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
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.5 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.0 -
walking2running wrote: »
I have been reading studies that appear to indicate that older women (70 years old +) tend to be healthier and with fewer problems like osteoporosis, etc if they have a little extra weight. NOT overweight, but a little more towards the high side of a normal BMI. I will look for the study but IIRC, there even was a slightly smaller incidence of dementia among those studied. Kind of makes sense. It is not uncommon for the elderly to lose their sense of taste and appetite so eating enough nutritious food is difficult. Also, keeping the muscles strong helps keep the bones strong, and carrying around a couple more pounds helps that.
This was just a preliminary study, but interesting.
Could it be that older women with fewer health issues have a healthy appetite, versus women with underlying medical conditions who tend to have a less healthy appetite, and are more susceptible to becoming frail and underweight? I'm not convinced that it proves that being overweight is protective, but rather that healthier older women eat more than those with health complications.
I can't speak to the "studies" referenced, but at least some of the "studies" I've seen about the value of increased weight among the elderly didn't adequately control for the fact that elderly people in active decline do tend to have lower body weight, i.e., lots of chronic or acute conditions include weight loss before they finally become fatal.
But I, too, have read that on average heavier women have less osteopenia/osteoporosis - makes sense, in that they (we) put more mechanical stress on the bones by carrying more body weight around, and tend to have higher estrogen levels (because of the fat itself being involved in post-menopausal estrogen creation), especially if we're inactive. On average, higher estrogen = better bones.
I've spent way too much time in doctor's offices myself, and I gotta say, I see a higher proportion of severely overweight/inactive 60-70+ y/o people there, than I do out in the world in general, let alone at my Y or rowing club. But that's not a "study", and I'm well aware of the biases in my observations, when it comes to the direction of the causation arrows.
But still, it was among the factors that led me to get serious about weight loss at age 59/60.
@earlnabby, please do post a link to that study if you find it. This is an area of interest for me as a li'l ol' lady.
(edited to fix messed-up quotations . . . I hope).3 -
itsalifestylenotadiet wrote: »Hello to all, sorry i'm new to the threads and am unsure how to navigate around here and don't know how to respond directly to those who responded to me. I didn't feel the comments were directed at me at all. I just felt that there was a majority of condescending comments on both sides of the debate about what kind of diet works and vice versa. We all need to find what works for us and I have to say I am not on a diet. My name here is "its a lifestyle not a diet" because it's my mantra 100%. Diets don't work for me. Lifestyle changes do, and if I don't lead a healthy one it will end with me putting all of the lbs. back on that I fought hard to lose. I lost 76 lbs on WW and kept it off for 5 years. Between my health getting even worse two years ago which resulted in me not being able to walk again, and my depression kicking back in I put nearly half of my weight on again. I finally kicked the "I don't give a care attitude" and the depression to the curb and have lost 20 lbs of it in the last 6 months, 14 of that in the last 2, doing Keto because WW wasn't working for me anymore. I am trying to get back down to the weight I am in my profile pic so that I can wear my closet full of clothes again and most importantly feel better. When people assume that all others "have to do is start moving, go to the gym, get outside and do things" not all of us have that option. So therefore the original post to start with about people using their "overweight and obesity" as an excuse is not that way for everyone. Some of us struggle everyday and have their whole lives trying to keep their weight down. So what I am essentially saying is unless someone has truly been in someone elses shoes they will never understand what others go through and to have some kind of empathy for them.
I'm sincerely sorry that you feel unsupported by some of the rhetoric in this thread! I certainly know that many people have uphill struggles to lose weight.
I took the original post to be saying that some people do use excuses because they're not ready to commit themselves to trying to lose weight, and that OP found it interesting that the structure of one particular set of excuses had to do with a belief that the body and brain were somehow separable entities in conflict with each other. But that's just my reading.
I don't think any of that takes away from people who truly do commit themselves, and still struggle, for very good reasons (like physical challenges to exercise, medical conditions with metabolic consequences, etc.).
That said, I want to point out that this specific thread is taking place in the "Debate" forum, which is oriented to arguments (
) more than to support . . . here, one will see more over-generalization, fewer careful qualifications (to avoid hurt feelings) around those generalizations, and generally a more "gloves off" kind of approach.
The "Motivation & Support" forum, not to mention some of the specialized interest groups, tends to be a kinder, gentler place.11 -
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
I just listened to the results of a study the other day that looked at timing of calories. Two groups of overweight women were given the same number of calories per day for 12 weeks. In one group, the women consumed half the calories for breakfast, and the rest over the course of the day. In the second group, the women consumed half the calories at dinner and the rest over the course of the day. The study found that the group that consumed the majority calories for breakfast were more successful at losing weight than the group that consumed the majority calories for dinner. Here's the overview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/full
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just saying that no matter what anyone says, one way or another, there's probably some research out there somewhere to support it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
CICO doesn't seem to work for me. I've recently gone from a pretty severe deficit of 700-1000 cals/day to about 1200-1400. Technically, I should be thin as a rail by CICO standards, but the scale hasn't budged. I'm not overly concerned about it. I'm losing inches and bfp, and that's where my main focus is.2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.
Trying to understand what happens and what might make it harder under some circumstances is part of how one deals with those issues, not an excuse for not losing weight or a claim of powerlessness.
For example, one thing that helps with the hormonal issues is to exercise more. If I lose weight and am struggling with all of a sudden feeling hungry all the time, to understand that there are hormonal reasons and that exercise is likely to help gives me something to do, as opposed to just trying to employ willpower and feeling like a failure because it's so hard. (Hypothetical, btw.)
Similarly, if I do have a metabolic adaptation understanding that's normal and even that I can fix it over time will be helpful. I won't just wonder why my body won't let me eat more.
Knowing the research that your body can adapt to a new "set point" in about a year also would be helpful.
Understanding is good, not an excuse. Knowledge is power and all that.1 -
SuperMelinator wrote: »
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
I just listened to the results of a study the other day that looked at timing of calories. Two groups of overweight women were given the same number of calories per day for 12 weeks. In one group, the women consumed half the calories for breakfast, and the rest over the course of the day. In the second group, the women consumed half the calories at dinner and the rest over the course of the day. The study found that the group that consumed the majority calories for breakfast were more successful at losing weight than the group that consumed the majority calories for dinner. Here's the overview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/full
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just saying that no matter what anyone says, one way or another, there's probably some research out there somewhere to support it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
CICO doesn't seem to work for me. I've recently gone from a pretty severe deficit of 700-1000 cals/day to about 1200-1400. Technically, I should be thin as a rail by CICO standards, but the scale hasn't budged. I'm not overly concerned about it. I'm losing inches and bfp, and that's where my main focus is.
That research doesn't directly support or not support CICO.
No study that relies solely on subject compliance and reporting for intake estimates is ever going to be able to definitively state two diets were isocaloric. Isocaloric as prescribed, sure. As followed? Highly doubtful. The best that study can conclude is that subjects prescribed a higher calorie breakfast tended to lose more weight. Given that, those subjects either tended to eat fewer calories, move more, or both.4 -
(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.")
HOGWASH, our bodies are amazing machines. When sick it seeks to repair itself, when broken it continually mends itself. So in essence your body wants to be fit.... our bodies prefer the healthy side and would naturally be slender built and beautiful...... but we have the ability to change that by what we put into our bodies and it is ourselves that "FORCE" our bodies to a particular weight by being carless and lazy. So she's right our bodies naturally want to be a certain weight. But that weight is fit, it is we who sabotage that.4 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.
Hmmm, I admit I'm only judging from photos, but @EvgeniZyntx does not look especially fat to me. But, judging over a series of posts, he does look like a Science Dude.
Homeostasis and feedback loops are not the same thing as a set-point, as he says. And free will, while a useful and practical metaphor, is kinda problematic under the covers, I say.
Allowing intellectually for complexity in mechanism, does not, in itself, inhibit weight loss. In fact, if one's brain accounts for 20% of one's BMR or somesuch, maybe exercising it will burn a few more calories?
OP, I'm with you on the CICO. I've lost 60+ pounds, quite easily & happily, acting on that math. But when you're gonna do some programming, it helps to understand the operating system it needs to run on, too.3 -
-
6
-
Thank you, I didn't realize I was in a debate forum so I will make sure to avoid them from now on. Have a great day all.6
-
LaceyBirds wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I was simply responding to the fact that the pelvic girdle widens - I find that interesting. If I ever got down to my 20 year-old weight again, which I won't because I would look terrible, it would be interesting to see if there is a difference.
FWIW, I'm now (at age 60) at about the same weight as when I was 20. My hip measurement appears to be about the same as when I was 20. I can't recall my 20 y/o waist measurement, but I think it's in the ballpark.
However, I've never been pregnant. I wonder if that makes a difference? The article linked doesn't seem to comment on male/female differences (both sexes were included in the study), and I have to admit that I'm insufficiently fascinated to try to track down the original paper. Per the article, though, they're comparing young people to old, not the same people at both young & old ages, so that's kinda iffy right there.
Thanks for sharing this, Ann. I too am 60 and never had children. I wish I had some hip x-rays from when I was 20! Oh well, we'll have to find a woman who is 20 or so and convince her to get x-rays now and far off in the future.3 -
SuperMelinator wrote: »
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
I just listened to the results of a study the other day that looked at timing of calories. Two groups of overweight women were given the same number of calories per day for 12 weeks. In one group, the women consumed half the calories for breakfast, and the rest over the course of the day. In the second group, the women consumed half the calories at dinner and the rest over the course of the day. The study found that the group that consumed the majority calories for breakfast were more successful at losing weight than the group that consumed the majority calories for dinner. Here's the overview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/full
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just saying that no matter what anyone says, one way or another, there's probably some research out there somewhere to support it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
CICO doesn't seem to work for me. I've recently gone from a pretty severe deficit of 700-1000 cals/day to about 1200-1400. Technically, I should be thin as a rail by CICO standards, but the scale hasn't budged. I'm not overly concerned about it. I'm losing inches and bfp, and that's where my main focus is.
For how long?0 -
-
SuperMelinator wrote: »
Cutting your calories down to certain levels (and logging accurately). A lot of people reduce or count calories for a couple weeks and say it doesn't work, but generally you need to allow more time than that, around two months0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.
Don't be that guy.
Having mentioned the mechanisms that influence weight equilibrium doesn't mean that I'm reducing personal responsibility. You own where you put your body and how you manage your weight, understanding that how and what needs to be done to get over the equilibrium states is just being smart about it.
It means that eating one less potato chip per day won't result in a two pound loss over a year.7 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.
Hmmm, I admit I'm only judging from photos, but @EvgeniZyntx does not look especially fat to me. But, judging over a series of posts, he does look like a Science Dude.
Homeostasis and feedback loops are not the same thing as a set-point, as he says. And free will, while a useful and practical metaphor, is kinda problematic under the covers, I say.
Allowing intellectually for complexity in mechanism, does not, in itself, inhibit weight loss. In fact, if one's brain accounts for 20% of one's BMR or somesuch, maybe exercising it will burn a few more calories?
OP, I'm with you on the CICO. I've lost 60+ pounds, quite easily & happily, acting on that math. But when you're gonna do some programming, it helps to understand the operating system it needs to run on, too.
Thanks Ann - I'm slightly overweight, at the middle/upper end of what is comfortable for me and I'm certainly NOT using science as an excuse.
It would be like saying I can't ride my bike fast because of friction or inertia. But knowing how they influence the ride - I can focus on a lighter bike and skinnier tires - the actual ride is still being driven by me. I still need to train.
But the basic idea that I can somehow "mind over matter" all influences of diet, weight gain and health just goes counter to ... well, a lot of science and experience. I've yet to meet someone who can fast for 3 days and run a marathon.
Understanding what one can influence and what requires more effort is certainly the intent.7 -
It's as simple as CICO because you can't gain weight on a calorie deficit, and you can't lose weight with a calorie surplus.
What most people here seem to be saying though is that "because CICO worked this way for me, so must it be for everyone". This disregards the the enormous difference between each human in the modern world. Not only do people's anatomy 's differ wildly, so does the quality of food they have access to. Many of the advances in food science as well as pharmaceuticals have resulted in"chemicals" (for lack of a better common term) that may alter the body's ability to function as it should. Alters the way the brain and body interprets our environment. An organic apple eaten in California by a wealthy strict vegan is not nutritionally equal to a poor person's pesticide laden apple in a community with little access to "healthy lifestyle" food.
My point is that we should quit belittleitelling/ telling people how weak and lazy they are compared to "my success/experience". (To stop making excuses). Realize that everyone's experience is different, and encourage the desire to be healthier. Fight companies trying to profit from damaging our health. Realize that fat doesn't always equal lazy. If all our personal failures were visible, I think we would treat each other with more compassion.5 -
sandhillgirl wrote: »It's as simple as CICO because you can't gain weight on a calorie deficit, and you can't lose weight with a calorie surplus.
What most people here seem to be saying though is that "because CICO worked this way for me, so must it be for everyone". This disregards the the enormous difference between each human in the modern world. Not only do people's anatomy 's differ wildly, so does the quality of food they have access to. Many of the advances in food science as well as pharmaceuticals have resulted in"chemicals" (for lack of a better common term) that may alter the body's ability to function as it should. Alters the way the brain and body interprets our environment. An organic apple eaten in California by a wealthy strict vegan is not nutritionally equal to a poor person's pesticide laden apple in a community with little access to "healthy lifestyle" food.
My point is that we should quit belittleitelling/ telling people how weak and lazy they are compared to "my success/experience". (To stop making excuses). Realize that everyone's experience is different, and encourage the desire to be healthier. Fight companies trying to profit from damaging our health. Realize that fat doesn't always equal lazy. If all our personal failures were visible, I think we would treat each other with more compassion.
Poor or rich, organic or chemical laden, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is still CICO7 -
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.
Ever see pics/videos of people in Nazi camps? Do you think CICO worked for them? Or did they go into "starvation mode" of suddenly start packing on weight?
The concept of "it didn't work for me" is an excuse to not do the work. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with not doing the work! Just admit that you don't feel like it, and don't delude yourself into thinking that physics doesn't apply to you.
18 -
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?1 -
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.0 -
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.2 -
sandhillgirl wrote: »It's as simple as CICO because you can't gain weight on a calorie deficit, and you can't lose weight with a calorie surplus.
What most people here seem to be saying though is that "because CICO worked this way for me, so must it be for everyone". This disregards the the enormous difference between each human in the modern world. Not only do people's anatomy 's differ wildly, so does the quality of food they have access to. Many of the advances in food science as well as pharmaceuticals have resulted in"chemicals" (for lack of a better common term) that may alter the body's ability to function as it should. Alters the way the brain and body interprets our environment. An organic apple eaten in California by a wealthy strict vegan is not nutritionally equal to a poor person's pesticide laden apple in a community with little access to "healthy lifestyle" food.
My point is that we should quit belittleitelling/ telling people how weak and lazy they are compared to "my success/experience". (To stop making excuses). Realize that everyone's experience is different, and encourage the desire to be healthier. Fight companies trying to profit from damaging our health. Realize that fat doesn't always equal lazy. If all our personal failures were visible, I think we would treat each other with more compassion.
People's anatomy doesn't differ wildly. That's kinda the whole point behind the definition of a species.12 -
-
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)4 -
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.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »The things you listed were simply wrong.
CICO works for everyone as it is based on a law of physics.
Starvation mode like that doesn't exist.
Amount of meals per day doesn't matter.
We can tell you that you're wrong BECAUSE we heard it all before. Do you think you're the first to come here talking about this stuff?
I'm not wrong. I simply had a different experience than you. CICO alone did not work for ME. Therefore, you cannot say "everyone". I tried it for 7 months (I was quite determined!), but didn't lose a single pound. As soon as I started tracking my macros in addition to calories (went from 1300 cals to 1400 cals/day and increased protein), I dropped 10 lbs in 8 weeks. Physics may work for you, but science/biology worked for me. And the amount of meals each day mattered for me. Some people eat 1 meal/day and that works for them. You may not choose to do that for yourself, but different things work for different people.
If you've heard of macros before and the benefits of tracking them, then why do you disbelieve it? Somebody had to tell you about CICO, why did you not question them? For some people, there's more to weightloss than CICO. It doesn't change the fact that CICO works for you/others. Lucky you, by the way. You don't have to track macros to meet your goals.
You do realize that biology is not exempt from the laws of physics, correct? And that biology and physics are both fields within science, yes?8 -
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.9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions