Not losing weight 6 miles of walking atleast 3 times a week
Replies
-
For me CICO is a poor instrument due to:
- Estimation or measure calorie in
- Estimation or measure calorie out (your BMR is the majority here)
- How does your food choice affect your BMR, your hormones, regulation, etc?
Also fat loss and gain is not linear, e.g. if I weigh 100kg, and ate so that I would lose 1kg / week, would I be 20kg in 80 weeks? or vv if I ate so I gained 1 kg / week, would I be 350 kg in 5 years? - probably not...
The questions for me are:
- Why do we eat more than we need? - What is the cause? e.g. certain food might trigger cravings, or doesn't makes us full...
- Why are we having cravings?
- Why isn't our bodies regulating?
i.e. for me the type of food and macros are more important, and I believe this is highly individual
good summary from (https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/):
Bottom Line: Different foods go through different metabolic pathways. Some foods can cause hormone changes that encourage weight gain, while other foods can increase satiety and boost the metabolic rate.
Aside from Authority Nutrition being a weak source, think of this objectively.
Gravity existed and worked as a force long before we were able to measure it.
Our bodies work on the energy balance of CICO outside of our ability to measure accurately.
The ridiculousness of the points they made in talking about types of food mattering spoke to the nature of them confusing what is being measured with the gauge by which it's measured.
How many people stand there in the tile aisle in Home Depot and say that how many square feet of tile they need for their new kitchen remodel doesn't matter, it's the type of tile that makes the difference?
Of course you don't conflate those two things, but when it comes to food, everyone does it, and it's ridiculous.
A calorie is a unit of measurement. The type of food you eat a nutrient. They are two different things.8 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Im not saying it wasnt caused from food,Im saying it can be caused by other things as well,I just asked how you can be sure it was the foods? even though she has no tumors or other issues how do you know that she didnt have issues with her ovaries? pituitary glands,also the brain can have a defect that can signal the release of hormones as well.could have been that as well. not everything wrong with us can be diagnosed or tested.I also wasnt being rude about it,I was just asking how you had proof that the food caused it? are you saying that once you noticed she was going through puberty you changed her diet and it stopped happening? you also know that for some going through puberty young is also genetic as well. Im not saying that her issues were caused by this or that I was just asking how can you be sure it wasnt something that didnt show up in tests(if they were done)? I had a relative whom started having periods when she was 6 and this was back in the 50s, before they started adding hormones and what not to foods. it happens a lot in my moms side of the family,for them its genetic,
1. I understood your question. I was trying to answer it with what we knew. Short of an autopsy, the conclusion was made based on available evidence at the time. The same way all medicine is practiced today. There are a lot of things they can't test for but based on process of elimination, testing for what they can, etc. a determination is made to the best of the doctor's ability to figure out what's wrong. This includes ovary ultrasounds, blood work, etc. that can be done to get a rudimentary look at things.
2. I wasn't suggesting you were being rude. I read what you wrote the same way I read anything else on this board. If someone disagrees with a person they typically come across as very snarky. In this case, I just took it as one more person that can't accept what someone says because they don't agree with it. The rude part I was actually addressing a poster I did think was rude without trying to point the person out (subtle hints). Sorry if it came across I was referring to you.
3. The "proof" we had it was food caused was in the change when we removed the things the doctor suggested and within 6 months she lost all pubic hair and showed no other signs of puberty until what would be considered a normal age for our family (age 12/13). Had any tests shown something abnormal we would have looked at those first, but they didn't. Had removing foods with hormones in them not worked, we would have continued looking for a cause, because in our family that isn't normal, and people don't have things like that happen for "no reason." But that is a difference between most MD's and most alternative practitioners. Most MD's won't go after the root cause. In our case, we've had two great MD's over the years that were more willing to look at underlying causes for things we were dealing with. That is rare for an MD! Yes, I know genetics plays a huge role in when someone goes through puberty.
Anecdotally, I can look at the last 20yrs and see how much younger girls have gotten when they go through puberty and it's only been in the last 20yrs that we've seen greater amounts of hormones used in the food supply, as well as other products that cause endocrine disruption, and there does appear to be a correlation. That didn't matter in our case in terms of diagnosis and I wouldn't argue dogmatically about that with someone. However, there's enough evidence of earlier puberty and other issues (which I won't even go into here) that give me enough pause that I want to be careful with MY family. It may not matter to the guy next to me and that's fine if that works for them. As a parent, if I find out my child may have a susceptibility to a health issue that I could potentially keep from happening by how I care for them, then I'm going to do all I can to affect that. Will it always work? Of course not. Then again, medicine doesn't always work either. It's a choice each person/family makes. But if someone asks me, I'm going to share what I have learned because I assume they wouldn't be asking if they weren't looking for answers/options.
4. In YOUR family, there was a genetic history of early hormone changes. Not so in my family. Had that been a factor it is certainly something that would have been considered. When my son got sick, we didn't just take the oncologists diagnosis. We MADE them check for leukemia because both leukemia and lymphoma run heavily on my husband's side. We knew there was a genetic risk there. Hormonally, that did not apply to my daughter.
The biggest issue I see is that there is nothing in life that works the same for all people. It's like people here assume that when someone makes a suggestion they are saying that it will work for everyone. And maybe some people do think that way when they are giving advice. But the reality is, what works for me (or my family) may or may not work for the person next to me. But that should not preclude making the suggestion to give that person something else to consider. When we have health issues, we look at ALL the options for treating something (including medical) and make our decision on what we'll do after many hours of reading, asking questions, seeking out advice, etc. I appreciate having all options/ideas laid on the table for me to look at. Perhaps my error is in thinking that most people are intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that it's wise to check out what people suggest to decide if it's best for them. I prefer to assume people are smarter then the average door knob. I realize there are those that follow blindly, but they do so at their own peril and I'm not responsible for them. But on this board, whoa to the person that suggests anything outside of what the larger crowd agrees with. That's okay. One just learns when to respond and when not to. Not worth wasting time arguing. Life is too short and I'm too busy.
5 -
Girls going through puberty younger has been going on for longer than 20 years.
It's due to better nutrition.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Girls going through puberty younger has been going on for longer than 20 years.
It's due to better nutrition.
I'm 56 and started puberty long before anyone girlfriend I had. Cows and chickens were not treated with hormones back then. In fact, I was raised on raw milk, you know the kind with the fat on top. I still have the urge to shake the milk container! LOL2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Girls going through puberty younger has been going on for longer than 20 years.
It's due to better nutrition.
I'm 56 and started puberty long before anyone girlfriend I had. Cows and chickens were not treated with hormones back then. In fact, I was raised on raw milk, you know the kind with the fat on top. I still have the urge to shake the milk container! LOL
I started puberty at the exact same age my daughter did. I'm 33 years older than her. I was 11, and it was 1973. My cousin started at 9 in 1975.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Girls going through puberty younger has been going on for longer than 20 years.
It's due to better nutrition.
I'm 56 and started puberty long before anyone girlfriend I had. Cows and chickens were not treated with hormones back then. In fact, I was raised on raw milk, you know the kind with the fat on top. I still have the urge to shake the milk container! LOL
I started puberty at the exact same age my daughter did. I'm 33 years older than her. I was 11, and it was 1973. My cousin started at 9 in 1975.
I was10.0 -
Trixiegirl66 wrote: »She doesn't even know how many calories she's consuming because she's not actually tracking them.
courtneyfabulous,
Never did I say I do not track my calories. My husband said today that I way underestimated the calories I took in during pregnancy - he does all the cooking, and said I put away at least 3600 calories on very hungry days. So I am going to go with the logic that my body functions best with optimal food intake and see where it takes me.
My MFP diary is open, and indicates that I track and log everything down to black coffee. I am merely pointing out that the weight loss never took off until I ate way more than MFP suggested. For the first time in ten years, I fully anticipate getting back to my pre-twin pregnancy size. I think I simply need to eat enough now to regain the killer metabolism I took for granted in my twenties and early thirties.
If your calories are too low you will lose weight though. Her issue is that she's not losing weight. So her calories are not too low.4 -
queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Girls going through puberty younger has been going on for longer than 20 years.
It's due to better nutrition.
I'm 56 and started puberty long before anyone girlfriend I had. Cows and chickens were not treated with hormones back then. In fact, I was raised on raw milk, you know the kind with the fat on top. I still have the urge to shake the milk container! LOL
I started puberty at the exact same age my daughter did. I'm 33 years older than her. I was 11, and it was 1973. My cousin started at 9 in 1975.
I was10.
Okay........yeah no. Better nutrition is not what has brought earlier puberty. That just doesn't even freaking make sense. But whatever. I don't have time to argue with people that won't accept any source I post anyway. And I actually thought with my last post my comments would be closed and I would be done.
Growth hormones on beef...........
"Almost all beef cattle entering feedlots in the United States are given hormone implants to promote faster growth. The first product used for this purpose DES (diethylstilbestrol) was approved for use in beef cattle in 1954. An estimated two-thirds of the nation's beef cattle were treated with DES in 1956 (Marcus, 1994, cited in Swan et al., 2007).
Today, there are six anabolic steroids given, in various combinations, to nearly all animals entering conventional beef feedlots in the U.S."
Long term effects are rarely felt/seen right away. It takes time for things to build up in a person's body and not everyone is going to be susceptible to the changes. The hormone changes get passed to each successive generation until a tipping point is hit and we start to see effects of them. So no, I wouldn't have expected to see a large group shift until 10-15yrs after they started using them. Which puts it around 1975-1980 when a slow, but progressive, pubertal age got younger and younger. I specifically said genetics for when a girl starts are clearly a factor. I do not believe there is ever a single factor in any health issue/change. Just like I don't think there is ever a single factor for why someone gets a disease. But hormones are most definitely a factor in early puberty - they are not the only factor.1 -
Better nutrition allows the body to function optimally and the natural hormonal systems to function properly.
I understand your biases in this regard, but you're wrong. This makes perfect sense. Nourished children weigh more, and have more body fat.
Weights in general have been rising since the Industrial Revolution, and some of that has been in a good way. Increased lean body mass thanks to better food supply, for example. This has all had an effect.
A factor in any recent rise in even earlier puberty? Rising childhood obesity. Fat effectively (pardon my butchered wording here) functions as an endocrine organ of sorts. It's not inert tissue. It messes with hormones.4 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Girls going through puberty younger has been going on for longer than 20 years.
It's due to better nutrition.
I'm 56 and started puberty long before anyone girlfriend I had. Cows and chickens were not treated with hormones back then. In fact, I was raised on raw milk, you know the kind with the fat on top. I still have the urge to shake the milk container! LOL
I started puberty at the exact same age my daughter did. I'm 33 years older than her. I was 11, and it was 1973. My cousin started at 9 in 1975.
I was10.
Okay........yeah no. Better nutrition is not what has brought earlier puberty. That just doesn't even freaking make sense. But whatever. I don't have time to argue with people that won't accept any source I post anyway. And I actually thought with my last post my comments would be closed and I would be done.
Growth hormones on beef...........
"Almost all beef cattle entering feedlots in the United States are given hormone implants to promote faster growth. The first product used for this purpose DES (diethylstilbestrol) was approved for use in beef cattle in 1954. An estimated two-thirds of the nation's beef cattle were treated with DES in 1956 (Marcus, 1994, cited in Swan et al., 2007).
Today, there are six anabolic steroids given, in various combinations, to nearly all animals entering conventional beef feedlots in the U.S."
Long term effects are rarely felt/seen right away. It takes time for things to build up in a person's body and not everyone is going to be susceptible to the changes. The hormone changes get passed to each successive generation until a tipping point is hit and we start to see effects of them. So no, I wouldn't have expected to see a large group shift until 10-15yrs after they started using them. Which puts it around 1975-1980 when a slow, but progressive, pubertal age got younger and younger. I specifically said genetics for when a girl starts are clearly a factor. I do not believe there is ever a single factor in any health issue/change. Just like I don't think there is ever a single factor for why someone gets a disease. But hormones are most definitely a factor in early puberty - they are not the only factor.
Not sure what you mean by "Okay......yeah no." I was and still am healthy.1 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Im not saying it wasnt caused from food,Im saying it can be caused by other things as well,I just asked how you can be sure it was the foods? even though she has no tumors or other issues how do you know that she didnt have issues with her ovaries? pituitary glands,also the brain can have a defect that can signal the release of hormones as well.could have been that as well. not everything wrong with us can be diagnosed or tested.I also wasnt being rude about it,I was just asking how you had proof that the food caused it? are you saying that once you noticed she was going through puberty you changed her diet and it stopped happening? you also know that for some going through puberty young is also genetic as well. Im not saying that her issues were caused by this or that I was just asking how can you be sure it wasnt something that didnt show up in tests(if they were done)? I had a relative whom started having periods when she was 6 and this was back in the 50s, before they started adding hormones and what not to foods. it happens a lot in my moms side of the family,for them its genetic,
1. I understood your question. I was trying to answer it with what we knew. Short of an autopsy, the conclusion was made based on available evidence at the time. The same way all medicine is practiced today. There are a lot of things they can't test for but based on process of elimination, testing for what they can, etc. a determination is made to the best of the doctor's ability to figure out what's wrong. This includes ovary ultrasounds, blood work, etc. that can be done to get a rudimentary look at things.
2. I wasn't suggesting you were being rude. I read what you wrote the same way I read anything else on this board. If someone disagrees with a person they typically come across as very snarky. In this case, I just took it as one more person that can't accept what someone says because they don't agree with it. The rude part I was actually addressing a poster I did think was rude without trying to point the person out (subtle hints). Sorry if it came across I was referring to you.
3. The "proof" we had it was food caused was in the change when we removed the things the doctor suggested and within 6 months she lost all pubic hair and showed no other signs of puberty until what would be considered a normal age for our family (age 12/13). Had any tests shown something abnormal we would have looked at those first, but they didn't. Had removing foods with hormones in them not worked, we would have continued looking for a cause, because in our family that isn't normal, and people don't have things like that happen for "no reason." But that is a difference between most MD's and most alternative practitioners. Most MD's won't go after the root cause. In our case, we've had two great MD's over the years that were more willing to look at underlying causes for things we were dealing with. That is rare for an MD! Yes, I know genetics plays a huge role in when someone goes through puberty.
Anecdotally, I can look at the last 20yrs and see how much younger girls have gotten when they go through puberty and it's only been in the last 20yrs that we've seen greater amounts of hormones used in the food supply, as well as other products that cause endocrine disruption, and there does appear to be a correlation. That didn't matter in our case in terms of diagnosis and I wouldn't argue dogmatically about that with someone. However, there's enough evidence of earlier puberty and other issues (which I won't even go into here) that give me enough pause that I want to be careful with MY family. It may not matter to the guy next to me and that's fine if that works for them. As a parent, if I find out my child may have a susceptibility to a health issue that I could potentially keep from happening by how I care for them, then I'm going to do all I can to affect that. Will it always work? Of course not. Then again, medicine doesn't always work either. It's a choice each person/family makes. But if someone asks me, I'm going to share what I have learned because I assume they wouldn't be asking if they weren't looking for answers/options.
4. In YOUR family, there was a genetic history of early hormone changes. Not so in my family. Had that been a factor it is certainly something that would have been considered. When my son got sick, we didn't just take the oncologists diagnosis. We MADE them check for leukemia because both leukemia and lymphoma run heavily on my husband's side. We knew there was a genetic risk there. Hormonally, that did not apply to my daughter.
The biggest issue I see is that there is nothing in life that works the same for all people. It's like people here assume that when someone makes a suggestion they are saying that it will work for everyone. And maybe some people do think that way when they are giving advice. But the reality is, what works for me (or my family) may or may not work for the person next to me. But that should not preclude making the suggestion to give that person something else to consider. When we have health issues, we look at ALL the options for treating something (including medical) and make our decision on what we'll do after many hours of reading, asking questions, seeking out advice, etc. I appreciate having all options/ideas laid on the table for me to look at. Perhaps my error is in thinking that most people are intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that it's wise to check out what people suggest to decide if it's best for them. I prefer to assume people are smarter then the average door knob. I realize there are those that follow blindly, but they do so at their own peril and I'm not responsible for them. But on this board, whoa to the person that suggests anything outside of what the larger crowd agrees with. That's okay. One just learns when to respond and when not to. Not worth wasting time arguing. Life is too short and I'm too busy.
ok thats why I asked if things changed once you cut out certain foods. but I agree that what works for you doesnt work for others.yeah cancer runs in my family too so if my child has health issues I would make them look for the reason why they were having the issues. but yeah some people cant think for themselves.when I started having issues losing weight people told me Im not weighing food accurately(I am), or that Im overestimating calories or something as simple as that. I just found out that my health issue is also a metabolic disorder so CICO may be easy for everyone else and should work that way for most. for me it doesnt.I was just generally curious as to your daughters issue which is why I asked questions.yeah when it comes to my family there are all kinds of health issues lol some are genetic and some are not.Im like you I do a lot of research,asking questions and so on. its the only way to go if something is going on,especially with kids and getting no answers.I hope your daughter is having no ill effects from what she went through, and I hope your son is better,(in remission? (I dont know his situation but hope all is well).0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Girls going through puberty younger has been going on for longer than 20 years.
It's due to better nutrition.
I'm 56 and started puberty long before anyone girlfriend I had. Cows and chickens were not treated with hormones back then. In fact, I was raised on raw milk, you know the kind with the fat on top. I still have the urge to shake the milk container! LOL
I started puberty at the exact same age my daughter did. I'm 33 years older than her. I was 11, and it was 1973. My cousin started at 9 in 1975.
I was10.
Okay........yeah no. Better nutrition is not what has brought earlier puberty. That just doesn't even freaking make sense.
Why not? It's dropped a lot over time, not just recently.
For example, German scientists studying the phenomenon found that:
In 1860, the average age of the onset of puberty in girls was 16.6 years.
In 1920, it was 14.6.
In 1950, 13.1.
In 1980, 12.5.
In 2010, it had dropped to 10.5.
Similar sets of figures have been reported for boys, albeit with a delay of around a year.
Why is this? It's debated, but:
"[M]ost scientists and health experts believe that the initial decline in the age in puberty was linked to general improvements in health in the west that began in the late 19th century. The trouble is that this drop, which was expected to stop, has simply continued at the same rate: a decline in four to five months in age of onset for each passing decade.
This relentless slide has begun to worry doctors who have proposed a host of causes to explain it. Increasing obesity is often quoted. In the young it is thought to increase blood levels of oestrogens that promote breast development and early studies seemed to confirm this by linking puberty to higher body mass index. However, a Danish study released last year in the journal Paediatrics found puberty occurring earlier in children regardless of body mass index at age seven.
Other factors that may be involved include a diet that is increasingly high in sugar and fat and declining physical activity. The cause could also be environmental, say other researchers – in particular, exposure to endocrine disrupters, chemicals in the environment that act on hormones."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/21/puberty-adolescence-childhood-onset
The topic is also discussed here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/04/why-is-puberty-starting-younger-precocious
"Research constantly flags up the link between BMI (Body Mass Index, used to indicate if an individual is overweight or obese) and puberty. But there is more to it than that.
For example, one study found that children who had been adopted recently from a developing county to Denmark were 10 to 20 times more likely to develop precocious puberty than children in the developed country. The study also found that the difference could not be explained entirely by changes in nutrition, body weight, or body fat. Similar findings were found in studies of children immigrating to Sweden, France, Belgium, Switzerland and the United States.
Other factors that can influence biology relate to a child's environment - stress, climate, light cycles and chemical exposures all have established links, though their magnitude is still not entirely understood."
The endocrine disrupters being looked at don't seem to have to do with hormones in meat, but "pesticides" or "plastic softeners and as preservatives" used "in some cosmetic products and they may be found in plastic toys, hair sprays, deodorants, shampoo, nail polish and perfumes."
"There have been more animal than human studies on this, but the findings are stark. After a chemical spill of an insecticide called DDT, one study found "male alligators living in the lake had smaller phalluses, reduced serum testosterone levels and abnormal gonadal structures" (gonads are testes or ovaries). "
Hmm--seems the opposite there.
"So, why is puberty happening earlier? The Department of Environmental Health at Boston University sums it up neatly:
The causes of most precocious puberty cases remain unknown. While many of the cases are attributed to excess weight gain or (paradoxically) improved nutrition, exposures to phthalates and other endochrine-disrupting chemicals have also been implicated as possible risk factors."8 -
It is more common for girls to start their period in primary school e.g. Under age 11 than in secondary school in the UK
It is due to various factors the most widely believed being better nutrition
I was 12
My daughter was 11
0 -
@Trixiegirl66 If you're still reading, can I offer you some support?
You can be relieved. You don't have to feel guilty that you're eating "bad food" occasionally!
Food isn't bad just because it's fast or convenient.
Food isn't bad because it makes you feel nice.
Don't let food guilt ruin your life.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10305332/when-food-guilt-is-ruining-your-life/p1
You're not eating badly. You're doing well. Best wishes.2 -
@Trixiegirl66 If you're still reading, can I offer you some support?
You can be relieved. You don't have to feel guilty that you're eating "bad food" occasionally!
Food isn't bad just because it's fast or convenient.
Food isn't bad because it makes you feel nice.
Don't let food guilt ruin your life.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10305332/when-food-guilt-is-ruining-your-life/p1
You're not eating badly. You're doing well. Best wishes.
Trixiegirl66's profile doesn't exist anymore. If they are still here they created a new account.2 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »but yeah some people cant think for themselves.when I started having issues losing weight people told me Im not weighing food accurately(I am), or that Im overestimating calories or something as simple as that. I just found out that my health issue is also a metabolic disorder so CICO may be easy for everyone else and should work that way for most. for me it doesnt.
Hi @CharlieBeansmomTracey and forgive me for "singling you out" as the above sentiment is certainly expressed regularly by many other people.
But I just read it, it was convenient to quote, and it confuses the heck out of me especially since I've know you frequent these MFP boards quite often!
Specifically I am referring to the fact that because you have a metabolic disorder you believe that CICO doesn't work for you.
The meaning of words have a purpose: communication. And CICO just means Calories In vs Calories Out.
Specifically it is used as MFP shorthand to denote that you will gain or lose weight when there is a persistent energy imbalance between your Calories In vs your Calories Out such that it is sufficient to overwhelm whatever ability your body has to maintain homeostasis. By definition at CI=CO no weight change takes place.
CI are estimated based on average values and your logging. CO estimates are based on equations derived by analyzing a whole bunch of people and drawing a "best fit" line through clouds of numbers.
Almost by definition BOTH will be off for you as an individual... somewhat. But USUALLY and for MOST people they are close enough for government work as they say.
Now. If you have a metabolic disorder you are more likely to be an outlier and for your personal CP value to not match your predicted value that is based on age, weight, height, and a "standard" metabolism similar to that of the majority of people tested.
So, and based on what you say, you are an outlier because of your condition, and your CO value is different and (usually and I assume so in your case) lower than predicted.
What I don't understand is why you feel this invalidates the concept of CICO?
All it means is that for you, your particular CI = CO balancing point occurs at a lower level than what the various apps predicted.
But the concept of CICO did not change. There was still a CI=CO point which you had to discover.
Now can a combination of activities, foods, medication, possibly act together to change the level of CO for you and even possibly CI (if a certain combination of foods makes you feel less hungry)? Of course it can.
But again the concept of CICO has not changed.
13 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »but yeah some people cant think for themselves.when I started having issues losing weight people told me Im not weighing food accurately(I am), or that Im overestimating calories or something as simple as that. I just found out that my health issue is also a metabolic disorder so CICO may be easy for everyone else and should work that way for most. for me it doesnt.
Hi @CharlieBeansmomTracey and forgive me for "singling you out" as the above sentiment is certainly expressed regularly by many other people.
But I just read it, it was convenient to quote, and it confuses the heck out of me especially since I've know you frequent these MFP boards quite often!
Specifically I am referring to the fact that because you have a metabolic disorder you believe that CICO doesn't work for you.
The meaning of words have a purpose: communication. And CICO just means Calories In vs Calories Out.
Specifically it is used as MFP shorthand to denote that you will gain or lose weight when there is a persistent energy imbalance between your Calories In vs your Calories Out such that it is sufficient to overwhelm whatever ability your body has to maintain homeostasis. By definition at CI=CO no weight change takes place.
CI are estimated based on average values and your logging. CO estimates are based on equations derived by analyzing a whole bunch of people and drawing a "best fit" line through clouds of numbers.
Almost by definition BOTH will be off for you as an individual... somewhat. But USUALLY and for MOST people they are close enough for government work as they say.
Now. If you have a metabolic disorder you are more likely to be an outlier and for your personal CP value to not match your predicted value that is based on age, weight, height, and a "standard" metabolism similar to that of the majority of people tested.
So, and based on what you say, you are an outlier because of your condition, and your CO value is different and (usually and I assume so in your case) lower than predicted.
What I don't understand is why you feel this invalidates the concept of CICO?
All it means is that for you, your particular CI = CO balancing point occurs at a lower level than what the various apps predicted.
But the concept of CICO did not change. There was still a CI=CO point which you had to discover.
Now can a combination of activities, foods, medication, possibly act together to change the level of CO for you and even possibly CI (if a certain combination of foods makes you feel less hungry)? Of course it can.
But again the concept of CICO has not changed.
This excellent summation should be a stickied post to refer people to who believe that a particular medical condition, or their own personal n=1 experience invalidates CICO or who say "CICO doesn't work for me".
7 -
Hi there just to share my own personal experience and not to repeat what's already been said 3 trillion times0
-
Well walking is great exercise and great for your mental health too. You are gaining muscle, probably starting to re-shape even if the scale isn't moving. Add the strategies above (logging food), and keep walking and you'll get there!1
-
NewGemini130 wrote: »Well walking is great exercise and great for your mental health too. You are gaining muscle, probably starting to re-shape even if the scale isn't moving. Add the strategies above (logging food), and keep walking and you'll get there!
OP is not gaining muscle!!7 -
Am the OP- I have started tracking all goes inside and starting to feel better. Trying to stay under calories and not trying to eat back all the calories burned. And am starting to see results which in case is weight loss. Workout wise running in treadmill in intervals or ellipticals or circuit training..thank u all who helped with suggestions..also amazed how the thread got deviated from the original topic.2
-
Am the OP- I have started tracking all goes inside and starting to feel better. Trying to stay under calories and not trying to eat back all the calories burned. And am starting to see results which in case is weight loss. Workout wise running in treadmill in intervals or ellipticals or circuit training..thank u all who helped with suggestions..also amazed how the thread got deviated from the original topic.
Welcome to MFP, now go some butt!!0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »but yeah some people cant think for themselves.when I started having issues losing weight people told me Im not weighing food accurately(I am), or that Im overestimating calories or something as simple as that. I just found out that my health issue is also a metabolic disorder so CICO may be easy for everyone else and should work that way for most. for me it doesnt.
Hi @CharlieBeansmomTracey and forgive me for "singling you out" as the above sentiment is certainly expressed regularly by many other people.
But I just read it, it was convenient to quote, and it confuses the heck out of me especially since I've know you frequent these MFP boards quite often!
Specifically I am referring to the fact that because you have a metabolic disorder you believe that CICO doesn't work for you.
The meaning of words have a purpose: communication. And CICO just means Calories In vs Calories Out.
Specifically it is used as MFP shorthand to denote that you will gain or lose weight when there is a persistent energy imbalance between your Calories In vs your Calories Out such that it is sufficient to overwhelm whatever ability your body has to maintain homeostasis. By definition at CI=CO no weight change takes place.
CI are estimated based on average values and your logging. CO estimates are based on equations derived by analyzing a whole bunch of people and drawing a "best fit" line through clouds of numbers.
Almost by definition BOTH will be off for you as an individual... somewhat. But USUALLY and for MOST people they are close enough for government work as they say.
Now. If you have a metabolic disorder you are more likely to be an outlier and for your personal CP value to not match your predicted value that is based on age, weight, height, and a "standard" metabolism similar to that of the majority of people tested.
So, and based on what you say, you are an outlier because of your condition, and your CO value is different and (usually and I assume so in your case) lower than predicted.
What I don't understand is why you feel this invalidates the concept of CICO?
All it means is that for you, your particular CI = CO balancing point occurs at a lower level than what the various apps predicted.
But the concept of CICO did not change. There was still a CI=CO point which you had to discover.
Now can a combination of activities, foods, medication, possibly act together to change the level of CO for you and even possibly CI (if a certain combination of foods makes you feel less hungry)? Of course it can.
But again the concept of CICO has not changed.
ok I never said CICO doesnt work for me,I just said its not easy for me(maybe its how I worded it?). it has in the past. now though Im trying to find the calorie level where I will start losing again. I havent lost anything since july(I was 163 and gained 7lbs) I log everything and weigh all solids and semi solids on a scale and make sure the entries are correct. I was losing at 1700+ then I started gaining weight(yes,I recalculate for every 10lbs lost),then I dropped it down to 1650(less than what MFP gives me for my activity level-I was given 1800+), 45 days went by and I lost nothing, so I dropped it down to 1600 a few weeks ago. so far not even an ounce.
I also dont eat back all of my exercise calories(I have a fitbit charge hr too). I am burning more calories than I was in the past as well,Im more active,getting more steps in and still not losing. I also have been tested for thyroid disorder and other issues and my blood work came back normal. so there is no reason why I should not be losing, but I find it odd that Im eating less and moving more,compared to before and less calories and nothing is happening, I even took a diet break for a month in august(I ate in what I thought was maintenance-still weighed and logged everything) and thats where the weight gain began. I am still overweight though and having issues trying to lose again.
I used to have a lot of days I would go over a little but I have less of those days now,I have been here 2 years and have figured out how to log and weigh accurately,but cant figure out what or where Im going wrong.so for the last few months,I should have lost at least something. I havent. I even went into my net calories and calculated everything for a month and by what Im supposedly burning,the deficit and so on I should have lost like 5 lbs. I havent even lost 1/2 a lb and thats what I have my goals set at.most days I burn(including my BMR according to fitbit 2300 on steps only day,up to 3000 on a highly active day.1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Am the OP- I have started tracking all goes inside and starting to feel better. Trying to stay under calories and not trying to eat back all the calories burned. And am starting to see results which in case is weight loss. Workout wise running in treadmill in intervals or ellipticals or circuit training..thank u all who helped with suggestions..also amazed how the thread got deviated from the original topic.
Welcome to MFP, now go some butt!!
I'm known as the typo queen!! Lol. Kick some butt!2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions