intake?
Before I started counting, I wouldn't have believed that I was overeating. Now that I know better, CICO works fine, but I had to accept that what I was doing wasn't working. I had to stop being in denial about what I was doing to myself.
1 -
@FridayApril01st2016
Sure, it's just amazing that the individual differences held true, well they'd have to wouldn't they? In fact one person in the experiment gained additonal muscle which helped to burn fat.
Loosing weight, gaining weight....very much done on an individual basis--very interesting about the younger children, some of them ate evrything in sight while others ignored extra food once they were fill.
Of particular importance for ppl commenting in this thread is how it's been proven that some people catch a "virus" that causes them to gain weight and become obese--a virus.0 -
@FridayApril01st2016
Sure, it's just amazing that the individual differences held true, well they'd have to wouldn't they? In fact one person in the experiment gained additonal muscle which helped to burn fat.
Loosing weight, gaining weight....very much done on an individual basis--very interesting about the younger children, some of them ate evrything in sight while others ignored extra food once they were fill.
Of particular importance for ppl commenting in this thread is how it's been proven that some people catch a "virus" that causes them to gain weight and become obese--a virus.
Some people're different, from the general population: Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary), comes to mind!1 -
@FridayApril01st2016
Sure, it's just amazing that the individual differences held true, well they'd have to wouldn't they? In fact one person in the experiment gained additonal muscle which helped to burn fat.
Loosing weight, gaining weight....very much done on an individual basis--very interesting about the younger children, some of them ate evrything in sight while others ignored extra food once they were fill.
Of particular importance for ppl commenting in this thread is how it's been proven that some people catch a "virus" that causes them to gain weight and become obese--a virus.
Was the delivery method for the virus tons of high calorie food?6 -
So, so much splitting of hairs here.
Yes, there are disorders that can cause people to improperly absorb nutrients. That doesn't mean that CICO isn't in play, it just means that their body isn't using all of what's put in. The formula needs to be adjusted for them.
Yes, there are disorders that can cause people's bodies to transmit more excess calories to storage that would be discarded as waste in healthy people. That doesn't mean that CICO isn't in play, it just means that their body is directing nutrients improperly. The formula needs to be adjusted for them.
It's all nothing more than an individual physics problem. You just have to figure out the parameters.11 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »So, so much splitting of hairs here.
Yes, there are disorders that can cause people to improperly absorb nutrients. That doesn't mean that CICO isn't in play, it just means that their body isn't using all of what's put in. The formula needs to be adjusted for them.
Yes, there are disorders that can cause people's bodies to transmit more excess calories to storage that would be discarded as waste in healthy people. That doesn't mean that CICO isn't in play, it just means that their body is directing nutrients improperly. The formula needs to be adjusted for them.
It's all nothing more than an individual physics problem. You just have to figure out the parameters.
Hey man, don't be bringing math and science in here!6 -
FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »@FridayApril01st2016
Sure, it's just amazing that the individual differences held true, well they'd have to wouldn't they? In fact one person in the experiment gained additonal muscle which helped to burn fat.
Loosing weight, gaining weight....very much done on an individual basis--very interesting about the younger children, some of them ate evrything in sight while others ignored extra food once they were fill.
Of particular importance for ppl commenting in this thread is how it's been proven that some people catch a "virus" that causes them to gain weight and become obese--a virus.
Some people're different, from the general population: Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary), comes to mind!
Being a disease carrier is not an abnormal occurrence.3 -
Nightmare_Queen88 wrote: »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.
As long as there is breath in your body, it's never too late. I applaud you.3 -
@FridayApril01st2016
This FTO gene was mentioned in link that you shared, I watched then found this online....this article reinforces why CICO doesn't apply as a one size fits all:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0713/15072013-How-obesity-gene-triggers-weight-gain-Batterham0 -
@FridayApril01st2016
This FTO gene was mentioned in link that you shared, I watched then found this online....this article reinforces why CICO doesn't apply as a one size fits all:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0713/15072013-How-obesity-gene-triggers-weight-gain-Batterham
Interesting. I think this would fit well in the thread about why people overeat even when they want to lose weight.
But it doesn't mean CICO doesn't apply to people who have the gene. Being hungrier than what's normal would make it harder to exercise restraint, but it's still calories in/calories out.7 -
I assume what your GF was referring to is the fact that once you are "fat" and have extra fatty, fat cells those fat cells once made smaller through fat loss will always remain and want to be "full". Those extra fat cells create hormones that DO make it harder to maintain weight loss. That doesn't mean that CICO isn't a thing, it just means that once fat people who don't want to worry about CICO every moment of the rest of their lives most likely ARE going to gain weight back.2
-
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.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.0 -
cinnag4225 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.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.
Again, it is still that simple. The people you mentioned just require a different set of numbers to work with, and may have a harder time adhering to those numbers. That doesn't change how physics works; they are just under different parameters.14 -
cinnag4225 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.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.
Sometimes I wonder how people think the "calories out" part works. Of course there are chemical and hormonal factors at play! That's how our bodies get things done!12 -
cinnag4225 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.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.
I can say 2+2=4 and it is correct.
You can say 3+1=4 and it is correct.
It's when I say 2+2=4 and you say "That doesn't apply to everyone because 3+1=4." that is the confusion.
CI = what you eat/drink
CO = what your body uses for energy and includes all those pesky things like hormones, disorders, bodily functions, and exercise.
Like PP said, CICO is a basic physics equation. When someone has a disorder that affects the CO side, the equation has different numbers but it is still the same equation.
2+2=4, as does 3+1 and 4+0 and 2.3+ 1.7, etc. etc. etc..
It's as though you're deliberately not understanding that the numbers vary for every person.17 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't know about set point, it might or might not be a thing. What I find really interesting is how naturally weight stable people (not necessarily thin) actually maintain within 5 pounds autonomously until something changes like their general level of activity... that's only a few dozen of calories. The precision It's amazing and fascinating without conscious control over the calories. I would love to find out the mechanisms that contribute to that, both physical and mental.
I suspect it's mostly psychological, and depends on the beliefs you learned from childhood on about food and nutrition. Naturally weight stable people eat what they want, eat when they're hungry and stop when they're full, and seldom eat emotionally out of boredom, depression, anxiety, or the like; food is for nutrition or for fellowship, there are no bad foods. Those who aren't naturally weight stable feel guilty when they eat what they want, have not learned to recognize when they're hungry or satiated, and self-medicate with their food; food is for meeting needs unmet elsewhere, there are bad foods that you have to avoid at all costs, and "transgressions" result in self-hatred and a sense of failure.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions