CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?
)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
Keep in mind that I did not chosen the term "debunk" but did borrow it some a post above made by another.
Our dog loses and gains weight per CICO but I do not know if she counts calories or not. The same goes for our horses, deer, turkey, cats and opossums that eats the cats' food.
Yes CICO is a non-consideration because it is unknowable to anyone reading this post. This is known to many professionals. Peter Attia is one doctor that I know who measured his CICO in an expensive sealed lab setting. The links in a post above has the below plus remarks from other professionals with credibility on the subject stated in the OP.
Dr. Peter Attia — “Restating the First Law offers me nothing beyond the obvious.”
Here’s Peter Attia take on CICO.
“Let’s explain what’s going on [in a crowded] room in terms of thermodynamics. The First Law would say something like this: The change in the number of people in the room must be equal to the difference between the number of people entering the room and the number of people leaving the room. For example, if the room “gains” 10 people, we can safely conclude that 10 more people entered the room than left it (e.g,. 15 versus 5, or 197 versus 187).
So here’s the million dollar question: Why is the room packed? Let me be more specific, why are there 78 people in the room? The “calories-in-minus-calories-out-model” says, “because 78 more people entered the room than left the room.” I say, sure, that’s true, but it doesn’t tell me WHY? I want to know WHY there are 78 people in the room (or, more specifically, WHY did 78 more people enter the room than leave the room)? Was it because there was a very compelling speaker in the room? Was it because they were giving away free food in room? Was it because it was raining outside and folks wanted to stay dry?
If my goal is to keep people out of the proverbial room, I’d better understand what brought them into the room. I need to know what is causing the room to accumulate people. Restating the First Law offers me nothing beyond the obvious. Of course more people entered the room than exited the room. How does that help me get people out?
Similarly, when someone tells me so-and-so is obese because he eats more than he expends, I say, “of course he does…you’re just re-stating the First Law.” What I want to know is, WHY did he eat more calories than he burned? If we don’t understand this point, how can we treat this condition?”1 -
OP and stevencloser mentioned averaging them over time, but then OP made the "within 100 calories" post. I think you're pointing out that pinpointing CI and CO to within 100 calories, in the short term, is impractical or impossible. Am I understanding you?endlessfall16 wrote: »...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
(Reiterating what has been posted in other discussions and I don't think anyone is arguing about, is that food package weights and volumes can be off by up to 20%, calorie counts are very imprecise, and calorie use varies from day to day.)
1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
Ok if you were seriously asking me that question, then my answer is. I don't care about precision. If anything the nonprecision aspect reinforces my point. It's overkill.
Your question is better directed at ndj1979, who brought up precision.
I am totally serious...for you non-precision is wonderful and great. I totally get that. But can't you acknowledge that others need to get pretty close?
I'm not knocking what works for you, in fact its the opposite I'm happy and it gives me hope I don't have to been super duper accurate about everything, BUT some folks need to, and there is nothing wrong with that. Right?
There are many points in this last post of yours. Some of them seem loaded. I'm not entirely clear of your intention. Always hard through texts.
Why do you care to get my acknowledgement? What's your point?
Is it not better that you understand what works (possible) and what doesn't, reasonably? And see if you can get anything out of it for yourself?
What is "wrong" and "Right" to you? For some people like me, doing a minute of something unnecessary where I could help is wrong, but for others doing what makes them happy is right for them. Also, what do you believe your role is, when you think you can contribute? Are you a globalist or a pacifist?
Nothing loaded honestly!
My intention was crystal clear...some like you doesn't need precision and thats awesome I'm hoping to also not need to weigh my food for precision!!!
Of freaking course I freaking care what I understand what works and what I can get out of this experience, after all aren't we all here for what "we" can get out of it?
I'm just saying with no intention toward you, regardless if you acknowledge or not (however it would be cool if you could) that everyone is an individual. Some really like to get as precise as they can and thats super cool for me.
You don't need to be and that is also super cool for me.
Thats all:)
I see. I'm fully aware that everyone is an individual. It's a given.
That said, everyone deserves to see the full map even if she doesn't plan to (or can't) travel, so to speak.
I was honestly amazed at the OPs claim that he could be precised within 100 Calories. Does that mean he knows exactly how much walking he does, how many times he gets up, etc. in a day? I have no idea. Hence, my question.
1 -
Think people need a reminder of the difference between accuracy and precision...
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-accuracy-and-precision-609328
The people who are successful at applying the numbers related to CICO to govern their weight management are precise. They may also be accurate, but they don't have to be. It can be, "good enough for government work" or "close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades".
As I said early on in the thread, there is a tendency for some people to think that you have to be both precise and accurate, or the whole thing is invalid. The ironic thing is that even these people are still governed by CICO, they just either haven't been successful at managing the equation themselves, or they don't want to bestow credit upon something that is so fundamentally basic.21 -
Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)13 -
Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
Calories go in and out (and get stored) all the time. Until they don't. But I think it takes calories to cremate 'em.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
Pretty much, yes. If someone has completely stopped taking calories in, and completely ceased to expend calories out, they will most likely belong in a box.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
Calories go in and out (and get stored) all the time. Until they don't. But I think it takes calories to cremate 'em.
Interesting point. A year or two ago I was talking with the owner of a funeral home and asked if they charged more for obese cremations. He said the price was all the same but that very fat people took some less fuel to cremate because the body fat added fuel to the fire. He was not smiling when he told me that so maybe it was factual. I plan to grow grass for job creation. 1 -
OP and stevencloser mentioned averaging them over time, but then OP made the "within 100 calories" post. I think you're pointing out that pinpointing CI and CO to within 100 calories, in the short term, is impractical or impossible. Am I understanding you?endlessfall16 wrote: »...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
(Reiterating what has been posted in other discussions and I don't think anyone is arguing about, is that food package weights and volumes can be off by up to 20%, calorie counts are very imprecise, and calorie use varies from day to day.)
OP can pinpoint it to within 100 calories because he's been doing it over a long period, not short, an knows how his weight moves eating at those calorie intakes over the long period.
Package weights can be off that's why kitchen scales exist and calorie counts can be off in either direction with the average being the number you find on the USDA database for example, normal distribution, bell curves etc. That evens out, again, over the long haul.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
Keep in mind that I did not chosen the term "debunk" but did borrow it some a post above made by another.
Our dog loses and gains weight per CICO but I do not know if she counts calories or not. The same goes for our horses, deer, turkey, cats and opossums that eats the cats' food.
Yes CICO is a non-consideration because it is unknowable to anyone reading this post. This is known to many professionals. Peter Attia is one doctor that I know who measured his CICO in an expensive sealed lab setting. The links in a post above has the below plus remarks from other professionals with credibility on the subject stated in the OP.
Dr. Peter Attia — “Restating the First Law offers me nothing beyond the obvious.”
Here’s Peter Attia take on CICO.
“Let’s explain what’s going on [in a crowded] room in terms of thermodynamics. The First Law would say something like this: The change in the number of people in the room must be equal to the difference between the number of people entering the room and the number of people leaving the room. For example, if the room “gains” 10 people, we can safely conclude that 10 more people entered the room than left it (e.g,. 15 versus 5, or 197 versus 187).
So here’s the million dollar question: Why is the room packed? Let me be more specific, why are there 78 people in the room? The “calories-in-minus-calories-out-model” says, “because 78 more people entered the room than left the room.” I say, sure, that’s true, but it doesn’t tell me WHY? I want to know WHY there are 78 people in the room (or, more specifically, WHY did 78 more people enter the room than leave the room)? Was it because there was a very compelling speaker in the room? Was it because they were giving away free food in room? Was it because it was raining outside and folks wanted to stay dry?
If my goal is to keep people out of the proverbial room, I’d better understand what brought them into the room. I need to know what is causing the room to accumulate people. Restating the First Law offers me nothing beyond the obvious. Of course more people entered the room than exited the room. How does that help me get people out?
Similarly, when someone tells me so-and-so is obese because he eats more than he expends, I say, “of course he does…you’re just re-stating the First Law.” What I want to know is, WHY did he eat more calories than he burned? If we don’t understand this point, how can we treat this condition?”
Gale, do you not know the difference between calorie counting and energy balance? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse at this point to continue to argue? Yes, these are serious questions. I am by no means trying to be rude or mean.17 -
CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.
However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.
The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.
Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.
(I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)
So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?
CICO APPLIES to everyone whether you use the equation and manipulate it to your advantage or not.
I don't know what the burial vs cremation question has to do with anything. While living, that now deceased person was also impacted by CICO. Now that they are dead they are not taking in calories or expending them.4 -
This is my new favourite thread.
For the people arguing about CICO not being a "thing" can you tell me;
1- Have you ever consumed any food or beverages?
2-Do you agree that your body must derive energy from somewhere?9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.0 -
And while some people may gain a lot of weight suddenly, many people gain weight by 'slow creep'.
This doesn't really require a psychoanalysis beyond "age-related muscle deterioration, burning 100 less cals/a day".
Sometimes just logging the foods you eat every day are an eye-opener.
Not everyone has an eating disorder.
Eat/lift/win6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Well Gale is definitely taking him out of context. Attia is more trying to understand causality, which is more likely to stem from behavioral/psychological aspects, in combination of hyperpalatable foods. But the way I read it, doesn't show me that Dr. Attia doesn't believe in CICO. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it demonstrates that Attia believes in CICO.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Well Gale is definitely taking him out of context. Attia is more trying to understand causality, which is more likely to stem from behavioral/psychological aspects, in combination of hyperpalatable foods. But the way I read it, doesn't show me that Dr. Attia doesn't believe in CICO. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it demonstrates that Attia believes in CICO.
Attia did do the 4K calorie experiment to show he wouldn't gain on Keto awhile back. So I'm not sure what he believes.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Well Gale is definitely taking him out of context. Attia is more trying to understand causality, which is more likely to stem from behavioral/psychological aspects, in combination of hyperpalatable foods. But the way I read it, doesn't show me that Dr. Attia doesn't believe in CICO. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it demonstrates that Attia believes in CICO.
Attia did do the 4K calorie experiment to show he wouldn't gain on Keto awhile back. So I'm not sure what he believes.
Jason Wittrock did the same thing, but it's funny how these guys never baseline caloric requirements prior. They just take a number and assume they can't gain. Additionally, they largely rely on certain types of nuts which can be a problem since some more recent studies show the inaccurate of their calorie counts since parts of the membrane are undigestable.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
petnet.io/pet_health_blogs/dog-and-cat-food-macronutrients-protein-part-1#.WPYeVfnyvIU
Animal husbandry typically has better eating research. Like with humans until the correct macro is found the calories can be less meaningful to solving over/under eating issues.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
yes, one can figure that out if you track and log everything...which is not necessary for CICO but can be necessary for advanced body comp goals, which I pointed out in my OP.3 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »I got a question that I need help clarifying....
IF CICO is the only application that we need to think about as far as losing weight....why when I read about different body types they make it seem like CICO isn't the only thing that applies as far losing weight? For instance they would say one body type is easy at losing weight vs. the other one being very hard to lose weight. (I hope this make sense.)
The different body types...
Ectomorph: Lean and long, with difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big, high body fat, often pear-shaped, with a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, with a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells
These have been debunked. They were developed in the 50s (I think) by a psychologist based on his feelz when looking at various body types. It was then twisted by the fitness/diet industry.
CICO is what has been debunked by many professionals in the health field area. No one here knows their CI or even their CO so CICO can not be computed with math. Now net CICO can be calculated after the fact by weighing oneself from time to time.
While CICO can not be directly calculated but net CICO can be deducted that is where CICO could help one estimate how to eat to gain or loss weight.
You don't need absolute numbers to make it work. Both CI and CO are moving targets anyways. The point is to get close enough to effectively make the desired changes while minimizing the risk of harm.
That doesn't debunk the equation.
This is it. The bolded part.
So much it that methinks that if GaleHawkins had chosen a better word than "debunk", all of this so called debate would have been done away with. (But where'd the fun be?)
CI and CO are such moving targets, maybe elusive that it can make Cico a non-consideration (my argument all along). That's the impression I get from GaleHawkins given he includes and emphasizes other values.
If it so elusive how do I have my cutting, gaining and maintenance pegged to within 100 calories???
How do you know it's within 100?
It's a fairly shocking revelation for some, but people can track calories, monitor progress and back into the math... it's like new science right? Ha!
Whats fascinating is, I maintain around 3000 calories..... give our take whatever I typically under/over estimate. But I know if I maintain consistent practices, that I will maintain at that level due to the fact that over an 4 to 8 week period, if I average 2500 calories, I lose 1 lb per week. Rinse, validate and repeat...
So are you saying every food (meal) can be measured precisely and the everyday activity can be the same? To the precision of within 100?
Don't use estimation or average, or the fact that you can maintain, lose or gain. I can maintain, lose or gain without knowing any caloric numbers of anything; and it doesn't answer my question over precision.
Thats fantastic and I personally think its great. I've managed to lose weight without weighing or measuring my food. But really why does it matter that others like/need to know? We are all different and we all have certian ways of "handling" our weight.
I guess I'm asking why do you care what one's "precision" is? I certainly don't care you don't need precision, does that make sense?
It's just a conversation between the OP and me, and the OP was the one initiating the point about precision. Read back.
I've read everything thanks! My question is still valid. I think everyone has their own way and I just don't understand going tit for tat on every single issue. idk
Ok if you were seriously asking me that question, then my answer is. I don't care about precision. If anything the nonprecision aspect reinforces my point. It's overkill.
Your question is better directed at ndj1979, who brought up precision.
I am totally serious...for you non-precision is wonderful and great. I totally get that. But can't you acknowledge that others need to get pretty close?
I'm not knocking what works for you, in fact its the opposite I'm happy and it gives me hope I don't have to been super duper accurate about everything, BUT some folks need to, and there is nothing wrong with that. Right?
There are many points in this last post of yours. Some of them seem loaded. I'm not entirely clear of your intention. Always hard through texts.
Why do you care to get my acknowledgement? What's your point?
Is it not better that you understand what works (possible) and what doesn't, reasonably? And see if you can get anything out of it for yourself?
What is "wrong" and "Right" to you? For some people like me, doing a minute of something unnecessary where I could help is wrong, but for others doing what makes them happy is right for them. Also, what do you believe your role is, when you think you can contribute? Are you a globalist or a pacifist?
Nothing loaded honestly!
My intention was crystal clear...some like you doesn't need precision and thats awesome I'm hoping to also not need to weigh my food for precision!!!
Of freaking course I freaking care what I understand what works and what I can get out of this experience, after all aren't we all here for what "we" can get out of it?
I'm just saying with no intention toward you, regardless if you acknowledge or not (however it would be cool if you could) that everyone is an individual. Some really like to get as precise as they can and thats super cool for me.
You don't need to be and that is also super cool for me.
Thats all:)
I see. I'm fully aware that everyone is an individual. It's a given.
That said, everyone deserves to see the full map even if she doesn't plan to (or can't) travel, so to speak.
I was honestly amazed at the OPs claim that he could be precised within 100 Calories. Does that mean he knows exactly how much walking he does, how many times he gets up, etc. in a day? I have no idea. Hence, my question.
It means that I have tracked/logged for quite a long time and that through trial and error I have pegged my maintenance, bulking, and cutting calorie consumption levels...
7 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Well Gale is definitely taking him out of context. Attia is more trying to understand causality, which is more likely to stem from behavioral/psychological aspects, in combination of hyperpalatable foods. But the way I read it, doesn't show me that Dr. Attia doesn't believe in CICO. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it demonstrates that Attia believes in CICO.
Attia did do the 4K calorie experiment to show he wouldn't gain on Keto awhile back. So I'm not sure what he believes.
Jason Wittrock did the same thing, but it's funny how these guys never baseline caloric requirements prior. They just take a number and assume they can't gain. Additionally, they largely rely on certain types of nuts which can be a problem since some more recent studies show the inaccurate of their calorie counts since parts of the membrane are undigestable.
I see this as getting hung up on symptomatic relationships and a failure to address the root causes. I work in a metabolics lab where we utilize a multidisciplinary approach to every proposed project and have a biochemist, engineer, physicist, chemist, molecular biologist, physician, and microbiologist (me). The body of knowledge is so great that it takes a full team to address a seemingly simple issue, but each member on the team is reviewing from their respective discipline, then communicating concerns and problematic areas as a team.
Two years ago when we first incorporated a CICO philosophy in patient treatment and clinical development, many were doubtful due to the inaccuracies - largely those in the physics/chemistry disciplines. For those more attuned to the biological disciplines we accept the variation and incorporate this easily. In the end we developed a risk management protocol to assess the amount of risk in the variables and address each accordingly.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Hmm, following up on that, here's Attia (http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter) -- I agree with some stuff (and he DOES NOT debunk CICO or seem to be trying to do so), and disagree with other stuff:
"Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend. This is almost true! To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended. Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write. The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat."
My note: putting myself in the position of someone needing to lose weight, I don't actually think this distinction is helpful or significant. It reads to me like a salve for someone who just cannot accept the idea that their own actions and choices are the cause of them gaining weight, and as such is quite similar to the kinds of things that make many weight-loss gurus popular: you didn't make yourself fat, BigFood made you fat. Also, as someone who mostly ate whole foods (and not a lot of highly refined carbs) when gaining, the idea that eating lots of low nutrient processed foods made me overeat and get fat just does not make sense and is kind of presumptuous.
Moreover, even if I were someone who ate more of that sort of stuff (as I was in my mid to late 20s, but apparently not compared to the US average), I still wouldn't think the food made me fat or made me overeat, because I CHOSE what food to eat and when I decided to (for nutrition and health reasons) change what I ate, it was easy to do so. Well, not always easy -- I had to learn to cook better and have a plan about how to fit it in my life -- but not something that was outside the realm of "things one can choose to do if one cares about it." Indeed, WHY I decided to do this, in addition to caring about nutrition and health, is that I knew it would make it easier to control and lower calories (although I was not then counting), and it did. So contrary to what Attia suggests here, I would say that in my mid-to-late 20s I gained weight because I was overeating, and that in order to fix that problem I reduced calories in (in part by changing my food choices and habits) AND increased calories out (I realized I had become inactive -- for reasons NOT discussed by Attia -- and changed that too).
Attia goes on to make a big point about how CO needs to include calories expended in digestion, and that what you eat makes a difference as to that amount. IMO -- and this was covered earlier in the thread -- within the range of a healthy and satisfying diet, it probably does not make that much difference. Increasing protein increases it a bit, but the average person in the US doesn't eat low protein, and there's a pretty set range of protein amount that makes sense, so it's not going to end up making that big a difference. Going from high carb (although average SAD is only about 50% carbs) to low carb will make little or no difference, since fat takes fewer calories to digest than anything else and refined carbs are close to the same. Higher fiber carbs like vegetables are, of course, a little higher, and high fiber foods can even be quite inefficient to digest, but I'd say whatever your diet or macro percentage you should be eating vegetables, so again this is not likely to make a lot of difference.
Or, at most, it could make a difference if you are currently eating a terrible diet, but it's easy enough to get fat not eating a terrible diet, so you can't say that calories expended in digestion are a huge factor. But sure, yeah, they are part of the equation which does absolutely nothing to debunk OP's point or the usefulness of the CICO balance in weight loss.
Attia also claims that a high carb meal is less likely to result in satiety than a high protein/fat meal. That's actually quite misleading and disingenuous, as it's mostly PROTEIN that matters and anyway people are different when it comes to satiety. For me, both high carb and high fat without protein suck for satiety, but high carb would be better. Both, however, are great, IF combined with adequate protein.
Moving on again, Attia claims that obesity occurs because your body prioritizes the storage of fat over the use of fat. If we are assuming the same activity and CI, I think that's just not true. You can't store net fat if at a significant deficit (at a very slim deficit, yeah, the body can adjust metabolically, although you'd need conditions that led to that).
He then goes on to say something that I kind of agree with: the question is whether the calories in create a condition where you want to consume more calories than you expend. Put more simply, he's talking about satiety and, perhaps, energy, how you feel. I think this matters, but I honestly think you have to be dumber than most (OR, more likely, other factors are at play) not to change what you eat if you find you are hungry. If I'm hungry and know I've already eaten a lot, and my ONLY concern is not being hungry and not overeating, I'll grab carrots or celery or something, wait 'til the meal, and think "geez, what I ate didn't seem to satisfy me, I'll rethink it." Similarly, if you feel low energy, changing what you eat makes sense.
Why do people overeat, then? Well, because they aren't paying attention to how much they eat and eat more because something looks tempting than explicit hunger, IMO.
Good example: when I was a kid and would say "mom, I'm hungry," she'd say "dinner is in 2 hours, wait." If I said "but I'm really hungry," she'd normally say "have a pickle" or "have a piece of fruit (but don't spoil dinner" or "have some carrots." That's what you do for hunger. But in my 20s sometimes I'd be at work late and be depressed and someone would say "let's order dinner from an Italian place as long as we have to be here, work will pay, and let's start with fried calamari and end with tiramisu." And I'd think "well, that's a way to improve the evening, and plus it sounds delicious." Was it because I was just so hungry or something was CAUSING me to overeat? Or was I choosing to overeat? I think the latter.
Curious about responses from @psuLemon or others.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Well Gale is definitely taking him out of context. Attia is more trying to understand causality, which is more likely to stem from behavioral/psychological aspects, in combination of hyperpalatable foods. But the way I read it, doesn't show me that Dr. Attia doesn't believe in CICO. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it demonstrates that Attia believes in CICO.
That's exactly what I said in my post to which you were responding.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
petnet.io/pet_health_blogs/dog-and-cat-food-macronutrients-protein-part-1#.WPYeVfnyvIU
Animal husbandry typically has better eating research. Like with humans until the correct macro is found the calories can be less meaningful to solving over/under eating issues.
Like I said, cats need to eat the right diet, but that is not sufficient.
Humans do not eat "a macro." Any good human diet is made up of three macros. The amount of carbs you need to include can be near 0, true, but especially in our society it would be extremely hard to get adequate micronutrients in that case, and a sensible, healthy human diet should at least include some vegetables (carbs), probably far more than most people in the US eat.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
petnet.io/pet_health_blogs/dog-and-cat-food-macronutrients-protein-part-1#.WPYeVfnyvIU
Animal husbandry typically has better eating research. Like with humans until the correct macro is found the calories can be less meaningful to solving over/under eating issues.
That blog post has nothing to do with either over or under eating.
It is about the digestibility of different foods for dogs and cats, something that is useful to know since *surprise* neither digests food like humans do and both have different dietary requirements than humans.
That link has zero relevance to this thread or your claim.13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Hmm, following up on that, here's Attia (http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter) -- I agree with some stuff (and he DOES NOT debunk CICO or seem to be trying to do so), and disagree with other stuff:
"Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend. This is almost true! To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended. Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write. The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat."
My note: putting myself in the position of someone needing to lose weight, I don't actually think this distinction is helpful or significant. It reads to me like a salve for someone who just cannot accept the idea that their own actions and choices are the cause of them gaining weight, and as such is quite similar to the kinds of things that make many weight-loss gurus popular: you didn't make yourself fat, BigFood made you fat. Also, as someone who mostly ate whole foods (and not a lot of highly refined carbs) when gaining, the idea that eating lots of low nutrient processed foods made me overeat and get fat just does not make sense and is kind of presumptuous.
Moreover, even if I were someone who ate more of that sort of stuff (as I was in my mid to late 20s, but apparently not compared to the US average), I still wouldn't think the food made me fat or made me overeat, because I CHOSE what food to eat and when I decided to (for nutrition and health reasons) change what I ate, it was easy to do so. Well, not always easy -- I had to learn to cook better and have a plan about how to fit it in my life -- but not something that was outside the realm of "things one can choose to do if one cares about it." Indeed, WHY I decided to do this, in addition to caring about nutrition and health, is that I knew it would make it easier to control and lower calories (although I was not then counting), and it did. So contrary to what Attia suggests here, I would say that in my mid-to-late 20s I gained weight because I was overeating, and that in order to fix that problem I reduced calories in (in part by changing my food choices and habits) AND increased calories out (I realized I had become inactive -- for reasons NOT discussed by Attia -- and changed that too).
Attia goes on to make a big point about how CO needs to include calories expended in digestion, and that what you eat makes a difference as to that amount. IMO -- and this was covered earlier in the thread -- within the range of a healthy and satisfying diet, it probably does not make that much difference. Increasing protein increases it a bit, but the average person in the US doesn't eat low protein, and there's a pretty set range of protein amount that makes sense, so it's not going to end up making that big a difference. Going from high carb (although average SAD is only about 50% carbs) to low carb will make little or no difference, since fat takes fewer calories to digest than anything else and refined carbs are close to the same. Higher fiber carbs like vegetables are, of course, a little higher, and high fiber foods can even be quite inefficient to digest, but I'd say whatever your diet or macro percentage you should be eating vegetables, so again this is not likely to make a lot of difference.
Or, at most, it could make a difference if you are currently eating a terrible diet, but it's easy enough to get fat not eating a terrible diet, so you can't say that calories expended in digestion are a huge factor. But sure, yeah, they are part of the equation which does absolutely nothing to debunk OP's point or the usefulness of the CICO balance in weight loss.
Attia also claims that a high carb meal is less likely to result in satiety than a high protein/fat meal. That's actually quite misleading and disingenuous, as it's mostly PROTEIN that matters and anyway people are different when it comes to satiety. For me, both high carb and high fat without protein suck for satiety, but high carb would be better. Both, however, are great, IF combined with adequate protein.
Moving on again, Attia claims that obesity occurs because your body prioritizes the storage of fat over the use of fat. If we are assuming the same activity and CI, I think that's just not true. You can't store net fat if at a significant deficit (at a very slim deficit, yeah, the body can adjust metabolically, although you'd need conditions that led to that).
He then goes on to say something that I kind of agree with: the question is whether the calories in create a condition where you want to consume more calories than you expend. Put more simply, he's talking about satiety and, perhaps, energy, how you feel. I think this matters, but I honestly think you have to be dumber than most (OR, more likely, other factors are at play) not to change what you eat if you find you are hungry. If I'm hungry and know I've already eaten a lot, and my ONLY concern is not being hungry and not overeating, I'll grab carrots or celery or something, wait 'til the meal, and think "geez, what I ate didn't seem to satisfy me, I'll rethink it." Similarly, if you feel low energy, changing what you eat makes sense.
Why do people overeat, then? Well, because they aren't paying attention to how much they eat and eat more because something looks tempting than explicit hunger, IMO.
Good example: when I was a kid and would say "mom, I'm hungry," she'd say "dinner is in 2 hours, wait." If I said "but I'm really hungry," she'd normally say "have a pickle" or "have a piece of fruit (but don't spoil dinner" or "have some carrots." That's what you do for hunger. But in my 20s sometimes I'd be at work late and be depressed and someone would say "let's order dinner from an Italian place as long as we have to be here, work will pay, and let's start with fried calamari and end with tiramisu." And I'd think "well, that's a way to improve the evening, and plus it sounds delicious." Was it because I was just so hungry or something was CAUSING me to overeat? Or was I choosing to overeat? I think the latter.
Curious about responses from @psuLemon or others.
I am in complete agreement with this.
Taking a binary approach and polling those successful in achieving their goals on MFP the vast majority identifying personal behavior as the root cause in their overeating. Those who blame "Big Food", metabolic disorder, etc. are unsuccessful in achieving their goals, simply because they have not addressed the root cause.
Why do people overeat? The same reason people overspend - they can and they are generally ignorant of how to maintain a budget.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)
Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?
If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."
So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.
This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.
Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.
What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).
What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.
Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.
Hmm, following up on that, here's Attia (http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter) -- I agree with some stuff (and he DOES NOT debunk CICO or seem to be trying to do so), and disagree with other stuff:
"Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend. This is almost true! To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended. Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write. The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat."
My note: putting myself in the position of someone needing to lose weight, I don't actually think this distinction is helpful or significant. It reads to me like a salve for someone who just cannot accept the idea that their own actions and choices are the cause of them gaining weight, and as such is quite similar to the kinds of things that make many weight-loss gurus popular: you didn't make yourself fat, BigFood made you fat. Also, as someone who mostly ate whole foods (and not a lot of highly refined carbs) when gaining, the idea that eating lots of low nutrient processed foods made me overeat and get fat just does not make sense and is kind of presumptuous.
Moreover, even if I were someone who ate more of that sort of stuff (as I was in my mid to late 20s, but apparently not compared to the US average), I still wouldn't think the food made me fat or made me overeat, because I CHOSE what food to eat and when I decided to (for nutrition and health reasons) change what I ate, it was easy to do so. Well, not always easy -- I had to learn to cook better and have a plan about how to fit it in my life -- but not something that was outside the realm of "things one can choose to do if one cares about it." Indeed, WHY I decided to do this, in addition to caring about nutrition and health, is that I knew it would make it easier to control and lower calories (although I was not then counting), and it did. So contrary to what Attia suggests here, I would say that in my mid-to-late 20s I gained weight because I was overeating, and that in order to fix that problem I reduced calories in (in part by changing my food choices and habits) AND increased calories out (I realized I had become inactive -- for reasons NOT discussed by Attia -- and changed that too).
Attia goes on to make a big point about how CO needs to include calories expended in digestion, and that what you eat makes a difference as to that amount. IMO -- and this was covered earlier in the thread -- within the range of a healthy and satisfying diet, it probably does not make that much difference. Increasing protein increases it a bit, but the average person in the US doesn't eat low protein, and there's a pretty set range of protein amount that makes sense, so it's not going to end up making that big a difference. Going from high carb (although average SAD is only about 50% carbs) to low carb will make little or no difference, since fat takes fewer calories to digest than anything else and refined carbs are close to the same. Higher fiber carbs like vegetables are, of course, a little higher, and high fiber foods can even be quite inefficient to digest, but I'd say whatever your diet or macro percentage you should be eating vegetables, so again this is not likely to make a lot of difference.
Or, at most, it could make a difference if you are currently eating a terrible diet, but it's easy enough to get fat not eating a terrible diet, so you can't say that calories expended in digestion are a huge factor. But sure, yeah, they are part of the equation which does absolutely nothing to debunk OP's point or the usefulness of the CICO balance in weight loss.
Attia also claims that a high carb meal is less likely to result in satiety than a high protein/fat meal. That's actually quite misleading and disingenuous, as it's mostly PROTEIN that matters and anyway people are different when it comes to satiety. For me, both high carb and high fat without protein suck for satiety, but high carb would be better. Both, however, are great, IF combined with adequate protein.
Moving on again, Attia claims that obesity occurs because your body prioritizes the storage of fat over the use of fat. If we are assuming the same activity and CI, I think that's just not true. You can't store net fat if at a significant deficit (at a very slim deficit, yeah, the body can adjust metabolically, although you'd need conditions that led to that).
He then goes on to say something that I kind of agree with: the question is whether the calories in create a condition where you want to consume more calories than you expend. Put more simply, he's talking about satiety and, perhaps, energy, how you feel. I think this matters, but I honestly think you have to be dumber than most (OR, more likely, other factors are at play) not to change what you eat if you find you are hungry. If I'm hungry and know I've already eaten a lot, and my ONLY concern is not being hungry and not overeating, I'll grab carrots or celery or something, wait 'til the meal, and think "geez, what I ate didn't seem to satisfy me, I'll rethink it." Similarly, if you feel low energy, changing what you eat makes sense.
Why do people overeat, then? Well, because they aren't paying attention to how much they eat and eat more because something looks tempting than explicit hunger, IMO.
Good example: when I was a kid and would say "mom, I'm hungry," she'd say "dinner is in 2 hours, wait." If I said "but I'm really hungry," she'd normally say "have a pickle" or "have a piece of fruit (but don't spoil dinner" or "have some carrots." That's what you do for hunger. But in my 20s sometimes I'd be at work late and be depressed and someone would say "let's order dinner from an Italian place as long as we have to be here, work will pay, and let's start with fried calamari and end with tiramisu." And I'd think "well, that's a way to improve the evening, and plus it sounds delicious." Was it because I was just so hungry or something was CAUSING me to overeat? Or was I choosing to overeat? I think the latter.
Curious about responses from @psuLemon or others.
I am in complete agreement with this.
Taking a binary approach and polling those successful in achieving their goals on MFP the vast majority identifying personal behavior as the root cause in their overeating. Those who blame "Big Food", metabolic disorder, etc. are unsuccessful in achieving their goals, simply because they have not addressed the root cause.
Why do people overeat? The same reason people overspend - they can and they are generally ignorant of how to maintain a budget.
Comparing CICO to having a budget is perfect. The budget version of CICO is Cash In Cash Out. Some people have income that is hard to predict, like if they live off of tips, or cash out that is hard to predict. That doesn't mean budgets don't work, just that you're estimating the cash in and out and truing it up as you go. People who ignore budgeting are more likely to end up in debt.11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions