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
-
It's extremely rare for cutting calories to have such a dramatic effect on BMR that it would counteract the effect of the cut, and generally won't happen for someone not especially lean and who is doing a sensible diet (i.e., not extremely low calorie). Therefore, the claim that CICO is a "paper champion" due to supposed resulting reductions in BMR makes no sense.
I do agree that that is one of multiple reasons to not cut too low, especially as you get closer to goal, and to keep up protein and sensible actively (especially strength-building activities). But that's more about maintenance calories not being reduced and looking good than not being able to lose.
Also, we can't control our BMR much, so focusing on total calories in and calories out (which includes BMR) seems more sensible. I have a reasonable guess at my TDEE and have a lot of control over it (how much I move). I don't know my BMR and can't control it. (Biggest factor in what your BMR is absent medical problems is size and then muscle mass.)4 -
BMR/RMR are just arbitrarily chosen subsets of your TDEE for research. Your body doesn't keep track of them separately of your total EE.
Furthermore, RMR/BMR don't vary that much in healthy individuals. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
NEAT is where the big difference in people's total expenditure comes from. But no one ever blames their daily activity.14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's extremely rare for cutting calories to have such a dramatic effect on BMR that it would counteract the effect of the cut, and generally won't happen for someone not especially lean and who is doing a sensible diet (i.e., not extremely low calorie). Therefore, the claim that CICO is a "paper champion" due to supposed resulting reductions in BMR makes no sense.
I do agree that that is one of multiple reasons to not cut too low, especially as you get closer to goal, and to keep up protein and sensible actively (especially strength-building activities). But that's more about maintenance calories not being reduced and looking good than not being able to lose.
Also, we can't control our BMR much, so focusing on total calories in and calories out (which includes BMR) seems more sensible. I have a reasonable guess at my TDEE and have a lot of control over it (how much I move). I don't know my BMR and can't control it. (Biggest factor in what your BMR is absent medical problems is size and then muscle mass.)
Even a VLCD won't cause enough hormonal shift to stop weightloss. It will slow as you go for sure, but eventually the body has two choices when faced with a caloric input that's lower than it's requirements (especially when it's extreme): burn fat and/or muscle tissue, or die. There is no middle ground.12 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »I do believe stress is a factor in CICO
I posted some of my current situation in another thread that brought up stress and weight, but I'm currently in the middle of probably the most stressful time of my life. We very unexpectedly put in an offer on a house, then needed to scramble to get our house ready to list (husband had to take time off of work, which caused friction with his boss, we've wiped out our savings account on necessary things like carpet etc), then we were lied to by the realtors involved, and in a nutshell we were led on and then our offer, which they assured us was being accepted, was not-they used it as a bargaining tool with another buyer to get their offer up. So now we're scrambling to find something else, to get our house on the market next week, I have three kids who do a public school program at home and now they're all behind and their teacher is getting after me, most of us are sleeping on the floor due to rooms being torn apart as we get ready for carpet/staging etc etc etc.
I am stressed out
I am also dropping weight.
I'm not tracking my calorie intake at all right now and we're pretty much living off of fast food for 1-3 meals a day.
Down about 5lbs since this whole ordeal started. So for me-stress is actually causing weight loss. Which would be nice, if I wasn't already several years into maintenance
Hugs, crzycatlady.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »BMR/RMR are just arbitrarily chosen subsets of your TDEE for research. Your body doesn't keep track of them separately of your total EE.
Furthermore, RMR/BMR don't vary that much in healthy individuals. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
NEAT is where the big difference in people's total expenditure comes from. But no one ever blames their daily activity.
I like to keep track of them because I try not to go under rmr calorie requirements or I get really tired and worn down. And I try not to go above TDEE calories if I want to maintain and not gain.0 -
16
-
Yeap, which is why the term "broscience" still amuses me. One day I am going to compile a list of all of the "broscience" from the 60s through the 90s that was eventually proven correct by controlled studies. It's almost as if a giant pool of people exchanging anecdotes when all doing similar stuff can come to some pretty solid conclusions.
This of course assumes that you ignore all of the huckster *kitten* from supplement companies though. That can get hard to filter through.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »BMR/RMR are just arbitrarily chosen subsets of your TDEE for research. Your body doesn't keep track of them separately of your total EE.
Furthermore, RMR/BMR don't vary that much in healthy individuals. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
NEAT is where the big difference in people's total expenditure comes from. But no one ever blames their daily activity.
Very-Very true.
This is one reason why I don't recommend cardio for losing weight. Typically two things happen after doing cardio. First is we tend to be more hungry and either fight that or eat back what you burned or more. Mentally we have the "we earned it mentality" and completely forget the fact that it's much easier to eat 500 calories than to burn it. Second like Steve said, we rest more after, also because of the "earned it" mentality and also because our body slows down NEAT.
2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Yeap, which is why the term "broscience" still amuses me. One day I am going to compile a list of all of the "broscience" from the 60s through the 90s that was eventually proven correct by controlled studies. It's almost as if a giant pool of people exchanging anecdotes when all doing similar stuff can come to some pretty solid conclusions.
This of course assumes that you ignore all of the huckster *kitten* from supplement companies though. That can get hard to filter through.
Don't forget to include all the "Broscience" ultimately proved wrong. Lots of that as well.
9 -
queenliz99 wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »I do believe stress is a factor in CICO
I posted some of my current situation in another thread that brought up stress and weight, but I'm currently in the middle of probably the most stressful time of my life. We very unexpectedly put in an offer on a house, then needed to scramble to get our house ready to list (husband had to take time off of work, which caused friction with his boss, we've wiped out our savings account on necessary things like carpet etc), then we were lied to by the realtors involved, and in a nutshell we were led on and then our offer, which they assured us was being accepted, was not-they used it as a bargaining tool with another buyer to get their offer up. So now we're scrambling to find something else, to get our house on the market next week, I have three kids who do a public school program at home and now they're all behind and their teacher is getting after me, most of us are sleeping on the floor due to rooms being torn apart as we get ready for carpet/staging etc etc etc.
I am stressed out
I am also dropping weight.
I'm not tracking my calorie intake at all right now and we're pretty much living off of fast food for 1-3 meals a day.
Down about 5lbs since this whole ordeal started. So for me-stress is actually causing weight loss. Which would be nice, if I wasn't already several years into maintenance
Hugs, crzycatlady.
Thanks
On the bright side carpet is finally being installed as I type this, which means I can put my bed back together later today woot! 7 -
grmckenzie wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Yeap, which is why the term "broscience" still amuses me. One day I am going to compile a list of all of the "broscience" from the 60s through the 90s that was eventually proven correct by controlled studies. It's almost as if a giant pool of people exchanging anecdotes when all doing similar stuff can come to some pretty solid conclusions.
This of course assumes that you ignore all of the huckster *kitten* from supplement companies though. That can get hard to filter through.
Don't forget to include all the "Broscience" ultimately proved wrong. Lots of that as well.
That one will be harder to compile in it's entirety, largely because of how fast fads tend to come and go, when they rapidly disprove themselves. I'd also feel compelled to separate "broscience" from marketing ploy, which will get weird in places. Anyone remember the soaps that supposedly got rid of fat?
My point in doing so would be more to take the piss out of every MFPer who swears that anything without a triple blind study behind it is automatically false, regardless of how many times the results are replicated in the real world.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »My point in doing so would be more to take the piss out of every MFPer who swears that anything without a triple blind study behind it is automatically false, regardless of how many times the results are replicated in the real world.
I'm probably one of those people. I hear so much food "woo" from my wife that I've lost patience for it. So, while I may not assume something is false, I won't believe something without it being properly studied. Trouble with what you are suggesting is it is perfectly describing confirmation bias before even looking at the info.
I understand what you are saying. Just not sure the "confirmed" would even come close to the "myths" that have been busted. And looking at one side won't help any argument.
5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »grmckenzie wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Yeap, which is why the term "broscience" still amuses me. One day I am going to compile a list of all of the "broscience" from the 60s through the 90s that was eventually proven correct by controlled studies. It's almost as if a giant pool of people exchanging anecdotes when all doing similar stuff can come to some pretty solid conclusions.
This of course assumes that you ignore all of the huckster *kitten* from supplement companies though. That can get hard to filter through.
Don't forget to include all the "Broscience" ultimately proved wrong. Lots of that as well.
That one will be harder to compile in it's entirety, largely because of how fast fads tend to come and go, when they rapidly disprove themselves. I'd also feel compelled to separate "broscience" from marketing ploy, which will get weird in places. Anyone remember the soaps that supposedly got rid of fat?
My point in doing so would be more to take the piss out of every MFPer who swears that anything without a triple blind study behind it is automatically false, regardless of how many times the results are replicated in the real world.
There is a distinct difference between hypotheses which have not been proven and those that have been disproven. Many of the habits of professional bodybuilders started out as new ideas which were eventually proven to be correct through experimentation. On the other side many habits, while they do not have the direct result intended (such as meal timing), carry a complimentary influence. Still considered broscience, but has a tremendous psychological impact on the individual putting them into a routine that becomes a habit.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's extremely rare for cutting calories to have such a dramatic effect on BMR that it would counteract the effect of the cut, and generally won't happen for someone not especially lean and who is doing a sensible diet (i.e., not extremely low calorie). Therefore, the claim that CICO is a "paper champion" due to supposed resulting reductions in BMR makes no sense.
I do agree that that is one of multiple reasons to not cut too low, especially as you get closer to goal, and to keep up protein and sensible actively (especially strength-building activities). But that's more about maintenance calories not being reduced and looking good than not being able to lose.
Also, we can't control our BMR much, so focusing on total calories in and calories out (which includes BMR) seems more sensible. I have a reasonable guess at my TDEE and have a lot of control over it (how much I move). I don't know my BMR and can't control it. (Biggest factor in what your BMR is absent medical problems is size and then muscle mass.)
Even a VLCD won't cause enough hormonal shift to stop weightloss. It will slow as you go for sure, but eventually the body has two choices when faced with a caloric input that's lower than it's requirements (especially when it's extreme): burn fat and/or muscle tissue, or die. There is no middle ground.
Yeah, I agree, but the claim was so out there I didn't even need to get into that. The problem with a VLCD (barring careful monitoring of protein content, sensible breaks, etc.) is what happens after the diet (as with the Biggest Loser people with their extreme weight loss methods), not that you won't lose. Anorexics lose, people on VLCD diets lose (lose fast even), etc.1 -
grmckenzie wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »My point in doing so would be more to take the piss out of every MFPer who swears that anything without a triple blind study behind it is automatically false, regardless of how many times the results are replicated in the real world.
I'm probably one of those people. I hear so much food "woo" from my wife that I've lost patience for it. So, while I may not assume something is false, I won't believe something without it being properly studied. Trouble with what you are suggesting is it is perfectly describing confirmation bias before even looking at the info.
I understand what you are saying. Just not sure the "confirmed" would even come close to the "myths" that have been busted. And looking at one side won't help any argument.
Oh, I didn't say that I won't do it, only that it will take far longer, just due to the nature of it. In any field, there's far more *kitten* than reliable information.
ETA: there's also the issue of things that haven't even been tested yet. When you have millions of people willing to be their own guinea pigs, the amount of information (both good and bad) flows a lot faster than funding for studies does.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »BMR/RMR are just arbitrarily chosen subsets of your TDEE for research. Your body doesn't keep track of them separately of your total EE.
Furthermore, RMR/BMR don't vary that much in healthy individuals. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
NEAT is where the big difference in people's total expenditure comes from. But no one ever blames their daily activity.
I like to keep track of them because I try not to go under rmr calorie requirements or I get really tired and worn down. And I try not to go above TDEE calories if I want to maintain and not gain.
Going below RMR/BMR being an issue is a dieting myth. Like others said, your body doesn't know. What's potentially a problem is too big a cut off TDEE. If you are reasonably active a reasonable deficit won't be below BMR, but it easily can be if someone isn't that active.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »BMR/RMR are just arbitrarily chosen subsets of your TDEE for research. Your body doesn't keep track of them separately of your total EE.
Furthermore, RMR/BMR don't vary that much in healthy individuals. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
NEAT is where the big difference in people's total expenditure comes from. But no one ever blames their daily activity.
I like to keep track of them because I try not to go under rmr calorie requirements or I get really tired and worn down. And I try not to go above TDEE calories if I want to maintain and not gain.
Going below RMR/BMR being an issue is a dieting myth. Like others said, your body doesn't know. What's potentially a problem is too big a cut off TDEE. If you are reasonably active a reasonable deficit won't be below BMR, but it easily can be if someone isn't that active.
I agree. I didn't know it was a myth but I do know that if I ate at my BMR (1505) I'd gain weight as I'm so inactive. I thought it was because the calculators aren't absolutely correct for everyone, much like the calculators for CI, CO or TDEE are just estimates.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »grmckenzie wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Yeap, which is why the term "broscience" still amuses me. One day I am going to compile a list of all of the "broscience" from the 60s through the 90s that was eventually proven correct by controlled studies. It's almost as if a giant pool of people exchanging anecdotes when all doing similar stuff can come to some pretty solid conclusions.
This of course assumes that you ignore all of the huckster *kitten* from supplement companies though. That can get hard to filter through.
Don't forget to include all the "Broscience" ultimately proved wrong. Lots of that as well.
That one will be harder to compile in it's entirety, largely because of how fast fads tend to come and go, when they rapidly disprove themselves. I'd also feel compelled to separate "broscience" from marketing ploy, which will get weird in places. Anyone remember the soaps that supposedly got rid of fat?
My point in doing so would be more to take the piss out of every MFPer who swears that anything without a triple blind study behind it is automatically false, regardless of how many times the results are replicated in the real world.
I don't get that impression from MFP at all (and I try lots of stuff). I also read Tom Venuto's books and liked his argument that it makes sense to look at what people experienced with cutting weight and building muscle do, even if you aren't a bodybuilder, so I guess that's the "learning from what's worked" thing. What I would object to are assertions that something IS true or necessary, not just that it seems to work for me. For example, not snacking works far better for me than eating lots of little meals, and so I've also considered doing some kind of IF (I used to not eat breakfast, no problem, after all). But if that works for me, I wouldn't insist it's a better way to lose weight in general (not without some scientific support for that), just as I don't claim everyone needs to not snack. Similarly, eating dinner at 9-10 works for me, but I don't insist that this means that people must eat late. If not eating after 6 works for them (although I've never had a job that allowed you to be home at 6, let alone cook and eat dinner by then), great! But don't tell me that it's bad for weight loss to eat later.
Broscience that even I know (from guys I knew in college, mostly) had to do with eating chicken breast, rice, and broccoli to cut weight -- I'd argue that now we know that a higher fat diet is fine, even if you don't care about the taste of food. (On the other hand, a bland, not varying diet that is just food as fuel probably does psychologically help people stick to a strict plan.) Another was consuming lots of protein supplements and other supplements that are as yet unproven. I think the value of protein timing for most people has not been proven, beyond eating regular meals with adequate protein. Would I tell someone not to do it if it was working for them or demand studies to justify what they enjoyed? No, obviously not. If they insisted that others couldn't be successful unless they did these things would I? Yes, sure. See the distinction?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »grmckenzie wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Yeap, which is why the term "broscience" still amuses me. One day I am going to compile a list of all of the "broscience" from the 60s through the 90s that was eventually proven correct by controlled studies. It's almost as if a giant pool of people exchanging anecdotes when all doing similar stuff can come to some pretty solid conclusions.
This of course assumes that you ignore all of the huckster *kitten* from supplement companies though. That can get hard to filter through.
Don't forget to include all the "Broscience" ultimately proved wrong. Lots of that as well.
That one will be harder to compile in it's entirety, largely because of how fast fads tend to come and go, when they rapidly disprove themselves. I'd also feel compelled to separate "broscience" from marketing ploy, which will get weird in places. Anyone remember the soaps that supposedly got rid of fat?
My point in doing so would be more to take the piss out of every MFPer who swears that anything without a triple blind study behind it is automatically false, regardless of how many times the results are replicated in the real world.
I don't get that impression from MFP at all (and I try lots of stuff). I also read Tom Venuto's books and liked his argument that it makes sense to look at what people experienced with cutting weight and building muscle do, even if you aren't a bodybuilder, so I guess that's the "learning from what's worked" thing. What I would object to are assertions that something IS true or necessary, not just that it seems to work for me. For example, not snacking works far better for me than eating lots of little meals, and so I've also considered doing some kind of IF (I used to not eat breakfast, no problem, after all). But if that works for me, I wouldn't insist it's a better way to lose weight in general (not without some scientific support for that), just as I don't claim everyone needs to not snack. Similarly, eating dinner at 9-10 works for me, but I don't insist that this means that people must eat late. If not eating after 6 works for them (although I've never had a job that allowed you to be home at 6, let alone cook and eat dinner by then), great! But don't tell me that it's bad for weight loss to eat later.
Broscience that even I know (from guys I knew in college, mostly) had to do with eating chicken breast, rice, and broccoli to cut weight -- I'd argue that now we know that a higher fat diet is fine, even if you don't care about the taste of food. (On the other hand, a bland, not varying diet that is just food as fuel probably does psychologically help people stick to a strict plan.) Another was consuming lots of protein supplements and other supplements that are as yet unproven. I think the value of protein timing for most people has not been proven, beyond eating regular meals with adequate protein. Would I tell someone not to do it if it was working for them or demand studies to justify what they enjoyed? No, obviously not. If they insisted that others couldn't be successful unless they did these things would I? Yes, sure. See the distinction?
I agree with you completely, and the funny part is, so do all of the studies that seem to contradict one another. Prove almost anything with a clinical trial, and another will come along within a short period of time that says the opposite, or at least disagrees with several points. What this shows, is that even in completely controlled environments, individual response to various things throw in variables that cannot be controlled for.0 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Maybe she means water weight not fat. I'm curious too!
I think that is exactly it ^^^^^^^ water weight especially with thyroid0 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
These conditions lower metabolism and/or increase hunger. They do not make the body create fat in a caloric deficit; they make it so the body is no longer in a deficit. Bodies do not and cannot create fat (or muscle) when taking in fewer calories than they burn.16 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
How does that work?
My understanding of hypothyroid is that it decreases metabolism/CO, not that it allows you to put on body fat even when eating below the reduced CO. It's just hard to do so, especially since you often feel low energy, etc.
Diabetes would seem to do the opposite -- your body becomes so IR that you cannot remove glucose from the blood and convert it into fat (which isn't the main way we add body fat anyway). Presumably it also interferes with effectively using the glucose as energy or the response that tells us we are satiated, so people might eat more (I think this can go along with IR, although since weight gain often triggers IR hard to insist it was a cause rather than pre-existing), but that's again not what was asked. A common symptom of diabetes is actually weight loss, because of how it interferes with the process.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Kinda feeling like this pretty rapidly devolved into one of the more pointless misinterpretations that I've read here so far. It's like both sides are saying the same thing, but one's speaking Spanish, one's speaking Greek, and they both forgot their Babel Fish.
Agree.3 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
Thyroid conditions can't make you gain fat in a deficit any more than a medical condition can make you run a marathon when you're just taking a stroll around the block.
A deficit, by definition, means you're taking in less energy than your body uses up, you will lose fat every time if you're in a deficit.
And how does not correctly processing calories = more weight gain anyway? If my car can't properly use the fuel I put in it doesn't suddenly run at a better efficiency either.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
Thyroid conditions can't make you gain fat in a deficit any more than a medical condition can make you run a marathon when you're just taking a stroll around the block.
A deficit, by definition, means you're taking in less energy than your body uses up, you will lose fat every time if you're in a deficit.
And how does not correctly processing calories = more weight gain anyway? If my car can't properly use the fuel I put in it doesn't suddenly run at a better efficiency either.
Thanks Doc1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
Thyroid conditions can't make you gain fat in a deficit any more than a medical condition can make you run a marathon when you're just taking a stroll around the block.
A deficit, by definition, means you're taking in less energy than your body uses up, you will lose fat every time if you're in a deficit.
And how does not correctly processing calories = more weight gain anyway? If my car can't properly use the fuel I put in it doesn't suddenly run at a better efficiency either.
Thanks Doc0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
Thyroid conditions can't make you gain fat in a deficit any more than a medical condition can make you run a marathon when you're just taking a stroll around the block.
A deficit, by definition, means you're taking in less energy than your body uses up, you will lose fat every time if you're in a deficit.
And how does not correctly processing calories = more weight gain anyway? If my car can't properly use the fuel I put in it doesn't suddenly run at a better efficiency either.
Thanks Doc0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
How does that work?
My understanding of hypothyroid is that it decreases metabolism/CO, not that it allows you to put on body fat even when eating below the reduced CO. It's just hard to do so, especially since you often feel low energy, etc.
Diabetes would seem to do the opposite -- your body becomes so IR that you cannot remove glucose from the blood and convert it into fat (which isn't the main way we add body fat anyway). Presumably it also interferes with effectively using the glucose as energy or the response that tells us we are satiated, so people might eat more (I think this can go along with IR, although since weight gain often triggers IR hard to insist it was a cause rather than pre-existing), but that's again not what was asked. A common symptom of diabetes is actually weight loss, because of how it interferes with the process.
Im not sure of any of ur questions. Im not a Doctor. I just know that thyroid conditions and diabetes can make people gain and retain weight. Several people commented "explaining" why this is not true lolol. All these people are in the know apparently. I only know what l have been told by my doctor...thyroidism and diabetes can put weight on and make people retain weight. I think the OP had a point. Thankfully l dont have these diseases but she might. I think if the doctor told her that her condition could make her retain weight, he might be right, what do u think?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
Thyroid conditions can't make you gain fat in a deficit any more than a medical condition can make you run a marathon when you're just taking a stroll around the block.
A deficit, by definition, means you're taking in less energy than your body uses up, you will lose fat every time if you're in a deficit.
And how does not correctly processing calories = more weight gain anyway? If my car can't properly use the fuel I put in it doesn't suddenly run at a better efficiency either.
Look up cushings disease and hypothyroidism0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions