CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
Math and physics teacher here. I agree CI<CO is needed for weight loss.
I do also believe that some need to address dietary/nutritional and health needs to make meeting that equation for a sustained length of time (months and months of weight loss for many) doable.
CI<CO is the key. To reach that over the long term people may need to change many things, and not just the number of calories they consume.
which I clearly stated in my OP....
Which I clearly agreed with...
CICO is the key but dietary modifications may be crucial to attaining it. Go figure. We agreed on something.... Does that feel as weird to you as it does to me? LOL5 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"
That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."
I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.
As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.
Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.
This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.
7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"
That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."
I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.
As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.
Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.
This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.
I think you are trying too hard to find flaws.
Majority of people eat the same foods in a cycle (a week, 5 days, 10 days)
You can focus on only calorie dense foods such as meat and pasta, and ignore boiled veggies, tsp of sauces here and there. You gotta be very food obsessed or very undisciplined to overshoot vegetable calories.
My family eats from the same plates and bowls. It's easy to get similar amounts.
I find it surprising that you have a complete crazy schedule that you can't manage to keep a semi consistent eating schedule. I don't mean everyday has to be the same. Mine isn't. I can manage 2 or 3 meals for any time and I vaguely know the amount of foods that fill me up and importantly, absolutely keep me going healthily.
You can go with 25%, but 20% doesn't hurt. Consult with the bathroom scale. If you're honest with yourself and dedicated, mix in a 30%. Point is, it doesn't have to be precisely measured.
I don't measure anything. I don't even know the number of calories I consume day to day. If I look at a donut as 350 Calories, I won't be able to fully enjoy it. I've been maintaining my goal range for forever.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »* ducks in *
@GaleHawkins:
I think this article from a peer-reviewed journal is probably better for your purposes. The link was included in the Time magazine article you mentioned.
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9
Also, in your the second list on the Caloriegate website, I think #5 (Dr. Attia's post) makes a better point, namely that it's important to figure out why someone is overeating calories and try to address it, not just to know that they are. Knowing that you're doing something can be helpful, but it isn't the same as controlling it. NB: I'm not endorsing Dr. Attia or anything else he might have said. Just that I think he makes a helpful point here. And I'm not disputing anything in the OP.
* ducks out *
Thanks for the great link: A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
Dr. Peter Attia blog was how I learned to do nutritional ketosis back in 2014 but now he is eating more like 100 carbs daily. The man knows his stuff and is a true professional in my experience as are the others.
His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The problem with arguments against CICO is there is no evidence against energy balance. The problem is the understanding of the parameters of what CICO is. The arguments are overly flawed because they argue against response from one food against another, failing to most mediocre understanding that diets aren't may up of one food (looking at your Dr. Fung). There is NEVER a scientific article that can dispute energy balance. If you can show me one, I'd be surprised and would completely alter my way of thinking. Having said that, if you really want to look at this more, look for any metabolic ward study and see what the first step is? Have a guess? It's to measure energy balance. And that is where they make caloric adjustments.5 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"
That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."
I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.
As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.
Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.
This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.
I think you are trying too hard to find flaws.
Majority of people eat the same foods in a cycle (a week, 5 days, 10 days)
You can focus on only calorie dense foods such as meat and pasta, and ignore boiled veggies, tsp of sauces here and there. You gotta be very food obsessed or very undisciplined to overshoot vegetable calories.
My family eats from the same plates and bowls. It's easy to get similar amounts.
I find it surprising that you have a complete crazy schedule that you can't manage to keep a semi consistent eating schedule. I don't mean everyday has to be the same. Mine isn't. I can manage 2 or 3 meals for any time and I vaguely know the amount of foods that fill me up and importantly, absolutely keep me going healthily.
You can go with 25%, but 20% doesn't hurt. Consult with the bathroom scale. If you're honest with yourself and dedicated, mix in a 30%. Point is, it doesn't have to be precisely measured.
I don't measure anything. I don't even know the number of calories I consume day to day. If I look at a donut as 350 Calories, I won't be able to fully enjoy it. I've been maintaining my goal range for forever.
Eating 25% less while keeping energy expenditure the same is a good example of using CICO to create weight loss. You certainly wouldn't argue that you'd end up losing weight if you reduced your intake by 25% while also reducing your energy output by 25%, would you?1 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"
That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."
I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.
As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.
Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.
This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.
I think you are trying too hard to find flaws.
Majority of people eat the same foods in a cycle (a week, 5 days, 10 days)
I couldn't say what the majority of people do, as I have not conducted a scientifically valid study that doesn't rely on self-reporting and somehow manages not to influence behavior by the knowledge of the subjects that they are being studied. But it's certainly not what I do, and not what a lot of my friends and family do, who are always interested in trying new things. Yes, I did eat that way as a child, when my mother had a repertoire of meals to feed her large family, within a budget, and repeated them -- but even she had more than 10 days' worth of meals she could make (roast beef, sliced beef in gravy, beef stew, swiss steak, corned beef and cabbage, beef liver, ham, ham and potato casserole, ham sandwiches, ham and eggs, pork chops, pork roast, sliced roast pork in gravy, kielbasa and eggs, fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken livers and bacon, fish sticks, fried or poached fish, spaghetti with meat sauce, sloppy joe, hamburgers, meat loaf, tuna casserole, homemade baked macaroni and cheese, grilled cheese, homemade soup and homemade bread...plus of course a variety of veggie and starch sides).You can focus on only calorie dense foods such as meat and pasta, and ignore boiled veggies, tsp of sauces here and there. You gotta be very food obsessed or very undisciplined to overshoot vegetable calories.
I sometimes consume the majority of my calories in a given meal or even a given day in vegetables (not necessarily boiled, but often steamed, roasted, baked, or raw, and I account for any added fats). I have many meals and even whole days in which I consume no meat or pasta. And that was the way I was eating when I gained the weight I've lost since counting calories. I was just consuming too many calories. And throwing pejoratives at people like "food obsessed" or "undisciplined" says more about you than about the people you're judging.My family eats from the same plates and bowls. It's easy to get similar amounts.
A similar "amount" (volume) is meaningless for the purposes of comparison and reducing calorie intake if the foods are different.I find it surprising that you have a complete crazy schedule that you can't manage to keep a semi consistent eating schedule. I don't mean everyday has to be the same. Mine isn't. I can manage 2 or 3 meals for any time and I vaguely know the amount of foods that fill me up and importantly, absolutely keep me going healthily.
When did I say anything about a completely crazy schedule? But I do have a job that sometimes forces me to have lunch at noon, and other days when I don't get time for lunch until 3 p.m. That's surprising? I think lots of people who don't work for unions or under contracts that guarantee set break times have jobs like that.
I know much better than "vaguely" what amount of foods fill me up and provide me with the nutrition I need. How do I know that so well? From tracking and logging my food. Information is so weird that way.You can go with 25%, but 20% doesn't hurt. Consult with the bathroom scale. If you're honest with yourself and dedicated, mix in a 30%. Point is, it doesn't have to be precisely measured.
You were the one who said one-fourth (which is 25%); I was just responding to your imaginary advisor's advice.
I weigh myself on a scale. I'm very honest with myself. I lost 15% of my initial BW and have kept if off for more than three years.
I agree that it doesn't have to be precisely measured. I just don't understand your insistence that there's something crazy complicated about actually tracking the calories one consumes. Yes, 30 years ago, when you had to do it on a piece of paper after looking calorie counts up in a book, it was tiresomely burdensome, and I was unsuccessful. Twenty years ago, when I could log on a rudimentary program on a CD using my computer, it was still extremely burdensome, and the database was extremely limited, and I was unsuccessful. For all its faults, MFP is so easy compared to those earlier options, and it lets me eat whatever I want, because I have a way of comparing different foods to each other (by their calorie counts) and I know with a reasonable degree of certainty how what I'm eating for the day compares to my maintenance calorie needs.I don't measure anything. I don't even know the number of calories I consume day to day. If I look at a donut as 350 Calories, I won't be able to fully enjoy it. I've been maintaining my goal range for forever.
And if I had to eat "the same foods in a cycle," always dishing out the same 25% less than some amount I think I remember from years ago as what I used to eat, I wouldn't be able to fully enjoy it. It's bad enough that, cooking for one, I pretty much have to stick with one or two fresh veggies and one or two fresh fruits for the week or risk spoilage and food waste. If I have a food "cycle," it's more like a year, taking advantage of what's in season, cooking dishes that go in the oven or simmer on the stove in the winter, sticking more with raw, sauteed, and stir-fried meals in the summer.
I'm glad you found something that works for you. I'm sure it will work for some other people too. I'm also sure there are a lot of people it won't work for.13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.1 -
@lynn,
"nd if I had to eat "the same foods in a cycle," always dishing out the same 25% less than some amount I think I remember from years ago as what I used to eat, I wouldn't be able to fully enjoy it."
If I understand it correctly, you don't eat the same foods in years?
How many types of meats, fishes and vegetables do you include in your diet?
If I try really hard, my list of vegetables is about two dozens. And about 5 meats, just different cuts.
Unless I'm really obsessed over eating, a rough amount of, say, 2 handfuls of green beans or 2 large zuchinni and one chicken breast suffice. If my day's activity is more than usual -- who wouldn't be able to tell? -- I'll add two cups of rice.
The point is, it's usually the same meats, same vegetables, albeit made into different dishes. I would think most people know their typical size of beef, pork, to consume healthily, give or take a few oz different. A person would be in trouble if she fluctuated from 8 oz to 20 oz and couldn't tell!!! Even that is hard to happen as you can ask your local butcher to cut and wrap any size you want.
Also, You can also lose 1.5 lbs in two weeks and then gain .8 lbs in the third week. The margin is large enough that no one should be able to miss.
If you are still so worried about unhealthily undereating, which takes a lot actually, keep some favorite snacks nearby.
"I just don't understand your insistence that there's something crazy complicated about actually tracking the calories one consumes."
Tracking is not complicated or burdensome for me at all. It's akin to separating beans by different colors -- boring, unnecessary and time consuming. In fact I got very good at tracking that that was all I saw and thought of when I looked at foods. LOL.
When I'm offered a donut at the office, I want to pick one most appealing and enjoy it unrestraintly instead of juggling the calorie balance or having the calorie decide my taste which is never good. That's just one simple example. There are group lunches, family potlucks, etc..0 -
Subjective. Because again I deal with it everyday at my work. And it's the same question posed on the forums here, yet for some reason either people DON'T want to believe it or again they are looking for some other way to do it.endlessfall16 wrote: »
Lol, you have that now. It's advertised all over the internet. Nutrisystem, paleo, Weight watchers, Atkins, etc. are ALL "insights" on how easy and effortless it is to do THEIR DIET PLAN. All it really is is CICO hidden behind a money making scheme. Tell me, how is that a million times better than just figuring out that you need to eat less than you burn?endlessfall16 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Through my years here, I've noticed that a great many people who have success calorie counting and otherwise keeping track of their CICO are in professions such as accounting and engineering and/or are otherwise a bit anal retentive about things.French_Peasant wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
And I'm the exact opposite. I math well, so figuring this out and learning to count calories has made weight loss very simple for me. If I go over, I don't lose what I want. It's a math problem for me. I find this way easier than cutting out foods.The issue for many people IMO, is that some just don't math well or as mentioned are just inaccurate in their calories eaten and burned. But it works PERIOD. Without it weight gain/loss/maintenance doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm an accountant...it was a no brainer for me. I just had to keep another ledger to track it...I keep lots of ledgers.
Geek.
Oh, wait. I'm an accountant too.
Can I join the math club? I get lots of spreadsheets from actuaries and listen very attentively while they 'splain it to me...twice.* CICO is a snap once you grapple with Monte Carlo simulations...plus it has the added benefit of dealing with food, not with death. YAY.
*I will swan about in actuary-land with my free calculator I got from a local arts organization. VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I'll allow it...
The math really isn't even that hard though. I'm a stay at home mom with an English/political science degree and I can't even help my 6th grader with her math homework. Somehow I still figured out CICO and lost 50lbs. If I can do it, then everyone can do it
No, the math isn't hard at all...when I'm talking about people in those fields and similar, I'm not really talking about the math...this is about as simple from a math standpoint as you get...but typically people in those fields and similar like data...they're a bit OCD in analyzing such data and other things...they like keeping ledgers and spreadsheets for everything...they tend to be very detail oriented and analytical, etc.
Anyone can do this for sure...the math is super easy...but I think in general there's a certain type of personality that does well with calorie counting in particular...it's definitely not for everyone which is why there are so many different diet plans out there...for a lot of people, those are easier even though CICO is still in play whether they know it or not.
This is what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. CICO loving arguers are stuck in the same crude gear arguing on a nonargument. As someone else put it...majoring in minor? Trolling?
There's no argument from me re CICO. I have no problem or misunderstanding with it. Nothing complex about it. I just don't care for the jargon. It's crude as a term used for describing something. "Eat less, move more", "Eat less, exercise more" are better language, but none of these, CICO included, is significant a piece of info. or any real revelation for me.
It would be million times better if someone posted new insights, ways to make dieting better, more effortless, even that would only help a handful of people... That would be worthwhile.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm not going to speak for those systems. I rather keep an open mind and extract useful elements if there's any from anything.
I, and many people I know, already figured out the fact that I need to eat less than I burn, just as I figured out fire is hot. That piece of knowledge alone doesn't help anyone or anything.
This piece of knowledge is essential because THEY AREN'T FOLLOWING IT and likely why they aren't getting their results. And fall for scams like "juicing" or "detoxing" because for some reason, it sounds reasonable.
Occam's Razor rules when it comes to weight loss/gain/maintenance.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 10 -
Lol, this is EXACTLY how most people who are overweight/obese think. How the heck do you think they got that way? It surely WASN'T cause they were counting calories.endlessfall16 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »"Eat less, move more" is generally a fine way of helping people to lose weight. That said, one could easily argue that it's inherently less helpful than explaining CICO. With the former, the questions then become, "eat how much less?" And "move how much more?"
That's where explaining the concept of CICO becomes better. It tells the person, "eat however much less and move however much more so that you end up burning more Calories/energy than you consume."
I'm not against any language that helps people. The difference between you and me is that I don't make a Rocky Mountain out of an anthill with a particular concept.
As to your question, the adviser could easily tell the dieter to cut back 1/4 anytime he eats, for example. Go about your day the same, don't mind any calorie or equation, eat your usual foods but push 1/4 of the amount aside. I guarantee that will work.
Btw, I know quite many elder people who would never read label for calories and nutrition info. Luckily they don't have to.
This might work fine if you're someone who eats the same thing day after day (although even then people are prone to making bad estimates of what they used to eat if they weren't actually measuring it, and inflating what they think is 25% less over time), but if you eat a wide variety of foods, and variety of meals and calorie totals from day to day, it doesn't work. If an adviser told me to eat 25% less, my response would be 25% less than what? Even if we're talking about a single meal, like spaghetti with tomato-meat sauce, there was no "usual" amount I would have. One day I might be hungry and have seconds. Another day I might have had a late lunch, and would only have a small amount of spaghetti for dinner.
I think you are trying too hard to find flaws.
Majority of people eat the same foods in a cycle (a week, 5 days, 10 days)
You can focus on only calorie dense foods such as meat and pasta, and ignore boiled veggies, tsp of sauces here and there. You gotta be very food obsessed or very undisciplined to overshoot vegetable calories.
My family eats from the same plates and bowls. It's easy to get similar amounts.
I find it surprising that you have a complete crazy schedule that you can't manage to keep a semi consistent eating schedule. I don't mean everyday has to be the same. Mine isn't. I can manage 2 or 3 meals for any time and I vaguely know the amount of foods that fill me up and importantly, absolutely keep me going healthily.
You can go with 25%, but 20% doesn't hurt. Consult with the bathroom scale. If you're honest with yourself and dedicated, mix in a 30%. Point is, it doesn't have to be precisely measured.
I don't measure anything. I don't even know the number of calories I consume day to day. If I look at a donut as 350 Calories, I won't be able to fully enjoy it. I've been maintaining my goal range for forever.
Again, if it wasn't an issue to just eat what people believed is less (and I hear it all that time that people say "I DON'T EAT THAT MUCH), there SHOULDN'T be questions on the forums about calories. And that's certainly not the case. And the forums don't even represent half the people on the actually world wide application.
You can bury your head in the sand on what you anecdotally believes should be the way to teach. Then you can come and try to do my job and tell me you can do it better with better results your way. I doubt it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 20 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »@lynn,
"nd if I had to eat "the same foods in a cycle," always dishing out the same 25% less than some amount I think I remember from years ago as what I used to eat, I wouldn't be able to fully enjoy it."
If I understand it correctly, you don't eat the same foods in years?
No, years comes from the fact that I've been tracking for years, so if I had been using your method (or that of your imaginary "advisor"), I would have to rely on extremely fallible human memory to know how much I ate of this food three-plus years ago -- which again assumes I had some one specific amount that I ate of that food every time I ate it.
You keep moving the goal posts. In your post that I was responding to (and it would make it a lot easier for anyone reading this to follow the discussion if you used the quote function, rather than cutting and pasting or retyping), you said that most people eat the same foods within a cycle of at most 10 days.How many types of meats, fishes and vegetables do you include in your diet?
If I try really hard, my list of vegetables is about two dozens. And about 5 meats, just different cuts.
Not everyone has a diet that limited.
For meat, I mostly eat beef, pork, and lamb, but I won't turn down bison, antelope, rabbit, or goat. But that's dozens of different types of meat, if you recognize the difference in calorie levels that different cuts and fat levels can make, including organ meats. Plus I eat different prepared sausages -- I frequently buy things I've never had before. About a dozen kinds of fin fish, six different kinds of shellfish, three different kinds of poultry (again in different cuts that make a difference to calories) plus organ meats. Plus tofu, tempeh, seitan, and different manufacturers' various "faux meat" products, each prepared to its own recipe, with vary levels of fats, different amounts of vegetables, etc.
At least three dozen different kinds of vegetables. Plus at least 16 different kinds of fresh fruit.
Probably a different cheese every week. Dairy milk at different fat levels, traditional and greek yogurt, usually plain, at different fat levels. Cream cheese, butter, buttermilk, cottage cheese at different fat levels. Eggs, usually large chicken eggs, but sometimes medium, extra large, or jumbo; sometimes duck eggs.
I eat probably a dozen different kinds of beans and half a dozen different kinds of nuts. I have at least half a dozen different grains (for breakfast and sides) in my pantry, at least half a dozen different kinds of grain and nut flours in my kitchen for baking, four or five different kinds of seeds. Pasta, rice, quinoa. Three different kinds of commercially prepared nuts butters, plus occasionally I whip up my own nut butters and hummuses with different ingredients every time.
Dried fruits, dried mushrooms, dried seaweed.
I prefer to cook from scratch, but also buy frozen, packaged, canned and fresh prepared foods (burritos, soup, waffles, salsas, crackers, etc.), which I don't eat often, and don't buy the same ones over and over.
When I do cook, I very seldom have a stand-alone piece of meat, with a starch on the side and a veg. I make stir-fries, casseroles, stews, soups; I construct layered bowls of various ingredients that are never the same twice. If it's something that's going to last more than one meal, I generally use the recipe function.
I eat at dozens of different fast, fast-casual, and full-service restaurants, plus occasionally at places I've never been before and likely never will be again. Calories can vary wildly, sometimes even for foods that seem similar.Unless I'm really obsessed over eating, a rough amount of, say, 2 handfuls of green beans or 2 large zuchinni and one chicken breast suffice. If my day's activity is more than usual -- who wouldn't be able to tell? -- I'll add two cups of rice.
The point is, it's usually the same meats, same vegetables, albeit made into different dishes. I would think most people know their typical size of beef, pork, to consume healthily, give or take a few oz different. A person would be in trouble if she fluctuated from 8 oz to 20 oz and couldn't tell!!! Even that is hard to happen as you can ask your local butcher to cut and wrap any size you want.
This seems to be a recurring source of your inability to comprehend why accurate tracking and logging work better for some people than just eye-balling and trying to eat the same amount of every day. I do not have a "typical size of beef, pork to consume healthily." Some meals the appropriate amount might only be two ounces, almost as a topping or condiment. Some meals I might have four to six ounces as my main source of protein. Occasionally, I might have a eight or 10 ounce serving. Many of my meals don't include any meat, fish, or poultry.Also, You can also lose 1.5 lbs in two weeks and then gain .8 lbs in the third week. The margin is large enough that no one should be able to miss.
Actually, I lost my weight at a pretty steady 2 lbs a week for three months, until I decided to reduce my deficit. It was and has continued to be very reassuring to have the tracking data that tells me what my maintenance level is, and makes it easy to know what to expect when I step on the scale. I've never been remotely tempted to post one of those "HELP -- I've been eating right and exercising and I gained two pounds!!!" threads.
Where does this come from? I never said one thing about being worried about unealthily undereating.If you are still so worried about unhealthily undereating, which takes a lot actually, keep some favorite snacks nearby.
But if someone were worried about that, perhaps having data to make an informed decision about which of their favorite snacks might be the best choice wouldn't be a horrible thing."I just don't understand your insistence that there's something crazy complicated about actually tracking the calories one consumes."
Tracking is not complicated or burdensome for me at all. It's akin to separating beans by different colors -- boring, unnecessary and time consuming. In fact I got very good at tracking that that was all I saw and thought of when I looked at foods. LOL.
When I'm offered a donut at the office, I want to pick one most appealing and enjoy it unrestraintly instead of juggling the calorie balance or having the calorie decide my taste which is never good. That's just one simple example. There are group lunches, family potlucks, etc..
The way you describe your meals, from a limited set of foods, with the same size piece of the same meat with a handful of one of just a dozen vegetables on the side, and maybe rice... that to me would be "boring" and "unnecessary." I'll admit it's not precisely "time consuming," but it would feel like a waste of time, when I could be eating a wide variety of delicious foods that I know absolutely are meeting my energy and nutritional requirements.
If I'm offered a treat at the office (we don't really do doughnuts, but other things occasionally show up), I eat it if I want it and decide it's worth the calories. The calories don't "decide my taste." How is my choosing whether or not to have the cookie or cake or whatever it is based on whether I think it's worth it a bad thing, but it's a good thing when you decide to have a piece of meat that you believe is your "typical size" and no more because you've decided that's a healthy choice for you is a good thing? And if your eye-balling and inner knowledge of what you need to eat is so accurate that it allows you to maintain your weight, how is that different from using a different set of tools for those of us who aren't as gifted as you to decide what to eat to maintain our weight?
We all have to make choices. You've chosen to eyeball and not track, because measuring and tracking is boring and unnecessary to you. I've chosen to measure and track, so that I can confidently eat from the wide range of wonderful foods that I am so fortunate to have available to me in the 21st century in a wealthy country with a great distribution system, global trade, in a multi-ethnic metropolitan area with nearby local farms, prepared differently almost every time I eat, without having to wonder where that extra 20 pounds came from since last year.15 -
-
Why do some people who don't consciously calorie count and have lost weight get so judgey about those of us who just like the accuracy (within the limitations of energy expenditure estimates etc) of tracking? Or they think our way of eating is deeply flawed because we sometimes need or want to keep tracking in maintenance.
You do you boo and I'll do me.
CICO is the science, calorie counting/tracking is the method of implementing.
This is not a discussion about the obesity crisis. This is not a discussion about various methods of not counting calories and still losing. This is not a discussion about mental or physical illness that some experience which contributed to behaviours that lead to weight gain. This is not a discussion about your feels on varying methods or ways of eating. This is not a discussion about socio-economic factors in weight management.
In short, this is not a debate, take it to the debate forum if you want to do that. It is simply an explanation of the scientific principle at play that is behind all methods of weight loss/maintenance/gain.36 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Why do some people who don't consciously calorie count and have lost weight get so judgey about those of us who just like the accuracy (within the limitations of energy expenditure estimates etc) of tracking? Or they think our way of eating is deeply flawed because we sometimes need or want to keep tracking in maintenance.
You do you boo and I'll do me.
CICO is the science, calorie counting/tracking is the method of implementing.
This is not a discussion about the obesity crisis. This is not a discussion about various methods of not counting calories and still losing. This is not a discussion about mental or physical illness that some experience which contributed to behaviours that lead to weight gain. This is not a discussion about your feels on varying methods or ways of eating. This is not a discussion about socio-economic factors in weight management.
In short, this is not a debate, take it to the debate forum if you want to do that. It is simply an explanation of the scientific principle at play that is behind all methods of weight loss/maintenance/gain.
Here, here!0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Why do some people who don't consciously calorie count and have lost weight get so judgey about those of us who just like the accuracy (within the limitations of energy expenditure estimates etc) of tracking? Or they think our way of eating is deeply flawed because we sometimes need or want to keep tracking in maintenance.
You do you boo and I'll do me.
CICO is the science, calorie counting/tracking is the method of implementing.
This is not a discussion about the obesity crisis. This is not a discussion about various methods of not counting calories and still losing. This is not a discussion about mental or physical illness that some experience which contributed to behaviours that lead to weight gain. This is not a discussion about your feels on varying methods or ways of eating. This is not a discussion about socio-economic factors in weight management.
In short, this is not a debate, take it to the debate forum if you want to do that. It is simply an explanation of the scientific principle at play that is behind all methods of weight loss/maintenance/gain.
I totally agree with you. If not counting works for someone, good for them. For me, it's more sustainable than anything else and I thoroughly enjoy the numbers game, having concrete data for troubleshooting, the control, the jigsaw action, all of it.
It still baffles me what any of this has to do with the matter of the topic, though. What simply states "understand the science in order to know what to do if your chosen way stops working for some reason - that is, tweak your chosen way to produce a calorie deficit" does not dismiss anyone's dieting preferences.
To those who say this info is not useful, it's the difference between gravitating towards something like "low carb helps me eat less, I stopped losing, I may need to reduce my carbs further to see if this helps me achieve a deficit again" vs "it doesn't matter how much I eat on low carb, if I'm not losing it must be the artificial sweeteners kicking off my insulin response."10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
As to the bolded, Just by being here I am a testament to millions of years of evolutionary success.
Every one of my antecedents survived to puberty with adequate nutrition to procreate. There are evolutionary selection bonuses for those who overeat and can then last a famine, or have enough nutrition to keep their immune system healthy in times of outbreak (I know you are against vaccinations - with your mate n=1 of MMR and autism).
I come from Northern European peasant stock. Famine was common, and my line survived.
In your opinion that makes us all mentally ill and broken. Rather than an evolutionary success, which has not yet adapted to the abundance of food that has become available in the post-war years.
Now I know from my family's oral history that several generations struggled with their weights.The only time my grandmother was slim was during rationing. This is an example of CICO, she had reduction of CI, so she lost weight. (I know that what is overweight is relative for the time).
For a while I thought it was inevitable that I would be overweight. But I addressed MY numbers for CI<CO, started losing, experimented with satiety FOR ME, and kept consistent with calorie counting. I ate a massively healthy diet, mostly home cooked dozens of vegetables, meats and grains cooked dozens of ways, like @lynn_glenmont and put on weight. I now eat the same things but tighter portions. and I probably eat more chocolate now because I've reduced the guilt around it.
@GaleHawkins good for you that you found a way to balance YOUR CI=CO, with counting macros, but It was 100% of the reason you were obese in 2014.
12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Here is why I went from 175 to 220.... it's called college. I ate and drink like complete crap. In fact, I had a whole month where I ate burgers every night because a few of my friends and I supported our dance team and bought cards which allowed buy one get one at McDonalds. I frequently drank alcohol, had cheesesteaks pretty much 2 to 3 nights a week, chinese several nights a week and much more. I got fat because I stopped playing soccer and ice hockey, and still ate like I used to.11 -
OK, caught up now! (*phew*).
zyxs, agree how funny it is the way the thread developed!
MFP is effectively set up to track the number of calories you consume, subtract them from your daily allowance and add back any exercise calories you choose to put in to give you a larger amount of calories for the day. Therefore a) you don't ACTUALLY have to do any maths, just type in the numbers, b) if you do that you are effectively monitoring your CICO, whatever other "diet" (paleo, keto, no carbs after 3pm, only eat meat on a Tuesday or whatever) and c) if you are not going to track your calories (even inaccurately) then I'm not clear how you expect MFP to help you, except as an outlet for your views on diet, nutrition, training regime or whatever.
Remember the "black and white" or "blue and gold" dress debate?
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Here is why I went from 175 to 220.... it's called college. I ate and drink like complete crap. In fact, I had a whole month where I ate burgers every night because a few of my friends and I supported our dance team and bought cards which allowed buy one get one at McDonalds. I frequently drank alcohol, had cheesesteaks pretty much 2 to 3 nights a week, chinese several nights a week and much more. I got fat because I stopped playing soccer and ice hockey, and still ate like I used to.
That assumption always baffles me. Why do some people think that if you're not doing low carb you're constantly starving, craving and torturing yourself with minuscule amounts of food. The minuscule amounts of food is one reason I DID NOT do well on low carb and I was constantly starving, craving and torturing myself. Stuffing my face poked full of awesome tasting food would have required me to eat twice my maintenance calories. Mileage may vary, you know.14 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Here is why I went from 175 to 220.... it's called college. I ate and drink like complete crap. In fact, I had a whole month where I ate burgers every night because a few of my friends and I supported our dance team and bought cards which allowed buy one get one at McDonalds. I frequently drank alcohol, had cheesesteaks pretty much 2 to 3 nights a week, chinese several nights a week and much more. I got fat because I stopped playing soccer and ice hockey, and still ate like I used to.
That assumption always baffles me. Why do some people think that if you're not doing low carb you're constantly starving, craving and torturing yourself with minuscule amounts of food. The minuscule amounts of food is one reason I DID NOT do well on low carb and I was constantly starving, craving and torturing myself. Stuffing my face poked full of awesome tasting food would have required me to eat twice my maintenance calories. Mileage may vary, you know.
Nah, mileage may not vary, you can only get so much food on a high fat diet. It has over twice the calories of an equal amount of carbs, everything else equal it's going to be less food, always.
Similar the proclamations that they eat so much more vegetables now that they're low carb. Vegetables, whose calories are made up of about 80%+ carbs. There's no way you're able to eat more vegetables on low carb than non-low carb, you only choose more vegetables now even though you had a way higher potential for eating them before.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Yeah, but you aren't building tons of muscle walking a quarter of a mile to your mailbox every day.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Here is why I went from 175 to 220.... it's called college. I ate and drink like complete crap. In fact, I had a whole month where I ate burgers every night because a few of my friends and I supported our dance team and bought cards which allowed buy one get one at McDonalds. I frequently drank alcohol, had cheesesteaks pretty much 2 to 3 nights a week, chinese several nights a week and much more. I got fat because I stopped playing soccer and ice hockey, and still ate like I used to.
That assumption always baffles me. Why do some people think that if you're not doing low carb you're constantly starving, craving and torturing yourself with minuscule amounts of food. The minuscule amounts of food is one reason I DID NOT do well on low carb and I was constantly starving, craving and torturing myself. Stuffing my face poked full of awesome tasting food would have required me to eat twice my maintenance calories. Mileage may vary, you know.
Nah, mileage may not vary, you can only get so much food on a high fat diet. It has over twice the calories of an equal amount of carbs, everything else equal it's going to be less food, always.
Similar the proclamations that they eat so much more vegetables now that they're low carb. Vegetables, whose calories are made up of about 80%+ carbs. There's no way you're able to eat more vegetables on low carb than non-low carb, you only choose more vegetables now even though you had a way higher potential for eating them before.
I meant satiety mileage, but you are right. It's funny you would mention vegetables. I get it if someone ends up having to replace poptarts with vegetables increasing their overall vegetable consumption, but I got weird looks when I struggled with the concept of having to reduce my vegetable intake to fit the carb budget. To show what I'm talking about, here is yesterday:
The last two months are an exception because of Lent, but I average 50-65 grams of fiber in normal circumstances without supplements so it's still more than a ketogenic diet can offer me.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@3bambi3 CICO works fine for say a closed loop system like a steam engine but of very limited day to day value for humans unless you are looking at it just as a concept and not valid science to explain why some of us became obese.
Calories are just one part of obesity.
foxnews.com/story/2006/06/28/10-causes-obesity-other-than-over-eating-inactivity.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEXBxijQREo&feature=youtu.be
It is just 5 minutes and with CC on no speakers are needed.
drnicoleavena.com/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@3bambi3 CICO works fine for say a closed loop system like a steam engine but of very limited day to day value for humans unless you are looking at it just as a concept and not valid science to explain why some of us became obese.
Calories are just one part of obesity.
foxnews.com/story/2006/06/28/10-causes-obesity-other-than-over-eating-inactivity.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEXBxijQREo&feature=youtu.be
It is just 5 minutes and with CC on no speakers are needed.
drnicoleavena.com/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
This was perfect...plus numbers and equations make me happy2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese. The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro. The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
This is a new thing with people following ketogenic. You act like we are not doing the same thing. Hell, my wife and I don't go out as much because of how good of a cook I am and she prefers my cooking over many restaurants. And I live in one of the richest places in the US and have new restaurants open weekly.
Here is why I went from 175 to 220.... it's called college. I ate and drink like complete crap. In fact, I had a whole month where I ate burgers every night because a few of my friends and I supported our dance team and bought cards which allowed buy one get one at McDonalds. I frequently drank alcohol, had cheesesteaks pretty much 2 to 3 nights a week, chinese several nights a week and much more. I got fat because I stopped playing soccer and ice hockey, and still ate like I used to.
That assumption always baffles me. Why do some people think that if you're not doing low carb you're constantly starving, craving and torturing yourself with minuscule amounts of food. The minuscule amounts of food is one reason I DID NOT do well on low carb and I was constantly starving, craving and torturing myself. Stuffing my face poked full of awesome tasting food would have required me to eat twice my maintenance calories. Mileage may vary, you know.
Yeah, this is probably my number one pet peeve on MFP. No, Gale, people who aren't keto aren't all suffering from cravings and starving. Not all of us got fat because of uncontrollable hunger (I suspect most did not). Not everyone who eats carbs eats a ton of low nutrient carbs, either. Sigh.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@3bambi3 CICO works fine for say a closed loop system like a steam engine but of very limited day to day value for humans unless you are looking at it just as a concept and not valid science to explain why some of us became obese.
Calories are just one part of obesity.
foxnews.com/story/2006/06/28/10-causes-obesity-other-than-over-eating-inactivity.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEXBxijQREo&feature=youtu.be
It is just 5 minutes and with CC on no speakers are needed.
drnicoleavena.com/
YOu are listing variables on either side of the equation.
Making either side of the equation more complex? DOes not change the fact that it is an equation.
x+y=z is an equation.
ax +by = z is ALSO an equation.
sin(x) - cos(y)^2 + 42 = z is ALSO an equation.
And even 42x + log(y) = (sqrt)z - cos(b) + q^x-1.
Adding variables and calculations on eithe rside of the equal sign doesn't change the inherent equation-ness. It just indicates that you need more information on both sides of the equal sign in order to find the solution.
It's just a way to describe a function, its not a lifestyle choice.
Thing is, you don't have to make the plan more complicated and try to account for every nuance and (c)alorie. Because there is a feedback loop involved. You can control how many Calories you eat, as an estimate, and how many you burn, as an estimate, and see the results. If you lose weight too slow, maybe up your activity or eat less. Even if you were closer on the CI side and were out on the CO side, it doesn't matter which you adjust for as long as the results fall in line. So if you underestimate your food by 10%, don't see the expected results you can not change your food intake and logging, but up your activity to compensate.
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, this is probably my number one pet peeve on MFP. No, Gale, people who aren't keto aren't all suffering from cravings and starving. Not all of us got fat because of uncontrollable hunger (I suspect most did not). Not everyone who eats carbs eats a ton of low nutrient carbs, either. Sigh.
I got fat because I enjoy food and ate when bored too often. Hell, I still do. Had an apple last night just cuz. But it wasn't a family sized bag of chips.
18 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »@3bambi3 CICO works fine for say a closed loop system like a steam engine but of very limited day to day value for humans unless you are looking at it just as a concept and not valid science to explain why some of us became obese.
Calories are just one part of obesity.
foxnews.com/story/2006/06/28/10-causes-obesity-other-than-over-eating-inactivity.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEXBxijQREo&feature=youtu.be
It is just 5 minutes and with CC on no speakers are needed.
drnicoleavena.com/
wrong again ..
The cause of obesity is overeating calories coupled with inactivity. Please list additional ways, absent a caloric surplus, that one gains weight. So again, it is CICO, which is a math formula.
OK then what do you say causes people to overeat?
I hope #7 in the first link below and #8 in the second link will help you see why CICO can not be a valid math formula.
caloriegate.com/calories-in-calories-out/11-experts-demolish-the-calories-in-calories-out-cico-model-of-obesity
caloriegate.com/calories-in-calories-out/9-more-experts-lay-waste-to-the-calories-in-calories-out-cico-model-of-obesity
I bit. #7 from the first link is entirely wrong, in a fundamental ignorance of basic physics way.7. Richard Feinman and Eugene FIne — “The dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.”richard-feinman
Nutrition and Metabolism Society founder, Richard Feinman, together with Eugene Fine have published some mission critical research on carbohydrate restriction. They have also assaulted the simplistic CICO model on thermodynamic grounds, showing conclusively that when you consider a thermodynamic concept called “entropy,” the conventional wisdom about calories actually violates the laws of physics! Here’s a pivotal quote from their 2004 paper, “A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, published in Nutrition Journal:
“The idea that “a calorie is a calorie” comes from a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. There are two laws of thermodynamics…The second law is a dissipation law [which] says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle….Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. “A calorie is a calorie” might be a good place to start.”
I think I've destroyed that paper previously. No, idiots - there are FOUR laws of thermodynamics, including the Zeroth. Entropy, additionally, does not change the definition of a calorie. Which is funny, as in nutrition, we worry about Calories, aka kilocalories, not calories. As such, "a C/calorie is a C/calorie" in no way violates the second law of thermodynamics.
If that paper is the one I think, they misdefined the other laws of thermodynamics - their definition of the 2nd was considerably different in places, although this one is close enough - and basically proved that they needed to go back and take remedial physics and/or chemistry.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »His point about finding the cause of obesity rather than just say I know why you are fat because you pig out too much is a great one.
The CAUSE of obesity is obvious -- you eat more than you should given your activity.
The real question is not why you are fat, but how to lose weight.
If you accept CICO, then the question becomes why am I eating more than I burn, and how do I stop that. The only person (for most of us) who can think through and answer that question, and it might have a lot of parts, is us.
This is all important stuff, but it really has nothing to do with OP's post, which was talking about getting to that first point which is true for all. Many people are there already, always were, never needed to say "okay, I need to cut calories and move more, how to do that." Perhaps that is true. But like others have said, it seems true that many, many are not, and even some of us who theoretically understood it needed to be practical in acknowledging that it applied to us and figuring it out.
What helps us eat less is not the same for everyone. For example, you say that not eating grains and sugar has been important for you. I cut out added sugar for a while and found it easy but not especially significant to weight loss. Cutting out snacking and focusing on other things was more important to me. I don't care much about grains, so cutting them out would be meaningless to me, except as part of mindful eating being important (don't waste calories on things that are just there).
Others struggle with habits of relying on fast food or not liking vegetables, which never applied to me, and still others struggle with hunger, which I didn't. On the other hand, I struggle with emotional eating, which many people have no issues with. CICO is significant to all of us; what to do after that will differ.
And no, I don't think I got fat because I was ill. I gained weight because I ate more than I burned. I also understand why I did not, but that's my story, not something that I claim must apply to everyone else.
@lemurcat12 while you have the cart before the horse as to what the importance however one may work on losing weight as one learns to address the all important question of "Why am I fat/why did I over eat?"
How so? Like I said, once you realize/accept that your CICO and decide how to fix it, one thing to consider is WHY is it out of balance. Many people (I was once one of them) think they really don't eat much, so thinking it through is a good plan. My main issue was that I ate mindlessly and more than I realized, from many foods that I didn't care that much about. I was able to improve my cooking methods (use less high cal additions without losing flavor, do some subbing with other sources of flavor that did not add calories) and cut portions or cut out some things that aren't that exciting to me, but were part of my normal means (basically cut way down on starch portions, while not being low carb at all, and eating more of some kinds of carbs -- increasing veg portions, more fruit than I used to eat), and not eating stupid things that I'd sometimes eat just because they were there (lots of the stuff that gets brought in at work, higher cal work lunches that aren't my favorites). Other common sense things like that. Result: I never felt hunger or deprived or like I was changing my eating style much at all (I already cooked a lot), and yet far fewer calories.
Not sure what this has to do with being sick, but maybe you will tell me.People that never addresses why they are fat will be the masses that will do a 100%+ regain down the road.
People who don't UNDERSTAND how they happened to overeat are perhaps in more danger of doing it again, yes. I think most people here agree with that; it's not some magical thing only you understand.Remember humans that are healthy in all ways are not controlled by cravings plus they stop eating before they become obese.
Saying something over and over with no evidence makes it no more true.
Now, "controlled by cravings" is a loaded term. I don't believe that most people are controlled by cravings for food. (I don't actually believe you were either, but whatever it pleases you to believe, I guess.) I do think bad habit can lead to cravings and that changes those habits can help. I also think it's NORMAL to crave food when tired or hungry or stressed and that what you are used to eating in those circumstances often defines what you crave. In my late 20s I'd work super late and then order Indian. I of course would crave Indian when tired and hungry (after having skipped lunch and waited until 10 for dinner, say.) I'd also not feel like cooking when tired and overhungry. When I decided to change my habits I made it easier on myself not to skip meals and to make something fast when tired, and now in those situations I usually crave the kinds of things I normally eat, not the higher cal delivery sorts of things. Again, when I did have those cravings as a result of my bad habits, I was not ill. It was normal.
As for overeating, people commonly do it for food that is tasty and in situations where they have no cues to eat less. Social eating is an example, or food on the table rather than in portions. I often overeat at a family style restaurant or if eating chips and guac from a common bowl at a Mexican place. If I ate that way at home I'd do it too. It's also quite common for people to eat stupid amounts at a restaurant if the food is tasty (or of tasty food prepared at home because they are in the HABIT of cleaning their plates and put too much on it) or to want dessert after a filling meal. Humans naturally are able to eat when not hungry -- as janejellyroll pointed out, this would have been evolutionarily advantageous -- and we naturally (or many of us naturally) tend to be hedonistic eaters.
That I have to be somewhat mindful not to overeat and can't just let my eyes and taste buds and stomach decide doesn't mean that there's something wrong with me. It's a normal human thing. Sure, there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean that the likely majority, even significant majority, of humans who can overeat easily are screwed up or sick. That's just bizarre.The concept of CICO is fine to keep in mind but it never will fully cover why I was obese in 2014 and several times over the past 40 years.
Of course it does -- you ate more than you should have. WHY you did that is a separate question that no one was claiming to answer, since that's individual to you.I have maintained for the last two years without cravings while keeping my face poked full of awesome tasting food for the first time in the last 40 years after I found my correct macro.
What is your "correct macro"? Surely you eat more than one. You mean the macro ratio that you think works best for you? Great, but for many of us counting macros is not that important, and traditionally people ate a wide variety of macros, changing over the course of the year, so this idea that there's OneTrueMacro that we should eat or that individuals should eat seems obviously wrong to me, although I think individuals should do what helps them cope with the current food environment the best. If what works for you is eating lots of McD's but without the carbs, that's totally cool, but it is NOT what would work for me.
Also, I apologize if I am remembering this incorrectly, but haven't you said that you are still overweight and have been maintaining?The CICO is tracked and managed without daily monitoring by myself. My brain now tells me when to eat and when to stop eating on my current macro. I just modified it to 5% carbs, now 25% protein having reduced my fats down to 70% after learning old men need more protein than middle age men per some research. I got to a meal late this evening and had 6 pork chops that remained to play protein catch up.
Tracking your macros like that isn't intuitive eating, from what it sounds, but that's cool, I don't think intuitive eating works for lots of people.
I don't usually count calories or macros, but I sure do know CICO is what matters. I focus on eating a healthful diet, watch portions, and am mindful about how I eat and, most important for me, largely avoid eating outside of mealtime (I might include a dessert as part of my dinner mealtime, though). However, this is MY strategy based on what I tended to do when gaining weight and my own satiety cues. Since it's personal, I don't pretend that others should do the same thing or that it isn't simply MY way of making sure CICO is where I want it. Your strategy is YOUR way of making CICO where you want it. Nothing to do with obesity being caused by some sort of mental illness or whatever.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »@3bambi3 CICO works fine for say a closed loop system like a steam engine but of very limited day to day value for humans unless you are looking at it just as a concept and not valid science to explain why some of us became obese.
Calories are just one part of obesity.
foxnews.com/story/2006/06/28/10-causes-obesity-other-than-over-eating-inactivity.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEXBxijQREo&feature=youtu.be
It is just 5 minutes and with CC on no speakers are needed.
drnicoleavena.com/
wrong again ..
The cause of obesity is overeating calories coupled with inactivity. Please list additional ways, absent a caloric surplus, that one gains weight. So again, it is CICO, which is a math formula.
OK then what do you say causes people to overeat?
I hope #7 in the first link below and #8 in the second link will help you see why CICO can not be a valid math formula.
caloriegate.com/calories-in-calories-out/11-experts-demolish-the-calories-in-calories-out-cico-model-of-obesity
caloriegate.com/calories-in-calories-out/9-more-experts-lay-waste-to-the-calories-in-calories-out-cico-model-of-obesity
I bit. #7 from the first link is entirely wrong, in a fundamental ignorance of basic physics way.7. Richard Feinman and Eugene FIne — “The dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.”richard-feinman
Nutrition and Metabolism Society founder, Richard Feinman, together with Eugene Fine have published some mission critical research on carbohydrate restriction. They have also assaulted the simplistic CICO model on thermodynamic grounds, showing conclusively that when you consider a thermodynamic concept called “entropy,” the conventional wisdom about calories actually violates the laws of physics! Here’s a pivotal quote from their 2004 paper, “A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, published in Nutrition Journal:
“The idea that “a calorie is a calorie” comes from a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. There are two laws of thermodynamics…The second law is a dissipation law [which] says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle….Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. “A calorie is a calorie” might be a good place to start.”
I think I've destroyed that paper previously. No, idiots - there are FOUR laws of thermodynamics, including the Zeroth. Entropy, additionally, does not change the definition of a calorie. Which is funny, as in nutrition, we worry about Calories, aka kilocalories, not calories. As such, "a C/calorie is a C/calorie" in no way violates the second law of thermodynamics.
If that paper is the one I think, they misdefined the other laws of thermodynamics - their definition of the 2nd was considerably different in places, although this one is close enough - and basically proved that they needed to go back and take remedial physics and/or chemistry.
I particularly love how Richard Feinman, the owner of that site, is capitalizing on the similarity of his name to Richard Feynman to make his physics claims look better.17
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
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions