Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
Had a Grand Mac the other day. That's a big sandwich to eat.Urgh. This old chestnut again. Tiresome. I'm going to get a big mac too.
Just wondering though, if people don't support the factual science of CI/CO why are they posting? Primarily this is what mfp is about and what the majority is here to do.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I found it disappointing. More mess than what it was worth.0 -
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.
I said it's also not... tried to get around that heresay lol I no we need veggies and macros ect. I'd just prefer to elimainate my own health issues by losing weight in a sustainable way and having a better relationship with food in the initial stages. I binged on junk, ate so much at times, felt horribly guilty, depressed with what and how much I was eating, ate because I was depressed ect. Mpf is working for me.
I hope everyone finds something that works for them too
People tend to forget that just by losing weight your health markers improve. Too often the health improvements ate attributed to the diet...8 -
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.
I said it's also not... tried to get around that heresay lol I no we need veggies and macros ect. I'd just prefer to elimainate my own health issues by losing weight in a sustainable way and having a better relationship with food in the initial stages. I binged on junk, ate so much at times, felt horribly guilty, depressed with what and how much I was eating, ate because I was depressed ect. Mpf is working for me.
I hope everyone finds something that works for them too
People tend to forget that just by losing weight your health markers improve...
It helps. Substantially5 -
Debating this topic and finding a medium is like trying to find a one ended stick. I shall say no more but good luck to EVERYONE in their weight lose/health improvement journeys
0 -
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »No. What I am saying is that...
CICO is how you control your weight.
If there is something preventing you from doing so... Be it eating disorder. Emotional eating. Trigger foods. Etc. Then that issue needs to be addressed.
Once the issue is addressed then it's simply CICO.
If it wasn't then I'd still be struggling with my weight despite medication and therapy.
So I guess you could consider all those other impacting things to be part of the weight loss - not just energy balance - equation.
It's fair to say the ratio of CICO is greatly affected by emotional, psychological, socioeconomic ect etc factors. Hence, all kinds of things 'matter to weight loss'.
Why is this so hard?
CICO is the energy balance.
Psychological factors aren't energy balance. They are separate issues, just like nutrition is a separate issue.
Why are they being conflated?
Again, I will reiterate what I said pages and pages ago: CICO isn't the only weight loss equation we sometimes need to focus on, but just because it's not the only one doesn't mean it's not valid by itself. It's still the main driver of fat loss.
I'd like to know what's so hard here too, cause it seems to me you are acknowledging the same factors as I have, but in a far more aggressive and condescending way while seeming unable to either recognise or acknowledge (could be either) that they ALL have some bearing on weight loss.
I see weight loss like a puzzle with a lot of pieces. Each piece is distinct from each other and doesn't detract from the other's importance.
This is why I said, and will keep repeating, "CICO isn't the only equation."
The problem where I think communication is breaking down, is your posts are coming across as having other factors detracting from CICO. They are distinct from CICO.
CICO's just one piece of the weight loss puzzle.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »No. What I am saying is that...
CICO is how you control your weight.
If there is something preventing you from doing so... Be it eating disorder. Emotional eating. Trigger foods. Etc. Then that issue needs to be addressed.
Once the issue is addressed then it's simply CICO.
If it wasn't then I'd still be struggling with my weight despite medication and therapy.
So I guess you could consider all those other impacting things to be part of the weight loss - not just energy balance - equation.
It's fair to say the ratio of CICO is greatly affected by emotional, psychological, socioeconomic ect etc factors. Hence, all kinds of things 'matter to weight loss'.
Why is this so hard?
CICO is the energy balance.
Psychological factors aren't energy balance. They are separate issues, just like nutrition is a separate issue.
Why are they being conflated?
Again, I will reiterate what I said pages and pages ago: CICO isn't the only weight loss equation we sometimes need to focus on, but just because it's not the only one doesn't mean it's not valid by itself. It's still the main driver of fat loss.
I'd like to know what's so hard here too, cause it seems to me you are acknowledging the same factors as I have, but in a far more aggressive and condescending way while seeming unable to either recognise or acknowledge (could be either) that they ALL have some bearing on weight loss.
I see weight loss like a puzzle with a lot of pieces. Each piece is distinct from each other and doesn't detract from the other's importance.
This is why I said, and will keep repeating, "CICO isn't the only equation."
The problem where I think communication is breaking down, is your posts are coming across as having other factors detracting from CICO. They are distinct from CICO.
CICO's just one piece of the weight loss puzzle.
Might be less confusing if we said fat loss...5 -
Again, if you actually read the preceding posts you would see the progression of that conversation.
Or you could just read my posts in isolation. Even if you actually took note of what I wrote you would understand the point I'm making unless it is your own comprehension skills that are lacking.
My point is that things other than CI:CO as a direct ratio DO have bearing to what a person weighs (as in numbers on a scale) including the factors that influence their what their CI or CO sits at and other factors such water retention etc etc. I'm not disputing that to reduce body weight there must be a deficit in energy balance.
I'm just saying other things matter too.
I have read every single post on here. Thinking I haven't, is ignorance on your part. So please do not make assumptions.
CICO is energy balance. It's the computation of net fat loss/gain over time. Not water weight.
Yet somehow you still have missed my point.
Perhaps I'm a terrible communicator. Let's run with that, hey? I'm off to bed. Night.
That is probably what I would suggest.
And water weight really only matters to a subset of people, especially those who are new or don't understand what they really want. People really want fat loss because over time it drives a leaner body. They care about water weight for basic motivation in the beginning (or if they have an event) but outside of that, it's a non issue. I have never cared about the daily fluctuations or a specific number. I have only cared about what I look like. But I also dont' have any crap going on in my head, lol
As someone who is neither new (I first used mfp in 2012 under a different account), or overweight, or concerned with water fluctuations my opinions are certainly not driven by that kind of perspective.
My discussion posts (particularly about sodium and water retention) have been in response to other users as part of a reasonable conversation, and I'm some cases commenting on statements made by others that are not entirely true or exploring the contributing factors and the impact this has on what a person weighs.
I'm not sure why you take such offence at that.
..........
Any way aren't moderators meant to moderate discussion boards rather than latch on to sub sections of conversation and insult other community members?
I don't take offense.. It's the internet and I don't take it serious. And just because I am a moderator, am I not allowed to engage in conversation? Am I not allowed to engage in debate? Am I not allowed to point out fallacies or inaccuracies in data or debate? If you would really like to know what I am required to do as a moderator, please feel free to pm me. I always have an open door and will gladly communicate my roles and responsibilities. I am not sure how I insulted you, because it certainly wasn't meant that way. You made an assumption about me, I responded, which drove your response. I agreed with your own personal assessment. If you find that insulting, I do apologize.
Water weight fluctuations do not have an impact on energy balance. If people want to worry about water weight fluctuations, that is fine, but it isn't a part of CICO. CICO is an oversimplication of energy balance.10 -
Way behind in this thread, but going back to yesterday:Russellb97 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Losing weight and keeping it off is far more about your relationship with food and being in control over hunger and cravings than CICO.
CICO is how it works. Fixing your relationship with food, etc., is how you make sure you are where you want to be with CICO. If you seem them as incompatible things or opposed to each other, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by CICO. It's not a type of diet.
As for how to achieve CICO, what strategically will work, it differs depending on the person. There are some good tips that work for many, but there's no one-size-fits all.
^^^ This
I'm baffled by how hard this is for people to understand.
Yes! CICO is the basic black and white answer, of course, it is! I completely agree that ultimately losing weight comes done to the CICO formula. Yet if it was truly that simple, why are getting bigger and bigger? Why do 95% of us who lose weight gain it all back?
Sometimes you have to be able to think a bit deeper than what's on the surface. If you only go as far as CICO, you'll fail to comprehend the complexity of why losing weight is so difficult.
I think you are misreading the posters here, as no one is saying that CICO is the only thing that an individual dieter needs to worry about and that achieving and maintaining the right CICO balance is easy always. The argument is with those claiming that CICO is not how it works -- that if you eat the right foods CICO doesn't matter. Of course that's ridiculous and so why bother rebutting it? Well, because it's surprising how many on MFP seem to assume otherwise at the beginning or disagree.
As for your second point, why do people keep getting fatter? Most people don't really monitor CICO or do so in ways that are way off -- people assume they are more active and eat less (in terms of calories, certainly) than they do in many cases. I'm pretty familiar with calories and can estimate pretty well, and yet I can turn off that part of my brain really easily and eat mindlessly, and if I do let myself eat mindlessly I can eat a lot without feeling like I did.
Beyond that, of course you need behavioral changes and methods to keep CICO where it should be in a society that makes obesity really easy (meaning we have no need to move much and can easily consume as many calories as we like in many cases, without many cultural restrictions on doing so, like regular meal times and customs beyond those that encourage more eating).
No one is saying otherwise, or saying that weight control is easy (simple, yeah, but easy maybe not).
I do think that what works for weight control in this environment is going to vary by person, although there are probably some things that are generally helpful on average.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »No. What I am saying is that...
CICO is how you control your weight.
If there is something preventing you from doing so... Be it eating disorder. Emotional eating. Trigger foods. Etc. Then that issue needs to be addressed.
Once the issue is addressed then it's simply CICO.
If it wasn't then I'd still be struggling with my weight despite medication and therapy.
So I guess you could consider all those other impacting things to be part of the weight loss - not just energy balance - equation.
It's fair to say the ratio of CICO is greatly affected by emotional, psychological, socioeconomic ect etc factors. Hence, all kinds of things 'matter to weight loss'.
Why is this so hard?
CICO is the energy balance.
Psychological factors aren't energy balance. They are separate issues, just like nutrition is a separate issue.
Why are they being conflated?
Again, I will reiterate what I said pages and pages ago: CICO isn't the only weight loss equation we sometimes need to focus on, but just because it's not the only one doesn't mean it's not valid by itself. It's still the main driver of fat loss.
I'd like to know what's so hard here too, cause it seems to me you are acknowledging the same factors as I have, but in a far more aggressive and condescending way while seeming unable to either recognise or acknowledge (could be either) that they ALL have some bearing on weight loss.
I see weight loss like a puzzle with a lot of pieces. Each piece is distinct from each other and doesn't detract from the other's importance.
This is why I said, and will keep repeating, "CICO isn't the only equation."
The problem where I think communication is breaking down, is your posts are coming across as having other factors detracting from CICO. They are distinct from CICO.
CICO's just one piece of the weight loss puzzle.
Might be less confusing if we said fat loss...
Given the drift of the thread, fair point, good sir.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
And, being healthy is determined also by NOT having diabetes, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, visceral fat suffocating your internal organ, stroke, cardiovascular issues, inflammation, anxiety, lack of confidence ect all which are all subsets of obesity. just eating "healthy" does not make u miraculously "healthy". Nutritionally sound foods will come, for me, in time as I lose weight and change my attitude and mindset of food.
I suggest you brace yourself because the "wellness" experts...are coming.
Saying health is predominantly about the absence of disease is like heresy.
I said it's also not... tried to get around that heresay lol I no we need veggies and macros ect. I'd just prefer to elimainate my own health issues by losing weight in a sustainable way and having a better relationship with food in the initial stages. I binged on junk, ate so much at times, felt horribly guilty, depressed with what and how much I was eating, ate because I was depressed ect. Mpf is working for me.
I hope everyone finds something that works for them too
People tend to forget that just by losing weight your health markers improve. Too often the health improvements ate attributed to the diet...
Yep, this definitely happened in my case. Nothing wrong with that either, because it got done what needed to get done. The weight loss normalized my glucose number and also improved all my other health markers. If I had tried a different route though and had cut out a bunch of things I liked eating, in an attempt to eat 'healthier', I know with 100% certainty I would have failed at sticking with it, just like my many, many overweight/obese family members and relatives who've done every fad diet under the sun
Instead I'm the only one who's reversed the progression of prediabetes, and I'm also the only one who's been able to maintain the weight loss for any amount time.
eta: clarification8 -
Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »@Russellb97 I guess you have never know normal or underweight people with eating disorders. Never seen people crying over eating salad or saltines. I have. I've been there myself actually. There is tons of guilt involved. Also have you ever hung around women of every size? I'm sure you'll hear normal weight women complaining about eating to their friends. It's rampant. Not sure why you think guilt and shame are experienced by overweight people.
Never said only and I'm sorry it came out that way. I'm also not here to cause a fight. My point is when you are in control of your hunger and cravings CICO becomes far less difficult to manage.
From my own experience, I see obesity as a mental health issue. And self-image, shame, and guilt are at the core of it.
Not trying to be disputatious, or question your experience, just wanting to clarify that the field is broader:
I was obese by the standard definition, and don't believe I had a mental health issue around food or eating. (I'm not saying - don't believe - that there's anything bad or shameful about having a mental health issue, either. For example, I've taken psychoactive drugs at times for non-food reasons, and have no qualms talking about it.)
Sure, I had a good bit of "I like food and drink", some self-indulgent tendencies, and an inclination to prefer clear and present pleasure over nebulous future benefits. While these may be character faults (though not deeply grievous ones, IMO), I wouldn't trivialize the definition of "mental health issue" by believing they rise to that level.
There are a lot of reasons why particular people become overweight or obese. We often reflexively assume others are like us. For example, it's one reason some people bark out that "it's all about self-discipline" or "you need to stop eating junk food", etc.
Figuring out that "why" for one's over-eating is part of the weight loss process (but
not, IMO, part of CICO). 4 -
I don't take offense.. It's the internet and I don't take it serious. And just because I am a moderator, am I not allowed to engage in conversation?
Jut want to say that I find you one of the more helpful posters on this board and I am glad you are able to participate in discussions. I've learned a fair bit reading your posts over the last 6 months.
14 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I don't take offense.. It's the internet and I don't take it serious. And just because I am a moderator, am I not allowed to engage in conversation?
Jut want to say that I find you one of the more helpful posters on this board and I am glad you are able to participate in discussions. I've learned a fair bit reading your posts over the last 6 months.
Thank you. I try to be thorough so I can get more likes and awesomes (you know, internet cred).. but being a mod really cramps that ability.10 -
Again, if you actually read the preceding posts you would see the progression of that conversation.
Or you could just read my posts in isolation. Even if you actually took note of what I wrote you would understand the point I'm making unless it is your own comprehension skills that are lacking.
My point is that things other than CI:CO as a direct ratio DO have bearing to what a person weighs (as in numbers on a scale) including the factors that influence their what their CI or CO sits at and other factors such water retention etc etc. I'm not disputing that to reduce body weight there must be a deficit in energy balance.
I'm just saying other things matter too.
What you're wearing factors in what the scale says. But no one would be stupid enough to think that it matters.3 -
Still catching up on the thread, but that chart is complete BS.
You can't come to conclusions about obesity by looking at only 4 subcategories of what they call junk food.
It seems they also looked at 'frequency' and not 'calories consumed'
Also, what are "SWEAT SNACKS" My opinion is low of researchers who can't use spell check.
The more informative chart compares all the food groups in the average diet circa 1970 vs circa 2010. The bulk of increased calories came from grains and fats, two components very common in fast food.Russellb97 wrote: »
Would you mind linking which study you are referring to in the bold?Russellb97 wrote: »The difference between overweight people and non-overweight people is those who aren't trying to lose weight are not worried, stressed, frustrated, ashamed, or pre-occupied with what they are going to eat and when they will eat it. It's food controlling us or us controlling our food.
Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
I'll tell you what, being free from the "diligence" and pre-occupation with food is almost as satisfying as losing 130 lbs.
Thank you!
Soda and sweets aren't making Americans fat. In fact, underweight Americans consume more junk food than those who are morbidly obese.
In a new study in the journal Obesity Science & Practice, Cornell professors analyzed the food intake of about 6,000 people, according to MarketWatch. The study found that consuming more fast food, candy and soda was not correlated with higher body mass indexes—“While a diet of chocolate bars and cheeseburgers washed down with a Coke is inadvisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods are not likely to be a leading cause of obesity."
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/ua/uhvk2dj7v2u7.jpg
0 -
Still catching up on the thread, but that chart is complete BS.
You can't come to conclusions about obesity by looking at only 4 subcategories of what they call junk food.
It seems they also looked at 'frequency' and not 'calories consumed'
Also, what are "SWEAT SNACKS" My opinion is low of researchers who can't use spell check.
The more informative chart compares all the food groups in the average diet circa 1970 vs circa 2010. The bulk of increased calories came from grains and fats, two components very common in fast food.Russellb97 wrote: »
Would you mind linking which study you are referring to in the bold?Russellb97 wrote: »The difference between overweight people and non-overweight people is those who aren't trying to lose weight are not worried, stressed, frustrated, ashamed, or pre-occupied with what they are going to eat and when they will eat it. It's food controlling us or us controlling our food.
Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
I'll tell you what, being free from the "diligence" and pre-occupation with food is almost as satisfying as losing 130 lbs.
Thank you!
Soda and sweets aren't making Americans fat. In fact, underweight Americans consume more junk food than those who are morbidly obese.
In a new study in the journal Obesity Science & Practice, Cornell professors analyzed the food intake of about 6,000 people, according to MarketWatch. The study found that consuming more fast food, candy and soda was not correlated with higher body mass indexes—“While a diet of chocolate bars and cheeseburgers washed down with a Coke is inadvisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods are not likely to be a leading cause of obesity."
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/ua/uhvk2dj7v2u7.jpg
I'm going to start calling my preworkout fuel "sweat snacks".
The study also only looked at two days and it was self reported (by the individual). How many people do you know that don't really remember what they ate in the last day or try to minimize it? (That cookie didn't count because you only took a bite.)5 -
MacaronStyle wrote: »Still catching up on the thread, but that chart is complete BS.
You can't come to conclusions about obesity by looking at only 4 subcategories of what they call junk food.
It seems they also looked at 'frequency' and not 'calories consumed'
Also, what are "SWEAT SNACKS" My opinion is low of researchers who can't use spell check.
The more informative chart compares all the food groups in the average diet circa 1970 vs circa 2010. The bulk of increased calories came from grains and fats, two components very common in fast food.Russellb97 wrote: »
Would you mind linking which study you are referring to in the bold?Russellb97 wrote: »The difference between overweight people and non-overweight people is those who aren't trying to lose weight are not worried, stressed, frustrated, ashamed, or pre-occupied with what they are going to eat and when they will eat it. It's food controlling us or us controlling our food.
Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
I'll tell you what, being free from the "diligence" and pre-occupation with food is almost as satisfying as losing 130 lbs.
Thank you!
Soda and sweets aren't making Americans fat. In fact, underweight Americans consume more junk food than those who are morbidly obese.
In a new study in the journal Obesity Science & Practice, Cornell professors analyzed the food intake of about 6,000 people, according to MarketWatch. The study found that consuming more fast food, candy and soda was not correlated with higher body mass indexes—“While a diet of chocolate bars and cheeseburgers washed down with a Coke is inadvisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods are not likely to be a leading cause of obesity."
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/ua/uhvk2dj7v2u7.jpg
I'm going to start calling my preworkout fuel "sweat snacks".
The study also only looked at two days and it was self reported (by the individual). How many people do you know that don't really remember what they ate in the last day or try to minimize it? (That cookie didn't count because you only took a bite.)
Hehe, I had some Timbits just like that this morning. Someone else bought them and there were only three so they don't count
4 -
I cut into an avocado today and most of it had gone brown inside except for a few bites which I ate and didn't log it.
Now that's why cico doesn't always work! 6 -
This content has been removed.
-
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »MacaronStyle wrote: »Still catching up on the thread, but that chart is complete BS.
You can't come to conclusions about obesity by looking at only 4 subcategories of what they call junk food.
It seems they also looked at 'frequency' and not 'calories consumed'
Also, what are "SWEAT SNACKS" My opinion is low of researchers who can't use spell check.
The more informative chart compares all the food groups in the average diet circa 1970 vs circa 2010. The bulk of increased calories came from grains and fats, two components very common in fast food.Russellb97 wrote: »
Would you mind linking which study you are referring to in the bold?Russellb97 wrote: »The difference between overweight people and non-overweight people is those who aren't trying to lose weight are not worried, stressed, frustrated, ashamed, or pre-occupied with what they are going to eat and when they will eat it. It's food controlling us or us controlling our food.
Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
I'll tell you what, being free from the "diligence" and pre-occupation with food is almost as satisfying as losing 130 lbs.
Thank you!
Soda and sweets aren't making Americans fat. In fact, underweight Americans consume more junk food than those who are morbidly obese.
In a new study in the journal Obesity Science & Practice, Cornell professors analyzed the food intake of about 6,000 people, according to MarketWatch. The study found that consuming more fast food, candy and soda was not correlated with higher body mass indexes—“While a diet of chocolate bars and cheeseburgers washed down with a Coke is inadvisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods are not likely to be a leading cause of obesity."
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/ua/uhvk2dj7v2u7.jpg
I'm going to start calling my preworkout fuel "sweat snacks".
The study also only looked at two days and it was self reported (by the individual). How many people do you know that don't really remember what they ate in the last day or try to minimize it? (That cookie didn't count because you only took a bite.)
Hehe, I had some Timbits just like that this morning. Someone else bought them and there were only three so they don't count
I think my sad moment was when i realized 1 timbit was 80 calories and i used to eat a couple of 10 packs to myself when i would have them.. lol
80? Holy *kitten*. Yeah, I'd buy a pack when heading out for a drive. Let's see. 30 pack * 80 ~= my BMR2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Chocolate toasted coconut doughnuts are the only way I will eat coconut. Well, I use coconut oil very infrequently. So one of only two ways.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »What you're wearing factors in what the scale says. But no one would be stupid enough to think that it matters.
This is dangerous advice; if you don't wear a similar outfit (nudity counts as an outfit) at each weigh-in your scale may not recognize you, become agitated, and may even bite! /s
I would not be so quick to say that it doesn't matter, let alone that "no one would be stupid enough" to think it does. Nothing is weightless - but being off by a consistent amount is very nearly as good as being exactly on target, hence that tip to avoid being discouraged because your weight difference between weigh-ins is less than the difference between gym shorts and your favorite jeans. I think the point a lot of people are trying to make relates to opinions and anecdotes presented as concrete immovable fact! More on-topic, I personally eat like absolute garbage and don't exercise at all outside of work, I operate entirely on CICO, baseline TDEE, and multivitamins. It's worked great for me so far, having lost ~80lb before joining MFP and making much faster and steadier progress now. However, the 'everyone's body is different' response to that doesn't feel like it goes far enough - everyone's mind is different in nigh-infinite ways and our lived experiences can seriously impact our ability to maintain a deficit, get out and exercise, and generally make the 'better' but more difficult choices.
Even if you don't accept this little rant, at least know you are patently incorrect, because obviously I am stupid enough for anything.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »What you're wearing factors in what the scale says. But no one would be stupid enough to think that it matters.
This is dangerous advice; if you don't wear a similar outfit (nudity counts as an outfit) at each weigh-in your scale may not recognize you, become agitated, and may even bite! /s
You missed the point.
The point is you need to look at the scale and think a bit of "Why?". So Yesterday I was 254.5. Between Pizza all weekend and Chinese food last night, this morning I was 259. Well, no I'm not. I'm ~255 with a bunch of extra water and *kitten*. Both days were first thing in the morning, after peeing just wearing underwear and my watch. So identical clothes (did I change my underwear yesterday????). I just need to get rid of some waste is all. But it's not part of what I consider my "weight".4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »But it's not part of what I consider my "weight".
Then I didn't miss the point, I disagreed - just in a roundabout fashion while making other vague points along the way. I'm absolutely of the opinion it matters whether it varies or not - like I said, being consistently off is very nearly as good as being right. Being aware of exactly what portion is clothing is very encouraging even if I only report curb weight (clothed) to MFP.0 -
Analysis paralysis.
Besides the fact, if you're weighing yourself and not taking measurements as well you are only getting half the story. The scale lies by omission...3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions