Carbs or fat? Totally confused
Options
Replies
-
calories must be in a deficit BUT!! The quality DOES MATTER.. macros make a difference and so does food type.. example.. If you eat fast food all day but stay within your macros you will not lose weight like someone who eats clean to hit their macros.. You can even narrow this down to things like using fish instead of steak to get in your protein.. The body will process and use cleaner food better. SO DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE. and another tid bit.. Don't be scared to eat more protein to supplement the decrease in carbs.. Raising fats is ok but the benefits of protein are immeasurable..
No. Just no. The only requirement to lose weight is a calorie deficit. The rest is preference only.
3 -
-
I believe that ultimately it does come down to calories in and out and I also believe a calorie is a calorie as it relates to energy. The benefits of choosing "better" calories are pretty obvious. The good news is you don't have to feel guilty having a donut or ice cream while trying to lose weight. Just count your calories.
The reason why CICO does't work is hormones and how they regulate our feelings, cravings and metabolism. Our bodies/hormones react to extended periods of caloric deficit. So even when we should be in a calorie deficit on paper we may not be. When you know how to manipulate this to your benefit you win.
I think it's pretty clear that our bodies don't keep track of "inventory" and I don't believe in a "Set Body Weight", but our bodies do track and react to short-term energy balance that goes beyond just the thermic effect of food.
For me the key to losing weight, 100lbs in 11 months was having a caloric deficit of course, but my focus was on a weekly deficit and not a daily one. 6 days deficit and 1 day surplus = a 7 day deficit
I've also lost another 30lbs in the past 10 years and I'm 100% sure it's because my metabolism has never been better and I'll be 40 in a month. My only change from my initial weight loss is I now have 2.5 days surplus a week,
So really everyone here is correct. Losing weight is a game of calories in versus out but it's not that easy because hormones have their own rules and can change the game as they please.1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1900510
So your claim is that people only fail because they lack self control. People can't directly control how many calories they burn. That is the type of misinformation that can be harmful.
The study you linked isn't about diets failing but is just a comparison between diets. The fact that over a few weeks almost any diet works to some degree. That has been proved over and over. However those are not typically life changing diets. There are people that do succeed and do keep the weight off. That is just far from the norm.
0 -
Exercise Science major chiming in. A lot of people make it more complicated than what it really is. Cut down on carbs, eat high fibers, keep your fats polyunsaturated - boom, massive weight loss.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1900510
So your claim is that people only fail because they lack self control. People can't directly control how many calories they burn. That is the type of misinformation that can be harmful.
The study you linked isn't about diets failing but is just a comparison between diets. The fact that over a few weeks almost any diet works to some degree. That has been proved over and over. However those are not typically life changing diets. There are people that do succeed and do keep the weight off. That is just far from the norm.
It's true, the one and only reason i would regain the weight is because lack of willpower. It's so much easier and less stressful to eat what i want, when i want and not have to deal with hunger than it is to count every single calorie and only be allowed to eat up to my designated calories and not a crumb more..2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1900510
So your claim is that people only fail because they lack self control. People can't directly control how many calories they burn. That is the type of misinformation that can be harmful.
The study you linked isn't about diets failing but is just a comparison between diets. The fact that over a few weeks almost any diet works to some degree. That has been proved over and over. However those are not typically life changing diets. There are people that do succeed and do keep the weight off. That is just far from the norm.
It's true, the one and only reason i would regain the weight is because lack of willpower. It's so much easier and less stressful to eat what i want, when i want and not have to deal with hunger than it is to count every single calorie and only be allowed to eat up to my designated calories and not a crumb more..
That may be true for you, but it doesn't mean it is true for everyone. There are many cases where medical intervention was needed for weight loss. Probably many more people that just gave up.
Most type 1 diabetics are thin, in fact type 1 diabetes is know for being a wasting disease, the body can actually eat itself because they don't have enough insulin period. Type 2 diabetics often gain weight once they are put on more insulin. That just shows the power of insulin. Many people have too much insulin and don't even know it because blood sugar is still normal. That is a reason they don't lose weight. Sometimes the root problem has to be addressed.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1900510
So your claim is that people only fail because they lack self control. People can't directly control how many calories they burn. That is the type of misinformation that can be harmful.
The study you linked isn't about diets failing but is just a comparison between diets. The fact that over a few weeks almost any diet works to some degree. That has been proved over and over. However those are not typically life changing diets. There are people that do succeed and do keep the weight off. That is just far from the norm.
Reading comprehension FTL
These findings support recent recommendations for weight loss in that most calorie-reducing diets result in clinically important weight loss as long as the diet is maintained.
...
Because different diets are variably tolerated by individuals, the ideal diet is the one that is best adhered to by individuals so that they can stay on the diet as long as possible.
...
Our findings suggest that patients may choose, among those associated with the largest weight loss, the diet that gives them the least challenges with adherence
That doesn't mean that the only reason diets fail is lack of adherence to a diet. That isn't what the study was about or is it what it claims.
YFunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1900510
So your claim is that people only fail because they lack self control. People can't directly control how many calories they burn. That is the type of misinformation that can be harmful.
The study you linked isn't about diets failing but is just a comparison between diets. The fact that over a few weeks almost any diet works to some degree. That has been proved over and over. However those are not typically life changing diets. There are people that do succeed and do keep the weight off. That is just far from the norm.
Reading comprehension FTL
These findings support recent recommendations for weight loss in that most calorie-reducing diets result in clinically important weight loss as long as the diet is maintained.
...
Because different diets are variably tolerated by individuals, the ideal diet is the one that is best adhered to by individuals so that they can stay on the diet as long as possible.
...
Our findings suggest that patients may choose, among those associated with the largest weight loss, the diet that gives them the least challenges with adherence
That doesn't mean that the only reason diets fail is lack of adherence to a diet. That isn't what the study was about or is it what it claims.
It claims that all diets work so long as they are adhered to. Logically equivalent.
It isn't logically equivalent, I seriously hope you aren't trying to make a living writing code. You are reading something into the study that isn't there. The study doesn't say diets only fail because of lack of adherence. It is only to claim that diets fail if they aren't adhered too, but it isn't the same as saying that is the only reason they fail.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1900510
So your claim is that people only fail because they lack self control. People can't directly control how many calories they burn. That is the type of misinformation that can be harmful.
The study you linked isn't about diets failing but is just a comparison between diets. The fact that over a few weeks almost any diet works to some degree. That has been proved over and over. However those are not typically life changing diets. There are people that do succeed and do keep the weight off. That is just far from the norm.
It's true, the one and only reason i would regain the weight is because lack of willpower. It's so much easier and less stressful to eat what i want, when i want and not have to deal with hunger than it is to count every single calorie and only be allowed to eat up to my designated calories and not a crumb more..
That may be true for you, but it doesn't mean it is true for everyone. There are many cases where medical intervention was needed for weight loss. Probably many more people that just gave up.
Most type 1 diabetics are thin, in fact type 1 diabetes is know for being a wasting disease, the body can actually eat itself because they don't have enough insulin period. Type 2 diabetics often gain weight once they are put on more insulin. That just shows the power of insulin. Many people have too much insulin and don't even know it because blood sugar is still normal. That is a reason they don't lose weight. Sometimes the root problem has to be addressed.
I agree with your last sentence. Once their condition is resolved/medicated then they are on an even playing ground with the rest of us, right?
Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, as thankfully I've never had any medical problems, so i cant speak from experience (something i try and avoid doing here).
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1900510
So your claim is that people only fail because they lack self control. People can't directly control how many calories they burn. That is the type of misinformation that can be harmful.
The study you linked isn't about diets failing but is just a comparison between diets. The fact that over a few weeks almost any diet works to some degree. That has been proved over and over. However those are not typically life changing diets. There are people that do succeed and do keep the weight off. That is just far from the norm.
It's true, the one and only reason i would regain the weight is because lack of willpower. It's so much easier and less stressful to eat what i want, when i want and not have to deal with hunger than it is to count every single calorie and only be allowed to eat up to my designated calories and not a crumb more..
That may be true for you, but it doesn't mean it is true for everyone. There are many cases where medical intervention was needed for weight loss. Probably many more people that just gave up.
Most type 1 diabetics are thin, in fact type 1 diabetes is know for being a wasting disease, the body can actually eat itself because they don't have enough insulin period. Type 2 diabetics often gain weight once they are put on more insulin. That just shows the power of insulin. Many people have too much insulin and don't even know it because blood sugar is still normal. That is a reason they don't lose weight. Sometimes the root problem has to be addressed.
I agree with your last sentence. Once their condition is resolved/medicated then they are on an even playing ground with the rest of us, right?
Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, as thankfully I've never had any medical problems, so i cant speak from experience (something i try and avoid doing here).
I would assume that would be a good outcome.
I think there are much larger problems too and from watching some documentaries it doesn't seem limited to the US. There is really a very poor understanding of nutrition around the world. This is clearly the fault of goverments as most have been goverments largely teaching the wrong information. Forget the edge cases, we are taking really basic stuff.
Then there is economics, so many people are just barely surviving that kids get fed whatever is cheapest which is often a horrible choice in food. This lays foundations for future failures. Sure someday they might be the IR victems, but the help is needed now.
Another big one is people have unrealistic expectations. You typically don't get fat in a month and typically it can't be burned off as fast as people assume it can. That is one of the issues I have with CISO, it is often used in a unrealistice fashion. It is one thing if you have a small amount of weight to lose it is another thing if you are trying to lose 10% or more of your body weight.
I'm pretty sure one could come up with a pretty large list. But for many of the people here that don't have those issues, then adherence is probably the main failure point.0 -
It isn't about attacking or condescension, it's about correcting misinformation that at this point appears wilful
Adherence is the hardest long term day in day out challenge for the formerly overweight. One of the reasons I post to weight and fitness forums is that it helps me with my adherence
Something I am failing at over the last few days which is concerning me
Why am I currently eating CI>CO? Some of the reasons I can see: Because I'm in a holiday villa in the middle of nowhere, because we have lots of snacks for the kids and in 4 days grazing has become habitual and because my hormones are increasing my appetite in the run up to menstruation
Do any of these dispute the CICO equation. Nope.
What am I doing about it? Pre made salad, long walks (10 miles yesterday), swimming
Am I fooling myself? A little.
Do I care? Yes, but seemingly not enough to stop.
Am I logging? Yes, everything but possibly fooling myself / missing things
So will I put on weight? Yes
Will I blame something outside myself? Probably
Will it be because of CI>CO whatever I think. Yes.
(And breathe)
4 -
It's a common misconception that you shouldn't eat fat when you're losing weight. I eat between 20 and 30% of my calories each day from fat and I've been losing 3 lbs a week for almost a month.
Making sure your calories are right is all that matters.
20% to 30% calories from fat is not a lot of fat. I would consider 20% to be a "low fat" diet. Given where most people's macros end up, I would consider 30% to be the most reasonable target for most people, and even a bit higher will probably not be a problem.
I was thinking the same thing that 20% fat is on the low side. I was on a high carb/ low fat diet for a couple of years and it was 50% carb, 30% protein, and 20% fat. I lost weight for a while on that plan but then plateaued.
I'm increasing fat and lowering carbs because personally I don't like the insulin spikes and cravings/crash/cravings rollercoaster that refined carbs give me. Why should I have to suffer and fight cravings? The longer I go without eating the sweet or salty carb "junk food" the less I even want it. That is freedom, IMO. My stomach is getting flatter, and I'm not as puffy and bloated from salty or sugary products.
Of course there is always a portion of the community, (not all) who can eat whatever macros they like in moderation, keep in a deficit, and still lose weight. MFP people generally are very good about not lumping everyone into the same mold because we are all at different ages, have specific health issues, plus there are varying activity and fitness levels.2 -
It's a common misconception that you shouldn't eat fat when you're losing weight. I eat between 20 and 30% of my calories each day from fat and I've been losing 3 lbs a week for almost a month.
Making sure your calories are right is all that matters.
20% to 30% calories from fat is not a lot of fat. I would consider 20% to be a "low fat" diet. Given where most people's macros end up, I would consider 30% to be the most reasonable target for most people, and even a bit higher will probably not be a problem.
I was thinking the same thing that 20% fat is on the low side. I was on a high carb/ low fat diet for a couple of years and it was 50% carb, 30% protein, and 20% fat. I lost weight for a while on that plan but then plateaued.
I'm increasing fat and lowering carbs because personally I don't like the insulin spikes and cravings/crash/cravings rollercoaster that refined carbs give me. Why should I have to suffer and fight cravings? The longer I go without eating the sweet or salty carb "junk food" the less I even want it. That is freedom, IMO. My stomach is getting flatter, and I'm not as puffy and bloated from salty or sugary products.
Of course there is always a portion of the community, (not all) who can eat whatever macros they like in moderation, keep in a deficit, and still lose weight. MFP people generally are very good about not lumping everyone into the same mold because we are all at different ages, have specific health issues, plus there are varying activity and fitness levels.
You might like those insulin spikes if you want to stimulate muscle protein synthesis, so you can recomp
. 0 -
Pointing the problems with measuring calories in and even the more difficulty of determining calories out isn't obfuscation. Saying that it doesn't matter what is eaten is a problem though. (You are not the one saying that.)
Pointing out the CICO doesn't really match the human body either isn't obfuscation, it is clarification. You may feel differently and that is fine.
CICO can fail on its own, because it takes concepts like BMR and implies they are constant. Really, CO = f(CI) and f() is complex and varies between people and the diet. The problem isn't energy balance the problem comes form the difficulty of determining what is really going on. Over weeks it can be a lot more clear.
All this doesn't mean it isn't a useful concept. A lot of people are simply just way overconsuming and anything that highlights that is very useful. It can also give an idea of what is possible.
I assure you I'm doing far more reading here than a lot of people. A lot of what I'm learning is convincing me that fat use and storage is really a hormonal issue and not just an energy balance issue. CICO is important but it is only one part of the story.
I'm intentionally not replying to every point you are trying to make, because it is endless and your perception is just that, yours. In fact I'm not to reply to any more posts for a while. It is mostly just a waste of time.
Ok, I will address a few things. And at this point, I might suggest you do more research but you are concatenating several issues into one equation and complicating things.
First, if you feel something is a personal attack, report it. Addressing it will in thread will escalate drama and can lead to you getting warnings as well. Since I am in thread, I do not moderate the thread. That is how all the mods operate within a few exceptions.
Second, compliance. Dieting and exercising is hard. There are tons of reason why people fail but adherence is by far the biggest one. Adherence can stem from too aggressive of a calorie cut (always hungry), too many food restrictions (tons of cravings and always hungry), not understanding energy balance (oh, if I eat clean or paleo, I can eat whatever and still lose weight. Been there, done that), they quit because they aren't losing 5 lbs a week (see this all the time) and a plethora or other reason. But regardless of how you look at it, it's adherence.
Third. No one here is suggestion that BMR or any other part of the equation is static. We know it's not. This is why logging over a 4-6 week period and running trend analysis can give you an approximation or average to allow you to address the equation. For example, based on a sedentary job and 5-6 hours of exercise, I know I maintain around 3000 calories. Changing my macros, which I have, does not alter that. The only thing that does is limiting exercise as it will reduce/eliminate TEA.
Fourth, complications due to medical conditions alter the energy balance equation. As you said, things like metabolic rate are not static. There are known associates in PCOS and IR can lead to reduced metabolic rates, making it harder to address the energy balance equation. Those with a history of ED's are similar. Long term suppression, especially extreme suppression, can increase loss of muscle, which is the directly correlated to metabolic rate. So where the failure comes into play, is addressing the equation (tough part). Some people think that if they follow the recommendation of a calculator, that everything is going to work. What they don't realize is that it's a feedback loop. An online calculator gives you an estimate. Using a food scale to increase precision and logging daily is simply a toolset to provide you a quantitative metric on in vs out; by out, I mean TDEE, rather than the individual components of TDEE. Where people assume the CICO doesn't work, is one of those components doesn't align to an online calculator.3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.
No it does not. Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Exactly. Certain weight management plans are easier for some people to stay on. Find the ones that can be adhered to. The same principle (adherance) applies to maintenance. So many give up and go back to old habits and gain weight back.2 -
It's a common misconception that you shouldn't eat fat when you're losing weight. I eat between 20 and 30% of my calories each day from fat and I've been losing 3 lbs a week for almost a month.
Making sure your calories are right is all that matters.
20% to 30% calories from fat is not a lot of fat. I would consider 20% to be a "low fat" diet. Given where most people's macros end up, I would consider 30% to be the most reasonable target for most people, and even a bit higher will probably not be a problem.
I was thinking the same thing that 20% fat is on the low side. I was on a high carb/ low fat diet for a couple of years and it was 50% carb, 30% protein, and 20% fat. I lost weight for a while on that plan but then plateaued.
I'm increasing fat and lowering carbs because personally I don't like the insulin spikes and cravings/crash/cravings rollercoaster that refined carbs give me. Why should I have to suffer and fight cravings? The longer I go without eating the sweet or salty carb "junk food" the less I even want it. That is freedom, IMO. My stomach is getting flatter, and I'm not as puffy and bloated from salty or sugary products.
Of course there is always a portion of the community, (not all) who can eat whatever macros they like in moderation, keep in a deficit, and still lose weight. MFP people generally are very good about not lumping everyone into the same mold because we are all at different ages, have specific health issues, plus there are varying activity and fitness levels.
You might like those insulin spikes if you want to stimulate muscle protein synthesis, so you can recomp .
I don't know if I want to recomp now or later. I wish I could lose weight and recomp at the same time
0 -
It's a common misconception that you shouldn't eat fat when you're losing weight. I eat between 20 and 30% of my calories each day from fat and I've been losing 3 lbs a week for almost a month.
Making sure your calories are right is all that matters.
20% to 30% calories from fat is not a lot of fat. I would consider 20% to be a "low fat" diet. Given where most people's macros end up, I would consider 30% to be the most reasonable target for most people, and even a bit higher will probably not be a problem.
I was thinking the same thing that 20% fat is on the low side. I was on a high carb/ low fat diet for a couple of years and it was 50% carb, 30% protein, and 20% fat. I lost weight for a while on that plan but then plateaued.
I'm increasing fat and lowering carbs because personally I don't like the insulin spikes and cravings/crash/cravings rollercoaster that refined carbs give me. Why should I have to suffer and fight cravings? The longer I go without eating the sweet or salty carb "junk food" the less I even want it. That is freedom, IMO. My stomach is getting flatter, and I'm not as puffy and bloated from salty or sugary products.
Of course there is always a portion of the community, (not all) who can eat whatever macros they like in moderation, keep in a deficit, and still lose weight. MFP people generally are very good about not lumping everyone into the same mold because we are all at different ages, have specific health issues, plus there are varying activity and fitness levels.
You might like those insulin spikes if you want to stimulate muscle protein synthesis, so you can recomp .
I don't know if I want to recomp now or later. I wish I could lose weight and recomp at the same time
If you want, send me a PM and we can walk through some things and get you on the right path.1 -
It's a common misconception that you shouldn't eat fat when you're losing weight. I eat between 20 and 30% of my calories each day from fat and I've been losing 3 lbs a week for almost a month.
Making sure your calories are right is all that matters.
20% to 30% calories from fat is not a lot of fat. I would consider 20% to be a "low fat" diet. Given where most people's macros end up, I would consider 30% to be the most reasonable target for most people, and even a bit higher will probably not be a problem.
I was thinking the same thing that 20% fat is on the low side. I was on a high carb/ low fat diet for a couple of years and it was 50% carb, 30% protein, and 20% fat. I lost weight for a while on that plan but then plateaued.
I'm increasing fat and lowering carbs because personally I don't like the insulin spikes and cravings/crash/cravings rollercoaster that refined carbs give me. Why should I have to suffer and fight cravings? The longer I go without eating the sweet or salty carb "junk food" the less I even want it. That is freedom, IMO. My stomach is getting flatter, and I'm not as puffy and bloated from salty or sugary products.
Of course there is always a portion of the community, (not all) who can eat whatever macros they like in moderation, keep in a deficit, and still lose weight. MFP people generally are very good about not lumping everyone into the same mold because we are all at different ages, have specific health issues, plus there are varying activity and fitness levels.
You might like those insulin spikes if you want to stimulate muscle protein synthesis, so you can recomp .
I don't know if I want to recomp now or later. I wish I could lose weight and recomp at the same time
If you want, send me a PM and we can walk through some things and get you on the right path.
Thanks!0 -
This is what I find the most frustrating in the fitness / nutrition world. You have people that spread their so-called knowledge contributing to an already much confused debate.
At the end of the day, anybody who tries to convey any other message should bear the responsibility of people failing to lose weight and giving up on their healthier lifestyle.
To lose weight, there is only ONE rule that no one can dispute: eat fewer calories than what you burn.
Just make sure that you have an accurate system to track these calories.
It is a fact accepted by all scientists and professionals.
The debate about how you measure calories, how you track calories, how your body burns calories, how it converts food into calories, etc. although probably interesting does not affect the truthfulness of that rule.4 -
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
I lost weight with what MFP told me I would gain weight. I lost weight going by what my Apple Watch told me I would gain weight.
You know what that means? I'm at the high end of the normal bell curve. Likely due to slightly more muscle mass and fitness than the average woman. It doesn't mean CICO still doesn't apply.
All these equations are based on averages. Nothing more.
Additionally, I likely don't eat "clean" by anyone's standards.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions