Do you believe it is ALL just CICO?
Options
Replies
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
The guy lost 27 lbs in 8 weeks going from 2,600 calories to 1,800 calories, which is not exactly a radical reduction.
Given that we have so many people posting here who lose no weight in two weeks and a few pound in four weeks after significantly cutting calories, perhaps we should stop worrying about macros and balanced diets, and just recommend Twinkies.
I mean if it worked for this guy (if you believe he lost this incredible amount of weight), why not? His results probably place him in the Top 1% of calorie counters.
And once they meet their weight goal, thanks to Twinkies, then they can start thinking about macros and a balanced diet for long term health.
Once again, whoosh.
There are reasons Haub lost weight and reasons that people don't lose weight in 2 weeks or just a few pounds in 4 weeks.
They have everything to do with calories consumed and nothing to do with food choice.
You're being willfully ignorant here.15 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
The guy lost 27 lbs in 8 weeks going from 2,600 calories to 1,800 calories, which is not exactly a radical reduction.
Given that we have so many people posting here who lose no weight in two weeks and a few pound in four weeks after significantly cutting calories, perhaps we should stop worrying about macros and balanced diets, and just recommend Twinkies.
I mean if it worked for this guy (if you believe he lost this incredible amount of weight), why not? His results probably place him in the Top 1% of calorie counters.
And once they meet their weight goal, thanks to Twinkies, then they can start thinking about macros and a balanced diet for long term health.
You not only miss the point entirely on how people lose weight, you also miss the point entirely on how people fail to lose weight. I'm still trying to suss out what you're getting at, because it's not clear at all.12 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
The guy lost 27 lbs in 8 weeks going from 2,600 calories to 1,800 calories, which is not exactly a radical reduction.
Given that we have so many people posting here who lose no weight in two weeks and a few pound in four weeks after significantly cutting calories, perhaps we should stop worrying about macros and balanced diets, and just recommend Twinkies.
I mean if it worked for this guy (if you believe he lost this incredible amount of weight), why not? His results probably place him in the Top 1% of calorie counters.
And once they meet their weight goal, thanks to Twinkies, then they can start thinking about macros and a balanced diet for long term health.
He's probably better at counting garbage calories than all those OPs of "can't lose weight" threads are at counting healthy calories
17 -
collectingblues wrote: »
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.I don't think you are a freak of nature. It sounds like you've recomped and now have more muscle and less body fat than you used to have. That muscle takes up less volume so you look smaller at about the same weight.
Another vote for recomp as the likely explanation.
If one looks and feels good at a weight, who cares about the number on the scale?
This woman wasn't happy with her body when she got to her goal weight, so she recomped. Notice how much heavier she is in the picture on the right than the middle picture.
1 -
If all you want to do is lose weight, CICO is the majority factor. Overall health, and fitness on the other hand, for some people is even more important than the weight on the scale and that is where exercise and a focus on macro-nutrients can pay huge dividends.2
-
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748#t=article might provide some insight to those interested. In the study, various macro combinations were used by doctors, and none of them offered any advantage in the realm of weight loss. This is, of course, exactly what you would expect provided calories were the same, but stating what should be the obvious is often needed in the Twilight Zone realm of health/fitness.
Many fad diet proponents (except perhaps here on MFP on occasion) have given up trying to convince people they will lose more weight by following their plans. They instead tend to stick with more vague and subjective factors that are difficult to prove or disprove convincingly.5 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.I don't think you are a freak of nature. It sounds like you've recomped and now have more muscle and less body fat than you used to have. That muscle takes up less volume so you look smaller at about the same weight.
Another vote for recomp as the likely explanation.
If one looks and feels good at a weight, who cares about the number on the scale?
This woman wasn't happy with her body when she got to her goal weight, so she recomped. Notice how much heavier she is in the picture on the right than the middle picture.
The photo on the right does not show this woman 18 lb. heavier than the photo in the middle. Look again. Start with her legs.
what?3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.I don't think you are a freak of nature. It sounds like you've recomped and now have more muscle and less body fat than you used to have. That muscle takes up less volume so you look smaller at about the same weight.
Another vote for recomp as the likely explanation.
If one looks and feels good at a weight, who cares about the number on the scale?
This woman wasn't happy with her body when she got to her goal weight, so she recomped. Notice how much heavier she is in the picture on the right than the middle picture.
The photo on the right does not show this woman 18 lb. heavier than the photo in the middle. Look again. Start with her legs.
what?
You think she weighs 140 on the right and 122 in the center? Come on.
Muscle does that to a person thats the point8 -
CICO, yes. Easy or simple? No, not at all.
You see determining CI is not trivial and subject to error no matter how careful you are. AND determining CO is really only a guess. You can start with MFP estimate or an online calorie calculator estimate. If you are lucky, they will be close to your actual CO. But these are estimates for the average person with your height, age, sex, activity level and weight. How far your particular CO may differ from these estimates is unclear and often debated.1 -
You asked a simple question. I will just answer the question. Yes.2
-
Wow, are people arguing for the sake of argument? Let's put on the tinfoil hat for a second...
Let's assume the professor lied about every single thing... How does that invalidate the fact that all is needed for weight loss is a calorie deficit, which has been repeatedly proven by science and by thousands of people in practice?
Let's assume the woman in the picture lied about everything... How does that invalidate that recomp exists, which has been proven by science and thousands of people in practice?
16 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Wow, are people arguing for the sake of argument? Let's put on the tinfoil hat for a second...
Let's assume the professor lied about every single thing... How does that invalidate the fact that all is needed for weight loss is a calorie deficit, which has been repeatedly proven by science and by thousands of people in practice?
Let's assume the woman in the picture lied about everything... How does that invalidate that recomp exists, which has been proven by science and thousands of people in practice?
Because there's no reason to make up stuff to prove a point, other than to make your sponsor (Coca Cola) happy.
And it sends the wrong message because it does not discuss satiety, THE most important factor to determination if a person will succeed when dieting, whether they count calories or they don't.
Sorry, but a Twinkie (like a Coke) is high calorie junk that provides no satiety.
1800 calories/150 calories/Twinkie = 12 Twinkies a day for an extended period. Come on.
As for the woman, I have no idea why she made that up.
Okay, so if it's not CICO, then how do people lose weight? You've repeatedly missed the point of the discussion and you seem to keep hinting that there's One True Way that nobody's discussed yet, but you haven't come out and said what it is.13 -
Come on guys - the idea that CICO is the major determining factor in weight loss is obviously a nefarious plot by all the major food and drink companies to sell LESS of their products.
#endsarcasm17 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Wow, are people arguing for the sake of argument? Let's put on the tinfoil hat for a second...
Let's assume the professor lied about every single thing... How does that invalidate the fact that all is needed for weight loss is a calorie deficit, which has been repeatedly proven by science and by thousands of people in practice?
Let's assume the woman in the picture lied about everything... How does that invalidate that recomp exists, which has been proven by science and thousands of people in practice?
Because there's no reason to make up stuff to prove a point, other than to make your sponsor (Coca Cola) happy.
And it sends the wrong message because it does not discuss satiety, THE most important factor to determination if a person will succeed when dieting, whether they count calories or they don't.
Sorry, but a Twinkie (like a Coke) is high calorie junk that provides no satiety.
1800 calories/150 calories/Twinkie = 12 Twinkies a day for an extended period. Come on.
As for the woman, I have no idea why she made that up.
The most important factor to success in dieting is reaching a calorie deficit. Period.
Yes, some people do find they have to adjust their diet to address satiety. That's a whole different point and if you look around, you will see there are dozens of threads here where people help those who are struggling to do just that.
But you can reach a calorie deficit while including Twinkies in your diet (by the way, they're just 150 calories each) or while never eating them. This is because individual foods don't stop or create weight loss.
Look at the question that OP is asking and answer that, not the one you'd like OP to be asking.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions