It is more than a simple "CICO" - why can't we just admit it?

1246

Replies

  • Hello_its_Dan
    Hello_its_Dan Posts: 406 Member
    mikeisgod83 wrote: »
    The difference from person to person "in general" is not a great deal. If you cut your calories by roughly 500-700 daily (some people do more, some less) even with minimal mislabeled nutrition information, you will lose. Exactly as pointed out above, if you're dropping 500 calories today, from what you were eating before and you're not seeing weight loss, adjust it to 600, or 700, wait a week or two and see if you're losing then. Once you find a good amount of calories to take in, stick to that for a while. Weigh and adjust, its that easy.

    Just poking the hornets nest here a little!
    So you're telling me that my wife who maintains her weight at 1200 calories a day should cut 500-700 calories from her diet to lose weight?

    She's an endometriosis patient on heavy medication throwing hormones out of whack.

    Flag on the play!
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    Hello_its_Dan wrote: »
    mikeisgod83 wrote: »
    The difference from person to person "in general" is not a great deal. If you cut your calories by roughly 500-700 daily (some people do more, some less) even with minimal mislabeled nutrition information, you will lose. Exactly as pointed out above, if you're dropping 500 calories today, from what you were eating before and you're not seeing weight loss, adjust it to 600, or 700, wait a week or two and see if you're losing then. Once you find a good amount of calories to take in, stick to that for a while. Weigh and adjust, its that easy.

    Just poking the hornets nest here a little!
    So you're telling me that my wife who maintains her weight at 1200 calories a day should cut 500-700 calories from her diet to lose weight?

    She's an endometriosis patient on heavy medication throwing hormones out of whack.

    Flag on the play!

    Come on!

    See the "in general" in mikes comment :)
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    jmp463 wrote: »
    For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.

    Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.

    So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.

    Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.

    To the bolded: really? Granted, my health problems are not as major as some, but they are still enough to affect my weight.

    Medical issues (diabetes, thyroid problems, HBP, IBS, etc.) generally fall into Calories Out. Once you get those sorted via medication or diet or a little weight loss, you should be able to lose weight (if that's your desire). That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. A lot of people who post asking about why they're not losing weight never mention having health problems. It's only after 4-5 pages do they finally divulge "oh I have PCOS/diabetes/bariatric surgery", then those CICO advocates adapt their advice to the now known problem.

    And despite medical/physical/psychological issues, it's still CICO.
    07805a99ae73d5300c78ff8db167676f.jpg

    Really. For every person out there who admits thyroid, medical, emotional or psychological issues will affect weight loss, I think there are just as many who say it is just CICO, so just eat less and move more. Or stop stuffing your pie hole.... I think that one showed up on the last page. Or I lost 70 lbs eating bread everyday so you can too.

    So sure, CICO is the first advice to give, I agree with that. I AGREED weight loss comes down CICO. No argument there. But when people say they are already eating 1300 kcal per day, and yes they weigh their food, and no they do not just use the data from the food data base, then the posts tend to turn to: "Well, you are doing something wrong or just lying."

    And not everyone knows about their health issues so they can't divulge it. They may realize that something is not quite right but have no idea what is wrong. I believe there are more undiagnosed diabetics than diabetics. Undiagnosed or improperly treated people with hypothyroidism is a really large number. NAFLD is a really fast growing problem that you won't know of in most cases. They may not be able to achieve CI<CO without great difficulty if those issues are not being addressed.

    And then there are the people who do mention a health problem like T2D and are told to just eat less and lose weight. That's not an optimal diet for one with IR. It is a diet, and it may work eventually, but it isn't ideal.

    You said:
    [quote}That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. [/quote]

    No need to get self righteous. I never said, " Zyxst, quit telling people 'it's CICO' without taking into consideration people's health problems." My comment wasn't supposed to be about you. Funny that you took it that way.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    nomorepuke wrote: »
    If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.

    Well then--just focus on health and see where that gets you. ;)
  • mikeisgod83
    mikeisgod83 Posts: 21 Member
    Dealing with some people on the internet is always fun... I was making general statement, obviously ruling out medical conditions (consult your dr. not MFP forums #1) if she wants to lose weight @ a maintenance of 1200 a day, probably cut 50?? I was making a point that you're not going to lose weight, and then keep it off if you stop doing what you were doing in the first place. If you want to stay a healthy weight, you weigh yourself regularly, and adjust from the results.

    Hello_its_Dan wrote: »
    Just poking the hornets nest here a little!
    So you're telling me that my wife who maintains her weight at 1200 calories a day should cut 500-700 calories from her diet to lose weight?

    She's an endometriosis patient on heavy medication throwing hormones out of whack.

    Flag on the play!

  • kgmqt
    kgmqt Posts: 8 Member
    The scientist in me says it is CICO. And yes, as Neil just said, science doesn't care if you believe it or not.

    But, you have to go beyond just CICO to transition from a closely monitored 'diet and exercise plan' into an everyday lifestyle. Yes, if I measure and track everything I eat, and I track my activity and I monitor closely I can keep CI < CO and lose weight. But what happens when I cannot do that every day, or cannot do it to the accuracy required.

    For me, from when I was 18 to 28 I went from 200 to 300 lbs. That was a bunch of weight, but over the course of 10 years it comes down to 96 calories per day over budget on about a 2500 calorie base. If you are not measuring your food this is just noise. A few extra fries, an extra slice of turkey, 3 beers instead of 2 - it turns into 10 lbs a year for 10 years if you are not paying attention.

    In order to sustain you have to be able to eat and exercise in a way that allows you to use your bodies natural signals. I can restrict my diet calorie wise, but if I am always hungry it is difficult to maintain. If I change the type of food I eat so that I am satiated I stay under budget calorie wise without even really trying. I think this is different for everybody and it can turn into a religious war at times. Yes it is CICO, but everybody needs to figure out a way to be able to maintain the CI < CO (if that is their goal) when you don't have a measuring cup, a scale, or a pre-packaged meal with detailed calorie counts.

    If you go back much more that 40 years ago most people were pretty thin compared to today. The didn't measure their food or count calories. Yes they were more active, but in the end the pretty much stayed at CI = CO without really working at it. They let their bodies tell them when they had enough to eat.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    CafeRacer808 wrote: »

    "Simple" doesn't always mean "easy". Sometimes the simplest solutions are still difficult to execute in practice. Weight loss is a perfect example.

    Not sure what that has to do with my reply to the OP. I said nothing about anything being "simple" or "easy".
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    nomorepuke wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    nomorepuke wrote: »
    If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.

    Eh? Aside from the strawmen, eating less is the ONLY way to lose weight, unless your magical mythical unicorn. And I'm not in the least bit miserable, in fact I bloody love seeing my body transform and don't deprive myself at all (unless we call no longer eating until painfully stuffed miserable).

    I feel very sorry for you. I've lost 21lbs in little over a month by eating more. I don't count calories because I stop when I'm full. Simply, I had gained weight because of not being able to eat. All I ate was fast/frozen/processed junk on the go.
    Majority of the people think like you. Thus, weight loss is one of the most lucrative industries. They want you to think that way. They want you to yo-yo. They don't want you to get educated on how nutrition works in your system.
    Look at the most attractive thread in here "Serial Starters" !!!!

    As others have said, while you may be eating more volume, since you lost weight (and did not mention a change in exercise), you're eating less calories.
  • Montepulciano
    Montepulciano Posts: 845 Member
    CICO is the starting point. Then you take into account things like health issues. It will always start with CICO though and you can't even begin to assess what your CI if you don't log accurately. CO is trickier to track, just look at the different rate of calorie burn between Fitbit and MFP for the same exercise and time length. However if you track and log you will see a pattern for you. Your pattern may be completely different than mine. Wahooo for individuality. It takes work people, it takes wanting to be healthy for the rest of your life more than you want that donut every morning. There is no magic bullet, there is no pill/shake/detox that will get it off and keep it off. It takes developing new habits and attitudes to both food and activity.

    As many people have said, it is simple but not easy.

    My favorite complaint is, I ate healthy yesterday, why didn't I lose weight? My response is always "How long did it take you to put on the weight? How many years of overeating have you done? Give your body a bit of break and come talk to me after a month of eating healthy."

  • 3rdof7sisters
    3rdof7sisters Posts: 486 Member
    edited February 2017
    kgmqt wrote: »
    The scientist in me says it is CICO. And yes, as Neil just said, science doesn't care if you believe it or not.

    But, you have to go beyond just CICO to transition from a closely monitored 'diet and exercise plan' into an everyday lifestyle. Yes, if I measure and track everything I eat, and I track my activity and I monitor closely I can keep CI < CO and lose weight. But what happens when I cannot do that every day, or cannot do it to the accuracy required.

    For me, from when I was 18 to 28 I went from 200 to 300 lbs. That was a bunch of weight, but over the course of 10 years it comes down to 96 calories per day over budget on about a 2500 calorie base. If you are not measuring your food this is just noise. A few extra fries, an extra slice of turkey, 3 beers instead of 2 - it turns into 10 lbs a year for 10 years if you are not paying attention.

    In order to sustain you have to be able to eat and exercise in a way that allows you to use your bodies natural signals. I can restrict my diet calorie wise, but if I am always hungry it is difficult to maintain. If I change the type of food I eat so that I am satiated I stay under budget calorie wise without even really trying. I think this is different for everybody and it can turn into a religious war at times. Yes it is CICO, but everybody needs to figure out a way to be able to maintain the CI < CO (if that is their goal) when you don't have a measuring cup, a scale, or a pre-packaged meal with detailed calorie counts.

    If you go back much more that 40 years ago most people were pretty thin compared to today. The didn't measure their food or count calories. Yes they were more active, but in the end the pretty much stayed at CI = CO without really working at it. They let their bodies tell them when they had enough to eat.

    I know for a fact people were counting calories 50 years ago. I did it. I had a little book with calories of common foods. Weight watchers has been around a long time. What has skyrocketed in the past 50 years is, the availability of food. Fast food stores, convenience stores with quick & fast foods, grocery stores etc, all open 24 hours per day. Our lives are more sedentary compared to what they were, and we have more demanding schedules on the whole. There are a multitude of reasons that may or may not contribute. But, no one can argue that for many overweight people, we are eating more calories, than we are burning, or at least we were until we found MFP ;)

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    mactaffy428 wrote: »
    Why do people say that it is all down to CICO as if it is really that simple? Why does dieting not work, then, if all we have to do is shut our pie holes every in a while? Now, before anyone gets snarky, yes one needs to burn more than they eat, but saying that it is all " CICO" is very misleading. You take 2 different 200 pound women. Give them a month, have then do the same level if activity and eat the exact same food, and I guarantee they will not have the same weight loss. This leaves people frustrated.

    It is so very hard to figure out what our CO" is as our bodies affect how we process the same foods. Tom might use more energy digesting his peanut butter sandwich than Hank, even though they ate the exact same amount. That's more "CO" for Tom. It's also hard to figure out our "CI"; since, by law, packaged foods are allowed to be "off" a certain amount on what the companies that is the nutritional balance, etc. All we can do is our best educated guess and that's just is not perfect enough to boil everything down to CICO.

    It is so tiring to see people just boil complex biological functions down to a half-baked formula. Yes, what you eat does matter (and you may not even know it [your Big Mac may be your weekly treat but it could very well be someone else's poison]) and what you do does matter (exercise has been shown to to do so many things that affect this CICO over-used jargon).

    All the participants in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment looked like concentration camp residents after the 24-week starvation phase ended. Their food and activity was closely monitored.

    Outside a controlled experimental setting like this, I wouldn't presume the two 200 pound women in your example actually have the same Calories In and Calories Out.
  • comeonnow142857
    comeonnow142857 Posts: 310 Member
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    mactaffy428 wrote: »
    Why do people say that it is all down to CICO as if it is really that simple? Why does dieting not work, then, if all we have to do is shut our pie holes every in a while?

    LOL!!! Seriously?? Are you for real? THAT is the issue. It's HARD to resist food!!! People WANT TO EAT as much as they want. It's the whole reason so many are so overweight. How do you not know that????

    It just makes me think "has this guy ever met a person?"
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    jmp463 wrote: »
    For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.

    Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.

    So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.

    Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.

    To the bolded: really? Granted, my health problems are not as major as some, but they are still enough to affect my weight.

    Medical issues (diabetes, thyroid problems, HBP, IBS, etc.) generally fall into Calories Out. Once you get those sorted via medication or diet or a little weight loss, you should be able to lose weight (if that's your desire). That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. A lot of people who post asking about why they're not losing weight never mention having health problems. It's only after 4-5 pages do they finally divulge "oh I have PCOS/diabetes/bariatric surgery", then those CICO advocates adapt their advice to the now known problem.

    And despite medical/physical/psychological issues, it's still CICO.
    07805a99ae73d5300c78ff8db167676f.jpg

    Really. For every person out there who admits thyroid, medical, emotional or psychological issues will affect weight loss, I think there are just as many who say it is just CICO, so just eat less and move more. Or stop stuffing your pie hole.... I think that one showed up on the last page. Or I lost 70 lbs eating bread everyday so you can too.

    So sure, CICO is the first advice to give, I agree with that. I AGREED weight loss comes down CICO. No argument there. But when people say they are already eating 1300 kcal per day, and yes they weigh their food, and no they do not just use the data from the food data base, then the posts tend to turn to: "Well, you are doing something wrong or just lying."

    And not everyone knows about their health issues so they can't divulge it. They may realize that something is not quite right but have no idea what is wrong. I believe there are more undiagnosed diabetics than diabetics. Undiagnosed or improperly treated people with hypothyroidism is a really large number. NAFLD is a really fast growing problem that you won't know of in most cases. They may not be able to achieve CI<CO without great difficulty if those issues are not being addressed.

    And then there are the people who do mention a health problem like T2D and are told to just eat less and lose weight. That's not an optimal diet for one with IR. It is a diet, and it may work eventually, but it isn't ideal.

    You said:
    That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead.

    No need to get self righteous. I never said, " Zyxst, quit telling people 'it's CICO' without taking into consideration people's health problems." My comment wasn't supposed to be about you. Funny that you took it that way.

    It IS just CICO even WITH those things. Saying things like medical conditions can make it harder and saying it's about CICO are not mutually exclusive.

    Yes I know. It is impossible to lose weight without a calorie deficit. My point is that ACHIEVING CI<CO can be exceedingly hard, if not impossible, until other issues are addressed.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    jmp463 wrote: »
    For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.

    Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.

    So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.

    Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.

    To the bolded: really? Granted, my health problems are not as major as some, but they are still enough to affect my weight.

    Medical issues (diabetes, thyroid problems, HBP, IBS, etc.) generally fall into Calories Out. Once you get those sorted via medication or diet or a little weight loss, you should be able to lose weight (if that's your desire). That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. A lot of people who post asking about why they're not losing weight never mention having health problems. It's only after 4-5 pages do they finally divulge "oh I have PCOS/diabetes/bariatric surgery", then those CICO advocates adapt their advice to the now known problem.

    And despite medical/physical/psychological issues, it's still CICO.
    07805a99ae73d5300c78ff8db167676f.jpg

    Really. For every person out there who admits thyroid, medical, emotional or psychological issues will affect weight loss, I think there are just as many who say it is just CICO, so just eat less and move more. Or stop stuffing your pie hole.... I think that one showed up on the last page. Or I lost 70 lbs eating bread everyday so you can too.

    So sure, CICO is the first advice to give, I agree with that. I AGREED weight loss comes down CICO. No argument there. But when people say they are already eating 1300 kcal per day, and yes they weigh their food, and no they do not just use the data from the food data base, then the posts tend to turn to: "Well, you are doing something wrong or just lying."

    And not everyone knows about their health issues so they can't divulge it. They may realize that something is not quite right but have no idea what is wrong. I believe there are more undiagnosed diabetics than diabetics. Undiagnosed or improperly treated people with hypothyroidism is a really large number. NAFLD is a really fast growing problem that you won't know of in most cases. They may not be able to achieve CI<CO without great difficulty if those issues are not being addressed.

    And then there are the people who do mention a health problem like T2D and are told to just eat less and lose weight. That's not an optimal diet for one with IR. It is a diet, and it may work eventually, but it isn't ideal.

    You said:
    That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead.

    No need to get self righteous. I never said, " Zyxst, quit telling people 'it's CICO' without taking into consideration people's health problems." My comment wasn't supposed to be about you. Funny that you took it that way.

    It IS just CICO even WITH those things. Saying things like medical conditions can make it harder and saying it's about CICO are not mutually exclusive.

    Yes I know. It is impossible to lose weight without a calorie deficit. My point is that ACHIEVING CI<CO can be exceedingly hard, if not impossible, until other issues are addressed.

    I would agree with this statement, but I doubt that you and I are thinking of the same things.

    Many people need to address underlying psychological issues and ingrained habits and thought patterns before even beginning to think about putting CICO into practice.

    I'm not entirely sure you're looking at this the same way I am.
  • kq1981
    kq1981 Posts: 1,098 Member
    edited February 2017
    I was advised on my post to "keep it simple". If CICO has worked for me this far (which isn't long). I'm not researching every possible article I can to contradict my thoughts and achievements from this. I've done this and I wasted time researching rather than doing. Weight lose isn't simple. Finding something that works for YOU isn't either. But mfp does for a majority here who are passionate and proud about their achievements while concentrating on CICO. That's why there's anger. Because it's saying it's a load of *kitten* when it's obviously not for most. Good luck in finding YOUR weight lose strategy
  • CafeRacer808
    CafeRacer808 Posts: 2,396 Member
    edited February 2017
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    CafeRacer808 wrote: »

    "Simple" doesn't always mean "easy". Sometimes the simplest solutions are still difficult to execute in practice. Weight loss is a perfect example.

    Not sure what that has to do with my reply to the OP. I said nothing about anything being "simple" or "easy".

    It has everything to do with your reply. You were trying to make the arguement that weight loss isn't simple because resisting food is hard work. This indicates you believe that simple = easy.
  • CafeRacer808
    CafeRacer808 Posts: 2,396 Member
    edited February 2017
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    CafeRacer808 wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    CafeRacer808 wrote: »

    "Simple" doesn't always mean "easy". Sometimes the simplest solutions are still difficult to execute in practice. Weight loss is a perfect example.

    Not sure what that has to do with my reply to the OP. I said nothing about anything being "simple" or "easy".

    It has everything to do with your reply. You were trying to make the arguement that weight loss isn't simple because resisting food is hard work. This indicates you believe that simple = easy.

    The simple vs. easy mantra is one that has been drilled into me in various places, most not food or diet related. I agree the two are not the same. Calorie counting is pretty simple. Sticking to those numbers is not easy.

    The only thing that isn't simple is the amount of BS around weight loss, and how much work it is to get through the BS to the simple reality of eating less than you burn.

    Yup, that's precisely my point. And like you, the concept of "simple vs easy" was drilled into me from other sources. Mostly martial arts training, now that I think about it.

    When training in iaido (samurai swordsmanship), the first cut you learn is an overhead cut. The concept is very simple: raise the sword above your head and bring it down towards your target, making a big arc with the tip of the blade. Simple though it may be in concept, it can easily take a year or more to become competent with this very basic cut. It's simple, but extremely difficult to master.
  • ccsernica
    ccsernica Posts: 1,040 Member
    edited February 2017
    CafeRacer808 wrote: »
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    CafeRacer808 wrote: »

    "Simple" doesn't always mean "easy". Sometimes the simplest solutions are still difficult to execute in practice. Weight loss is a perfect example.

    Not sure what that has to do with my reply to the OP. I said nothing about anything being "simple" or "easy".

    It has everything to do with your reply. You were trying to make the arguement that weight loss isn't simple because resisting food is hard work. This indicates you believe that simple = easy.

    Digging a hole is simple. Stick shovel into dirt, lift up shovel with dirt, dump dirt someplace else. Repeat until hole is complete. But it's hard work.

    To respond directly to OP's claim that diets don't work: Of course they do. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who use MFP who can prove that they do. They work when you follow them. They don't work when you don't. They don't work permanently because people choose diets for weight loss which they can't follow permanently. They see dieting as a sprint towards a goal, rather than a long-term lifestyle change, and give it up as soon as the goal is reached.
  • bigislandgrrl
    bigislandgrrl Posts: 196 Member
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRop_ltYUlk&amp;index=1&amp;list=PLfR-8rhslnU9rTQhdJITphrswXFkOJWg8&amp;t=93s
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    bigislandgrrl wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRop_ltYUlk&amp;index=1&amp;list=PLfR-8rhslnU9rTQhdJITphrswXFkOJWg8&amp;t=93s

    If I ate that many calories, keto or high carb, I'd gain 4lbs a damn week. How silly.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories