You NEED to stop calorie counting and restricting!
Replies
-
You burn calories constantly, because of health/medical issues, menopause, pregnancy, cancer etc, you may end up burning more/less, but at the end of the day as long as you eat less than you burn then the normal person will lose weight
People like a body builders/weight training etc may not, they will lose weight, but then may gain weight from gaining muscle for example
If you were to eat less calories than you need, but then drank tons of water, then you would weigh more due to the weight of the water
Not to mention that the figures are not 100% accurate, what you eat and burn are estimates, some might be hugely inaccurate
I would agree that CiCo does not apply to absolutely everyone, but unless you have something preventing it, be it a health condition, medication you are taking etc then it applies
For some reason and I am not saying that people here that dismiss CiCo are, but all of the emails I get that say it is false then end up trying to sell me some sort of weight loss pill etc...0 -
CICO does apply to absolutely everyone, just like gravity does. Your body cannot do work without energy, law of physics.7
-
I do believe in CICO. If one eats less than one burns off then there will be weight loss. The point that I'm making is that it is difficult for some people to lose weight due to medical issues. I'm not sure what percentage of people on here have normal metabolisms vs those who have insulin resistance, hypothyroidism, etc?0
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Annahbananas wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
Um...actually if you ate 1500 calories of just donuts a day and it's lower than your weight threshold then, yes, you will lose weight.
But you'll also suffer from extreme malnutrition from not eating the right foods
Calorie in calorie out.
A calorie is a calorie
Sorry, but a calorie is a calorie is a dated notion. Our bodies are not simple bunsen burners.
https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Stop giving links to non-scientifically backed websites. If you can find a well written, peer-reviewed article from a credible scientific journal that backs up your claims, I'll eat my left hand...
I'd look and see if MFP has "human hand, raw" in the database, but I'm not that worried that he'll actually find one.10 -
You burn calories constantly, because of health/medical issues, menopause, pregnancy, cancer etc, you may end up burning more/less, but at the end of the day as long as you eat less than you burn then the normal person will lose weight...
I would agree that CiCo does not apply to absolutely everyone, but unless you have something preventing it, be it a health condition, medication you are taking etc then it applies.
CICO does apply to every person. Nonetheless, there are health issues that impact speed of gaining and losing.
I suppose a person who has medical conditions has to figure out what their CICO level is through trial and error? YMMV.2 -
Sorry got dragged out Sunday supermarket shopping
What I was trying to say was that unless the body actually takes in/absorbs the calories then it is not really calorie in as it were
like myself due to the surgery, the calories I eat is not really my calories in
I think this is where the difference of opinion is
Calorie In and Calorie absorbed
for example, you could eat 10000 calories, but if you only absorb 1000, then your calorie in is in reality 1000, not 10000
but MFP will count it as 10000
if we were to take it literally, as long as the calories your body absorbs is less than the amount of calories your body burns, then you will lose weight, as the body needs to get the fuel from somewhere1 -
Sorry got dragged out Sunday supermarket shopping
What I was trying to say was that unless the body actually takes in/absorbs the calories then it is not really calorie in as it were
like myself due to the surgery, the calories I eat is not really my calories in
I think this is where the difference of opinion is
Calorie In and Calorie absorbed
for example, you could eat 10000 calories, but if you only absorb 1000, then your calorie in is in reality 1000, not 10000
but MFP will count it as 10000
if we were to take it literally, as long as the calories your body absorbs is less than the amount of calories your body burns, then you will lose weight, as the body needs to get the fuel from somewhere
That is true.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
So there's 7 pages here and I didn't read them all. I hope this has been pointed out already but if not -
Behold! The twinkie diet!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/5 -
Holy crow I can't still believe people are trying to refute the CICO, what the are ACTUALLY "crying" about is HOW MANY. We calculate using the basic math but i might require 30 less than someone exactly my weight to maintain or that person over there may burn 1000 more because the workout harder than joe. And I personally have tried eating healthier and found that I lose weight FASTER when the amount of calories is "junkier" I'd say that's because there isn't as much in the junk. It doesn't absorb because your body doesn't need it. But it's not enough of a difference to start an official "study" on and start quoting.0
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
So there's 7 pages here and I didn't read them all. I hope this has been pointed out already but if not -
Behold! The twinkie diet!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
That's why fad diets are popular and successful (short term). They all limit calories. But people can't maintain fad diets forever. The twinkie guy wouldn't be able sustain his experiment indefinitely either.
The body is able to recycle a lot of macronutrients over and over which is why fasting works for a while also. But no one can fast indefinitely without refeeds.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
So there's 7 pages here and I didn't read them all. I hope this has been pointed out already but if not -
Behold! The twinkie diet!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
That's why fad diets are successful. They all limit calories. But people can't maintain fad diets forever. The twinkie guy wouldn't be able sustain his indefinitely either. But the body is able to recycle a lot of macronutrients over and over which is why fasting works for a while also. But no one can fast indefinitely either without refeeds.
could you IMAGINE eating just twinkies for like years.....ughhhh how gross after even a day, I'd be crying for some cauliflower or chicken in a hot minute.2 -
sashayoung72 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
So there's 7 pages here and I didn't read them all. I hope this has been pointed out already but if not -
Behold! The twinkie diet!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
That's why fad diets are successful. They all limit calories. But people can't maintain fad diets forever. The twinkie guy wouldn't be able sustain his indefinitely either. But the body is able to recycle a lot of macronutrients over and over which is why fasting works for a while also. But no one can fast indefinitely either without refeeds.
could you IMAGINE eating just twinkies for like years.....ughhhh how gross after even a day, I'd be crying for some cauliflower or chicken in a hot minute.
I know! I haven't eaten twinkies in a long time. I could probably eat one but would get sick of them after a couple. Ugh3 -
other than pizza because you could change it out on toppings to every other thing I don't think there is ONE SINGLE THING I could eat FOREVER3
-
sashayoung72 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
So there's 7 pages here and I didn't read them all. I hope this has been pointed out already but if not -
Behold! The twinkie diet!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
That's why fad diets are successful. They all limit calories. But people can't maintain fad diets forever. The twinkie guy wouldn't be able sustain his indefinitely either. But the body is able to recycle a lot of macronutrients over and over which is why fasting works for a while also. But no one can fast indefinitely either without refeeds.
could you IMAGINE eating just twinkies for like years.....ughhhh how gross after even a day, I'd be crying for some cauliflower or chicken in a hot minute.
Donuts are my weekness. I'm pretty sure I could eat donuts all day everyday for years
Twinkies? Not so much. 4 -
Sorry got dragged out Sunday supermarket shopping
What I was trying to say was that unless the body actually takes in/absorbs the calories then it is not really calorie in as it were
like myself due to the surgery, the calories I eat is not really my calories in
I think this is where the difference of opinion is
Calorie In and Calorie absorbed
for example, you could eat 10000 calories, but if you only absorb 1000, then your calorie in is in reality 1000, not 10000
but MFP will count it as 10000
if we were to take it literally, as long as the calories your body absorbs is less than the amount of calories your body burns, then you will lose weight, as the body needs to get the fuel from somewhere
If this is the case for you, you need to see a gastroenterologist!4 -
Sorry got dragged out Sunday supermarket shopping
What I was trying to say was that unless the body actually takes in/absorbs the calories then it is not really calorie in as it were
like myself due to the surgery, the calories I eat is not really my calories in
I think this is where the difference of opinion is
Calorie In and Calorie absorbed
for example, you could eat 10000 calories, but if you only absorb 1000, then your calorie in is in reality 1000, not 10000
but MFP will count it as 10000
if we were to take it literally, as long as the calories your body absorbs is less than the amount of calories your body burns, then you will lose weight, as the body needs to get the fuel from somewhere
What you say is almost true, but all it means is that, if you've logged it as 10,000 then you have a 9,000 kcal difference that you don't know about and it would actually be part of your CO. No one says that CO only counts if it's exercise. Undigested food that passes out of your system would count too. If there is enough of it, you would feel effects and would probably want to see a doctor.
Body builders eat at a surplus while they are bulking and at a deficit while cutting. They will be among the first to tell you that CI CO is for everyone.
Water weight is not fat and will eventually be shed. This has nothing to do with CI CO because water has no calories.
Inaccurate estimates do not mean CI CO doesn't apply to everyone. That's like saying I shouldn't get an overdraft fee when my account is overdrawn because my estimates of the balance and of how much I was spending were inaccurate. We can never know 100% perfectly what our calorie intake/output is, but there is feedback in the form of a bathroom scale to help us adjust accordingly.
CI CO applies to absolutely everyone, even people with medical conditions. They might have to work harder to find the right balance, but it still exists for them.
NOTE: I just want to make we are not taking about counting calories but the actual principle of CI CO. Some people equate CICO with counting calories as a dietary tool when it's really a fact of life that happens whether you are paying attention or not.
3 -
Sorry got dragged out Sunday supermarket shopping
What I was trying to say was that unless the body actually takes in/absorbs the calories then it is not really calorie in as it were
like myself due to the surgery, the calories I eat is not really my calories in
I think this is where the difference of opinion is
Calorie In and Calorie absorbed
for example, you could eat 10000 calories, but if you only absorb 1000, then your calorie in is in reality 1000, not 10000
but MFP will count it as 10000
if we were to take it literally, as long as the calories your body absorbs is less than the amount of calories your body burns, then you will lose weight, as the body needs to get the fuel from somewhere
You had a surgery where your calories ingested is not really your CI, was this because you got more calories via IV? Please explain if you will. I'm intrigued1 -
what I was trying to say is that what you eat does not mean that all of it is digested
in my case, I don't know the exact amount, but I was taken into hospital and when they opened me up, a section of my intestines were rotten as they put it and had to be chopped out as it were, so my intestines is shorter than the normal person, thus the food goes from one end to the other quicker than a normal person, sorry if you are eating...
10000 was extreme, for example, right now telling MFP that if I want to lose 2lbs per week, it is saying I should eat just over 1500 cals per day, but even at 1500, not all of the food eaten is digested unless they are easily digested, granted, some foods are harder to digest than others and not everyone will digest them, but for me, more of them are harder to digest if that makes sense
so even if I eat 1500, unless the body digests and intakes it all, my calorie intake would be 1500 but the amount the body absorbed as it were would not be 1500 if that makes sense?
I think it should be CaCo, calorie absorbed and calorie out, as like in my case, what I eat does not mean that my body has absorbed it all, even though that is the case for everyone, but for people like myself, unless the food is easy to digest, then the difference is higher than the normal person
1 calorie eaten, not absorbed by the body and then out undigested is different from 1 calorie eaten, digested and aborbed and then out
or take 2 people, both eat the same amount of food and calories, 2000 kcal, but both only need 1500 kcal to substain their weight, one digests/aborbs 1750, the other only 1250, who is going to gain weight and who is going to lose weight?
as for when I was in ICU, yes, at one point, my food as it were was via IV, but that is irrelevant, I brought that up to say that my body has less time to digest the food than a normal person due to the surgery1 -
what I was trying to say is that what you eat does not mean that all of it is digested
in my case, I don't know the exact amount, but I was taken into hospital and when they opened me up, a section of my intestines were rotten as they put it and had to be chopped out as it were, so my intestines is shorter than the normal person, thus the food goes from one end to the other quicker than a normal person, sorry if you are eating...
10000 was extreme, for example, right now telling MFP that if I want to lose 2lbs per week, it is saying I should eat just over 1500 cals per day, but even at 1500, not all of the food eaten is digested unless they are easily digested, granted, some foods are harder to digest than others and not everyone will digest them, but for me, more of them are harder to digest if that makes sense
so even if I eat 1500, unless the body digests and intakes it all, my calorie intake would be 1500 but the amount the body absorbed as it were would not be 1500 if that makes sense?
I think it should be CaCo, calorie absorbed and calorie out, as like in my case, what I eat does not mean that my body has absorbed it all, even though that is the case for everyone, but for people like myself, unless the food is easy to digest, then the difference is higher than the normal person
1 calorie eaten, not absorbed by the body and then out undigested is different from 1 calorie eaten, digested and aborbed and then out
or take 2 people, both eat the same amount of food and calories, 2000 kcal, but both only need 1500 kcal to substain their weight, one digests/aborbs 1750, the other only 1250, who is going to gain weight and who is going to lose weight?
as for when I was in ICU, yes, at one point, my food as it were was via IV, but that is irrelevant, I brought that up to say that my body has less time to digest the food than a normal person due to the surgery
Wow, cool! I mean not the medical issues, which by the way I'm glad to hear you seem to have them under control. So you've been a member for some time - assuming you've been logging accurately, judging by your weight loss, any idea how many calories you're absorbing vs. how many you're eating? By the way your issue seems to lean towards the beneficial side for someone trying to lose weight, anyway. If you're absorbing less than you're eating, it would seem you could eat more to lose the same amount. Could present some challenges for absorbing nutrients, but I would wonder if your doctor has you on some sort of supplement regime to counteract that1 -
Erased/self-edited0
-
what I was trying to say is that what you eat does not mean that all of it is digested
in my case, I don't know the exact amount, but I was taken into hospital and when they opened me up, a section of my intestines were rotten as they put it and had to be chopped out as it were, so my intestines is shorter than the normal person, thus the food goes from one end to the other quicker than a normal person, sorry if you are eating...
10000 was extreme, for example, right now telling MFP that if I want to lose 2lbs per week, it is saying I should eat just over 1500 cals per day, but even at 1500, not all of the food eaten is digested unless they are easily digested, granted, some foods are harder to digest than others and not everyone will digest them, but for me, more of them are harder to digest if that makes sense
so even if I eat 1500, unless the body digests and intakes it all, my calorie intake would be 1500 but the amount the body absorbed as it were would not be 1500 if that makes sense?
I think it should be CaCo, calorie absorbed and calorie out, as like in my case, what I eat does not mean that my body has absorbed it all, even though that is the case for everyone, but for people like myself, unless the food is easy to digest, then the difference is higher than the normal person
1 calorie eaten, not absorbed by the body and then out undigested is different from 1 calorie eaten, digested and aborbed and then out
or take 2 people, both eat the same amount of food and calories, 2000 kcal, but both only need 1500 kcal to substain their weight, one digests/aborbs 1750, the other only 1250, who is going to gain weight and who is going to lose weight?
as for when I was in ICU, yes, at one point, my food as it were was via IV, but that is irrelevant, I brought that up to say that my body has less time to digest the food than a normal person due to the surgery
Wow! That's so interesting0 -
I find that I maintain at a lower number of calories. My TDEE is only about 1400-1600 but MFP says it should be higher like 1750. I don't want to go below 1200 calories because MFP won't allow it plus I am hungry all the time at those calories. I am happy at 1500 calories and maintain there without gaining. MFP says i should lose 0.5 pounds a week at 1500. I don't. But I am stuck needing to lose 10 more pounds but being frustrated at how difficult it is to make headway.0
-
-
not actually seeing any doctor regarding my weight, just my epilepsy, just says I need to be more active, I'm borderline obese/overweight now, just a few more lbs then I am out of the obese range!
the weight loss has really only started earlier this year, strangely enough when I started watching The Biggest Loser, I think the size of some of those on the show was kind of like a wake up call
according to MFP with me telling it I want to lose 2lbs per week, it has told me to eat 1520 and I am sure my nutrients intake is less than it needs to be, but how much less I've no idea, I try to eat a range of food and alot of it is veggies, I already take a load for my epilepsy so try not to take any more
as for being able to eat more to still lose the same, probably, but the amount I eat now is filling enough, what I keep getting told is to eat slowly, which was my biggest problem before, I used to eat quickly, and get moaned at all the time for not chewing the food fully etc and allowing the stomach to tell the brain that it is full, so by the time I knew I was full, I had already eaten far more than it in reality needed
for example, whilst chatting here and watching football, I have been eating pasta, before I would have eaten it all, but now I have only eaten half the bowl and am full, instead of eating it all and being bloated
no idea how much my body is absorbing as it were, I don't think you can accurately count it, especially when you add exercise etc into it, but calorie in, calorie out would probably the best guide, as at least that is something you can keep track of
anyway, football time! Northern Ireland Vs Poland, don't care who wins, just be a good match!1 -
The Ca/Co discussion had reminded me of something my son said a co-worker friend had. I don't want to get flagged, so I erased the comment.1
-
Double Post0
-
not actually seeing any doctor regarding my weight, just my epilepsy, just says I need to be more active, I'm borderline obese/overweight now, just a few more lbs then I am out of the obese range!
the weight loss has really only started earlier this year, strangely enough when I started watching The Biggest Loser, I think the size of some of those on the show was kind of like a wake up call
according to MFP with me telling it I want to lose 2lbs per week, it has told me to eat 1520 and I am sure my nutrients intake is less than it needs to be, but how much less I've no idea, I try to eat a range of food and alot of it is veggies, I already take a load for my epilepsy so try not to take any more
as for being able to eat more to still lose the same, probably, but the amount I eat now is filling enough, what I keep getting told is to eat slowly, which was my biggest problem before, I used to eat quickly, and get moaned at all the time for not chewing the food fully etc and allowing the stomach to tell the brain that it is full, so by the time I knew I was full, I had already eaten far more than it in reality needed
for example, whilst chatting here and watching football, I have been eating pasta, before I would have eaten it all, but now I have only eaten half the bowl and am full, instead of eating it all and being bloated
no idea how much my body is absorbing as it were, I don't think you can accurately count it, especially when you add exercise etc into it, but calorie in, calorie out would probably the best guide, as at least that is something you can keep track of
anyway, football time! Northern Ireland Vs Poland, don't care who wins, just be a good match!
Hmm you're right, exercise could kind of throw the equation. Yeah from what you said about not absorbing all the nutrients, you could eat more and lose the same, OR eat the same and lose more than expected. There's no big calculation to be done, really. If you've been logging accurately for 15 weeks, did you lose 30 lbs? Or more? Or less? So that's where exercise could kind of throw a wrench into things but i was still a bit curious1 -
I do believe in CICO. If one eats less than one burns off then there will be weight loss. The point that I'm making is that it is difficult for some people to lose weight due to medical issues. I'm not sure what percentage of people on here have normal metabolisms vs those who have insulin resistance, hypothyroidism, etc?CICO does apply to every person. Nonetheless, there are health issues that impact speed of gaining and losing.
I suppose a person who has medical conditions has to figure out what their CICO level is through trial and error? YMMV.
Understood. I've seen a lot of posts where people blame weight gain on medical issues. So, if you have a medical issue that you (in the general sense, not you personally.
) know affects your weight, it's time to take charge by adjusting your calorie intake.
You are right though, health issues do have an impact. However, for most people who have gained weight, the problem is eating too much whether or not we have a medical condition.
1
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