Do you believe it is ALL just CICO?
Options
Replies
-
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.
So you're saying no one could possibly stick with a diet that left them hungry for 8 weeks, to make a point?11 -
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.
Yet you're apparently just making things up, but where is your sponsor? It's you claiming that the motivation to be less than truthful is to keep the sponsor happy, and you are completely misrepresenting what the entire "Twinkie Diet" was.
Mark Haub had his food diary's public for some period of time. He never claimed to eat just Twinkies or junk food. He ate broccoli, steak, carrots, other meats and veggies, protein supplements, and vitamin supplements as well. He simply ate the stuff he used to eat, but quite a bit less of it, and lost the weight.
The guy from this linkbroke down the 10 week averages for calories and macros, and came up with the following:
"Calories: 1457
Fat (g): 61
Carbohydrate (g): 173
Protein (g): 54
As a percent of daily calories, it works out to:
Fat: 38%
Carbohydrate: 47%
Protein: 15%"
He also states that Haub openly stated losing muscle mass as well as fat during the diet.
A bit of Google time will help you find a link where Haub put on all of 2 lbs in the 9 months following this diet. For anyone that has lost weight, 2 lbs is nothing. I've had water weight fluctuations 2-3 times that in a single day.
A bit of time on these very forums will show you all kinds of threads of people losing weight fairly quickly and many different kinds of diets. There are also loads of people on here that eat "junk" food and sweets as part of their regular maintenance and/or loss programs. Many of them experienced the same results as Prof Haub, being improved health markers as they moved to healthier weights. Though I personally agree with your statement that satiety is very important, that only applies to certain people. Others have enough discipline to just push through the hunger. Some work out hard enough that they can eat what they want. Some don't exercise at all and just watch what they eat. And quite a few have openly stated that being overly restrictive and eating only "healthy" foods has allowed them to break down and binge on junk, which is why they might do better if they eat a few cookies or some other assumed unhealthy snack as part of their daily diet.
Nobody here suggested the OP consume pure junk, and some pointed out that what she was eating could easily make a portion of a healthy and balanced diet.13 -
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.
*groan*
Whooooosh!
I can't even. Seriously.9 -
You know why CICO works? The conservation of energy, a fundamental principle of physics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If your body burns a certain amount of energy, and the energy content of your food is less, your body must make up for that some how. Luckily, your body has ways of converting fat and muscle into energy to make up the difference.
When people perceive CICO not working it is because they do not either correctly calculate their calories consumed or calories burned. Both are rife for error.
Should we blindly ignore the type of food we eat and only focus on calories? Probably not, still need enough vitamins and minerals to have a healthy body and we might feel hungry all the time if we ate nothing but certain foods that are not filling.3 -
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.
I can easily go for half a day on a pop tart.2 -
I believe information has been provided that the guy did not just eat Twinkies, but there's an effect of a mono diet that you get bored with the diet and eat less. See, e.g., potato diet, and I also think this is to some extent what happens on diets that some keto folk get excited about like the egg fast (Jimmy Moore would be the person I am thinking of here) or the carnivore thing (which has various supporters all over the internet).
I honestly can't imagine eating 12 Twinkies a day, but I don't think my issue would be hunger. It might be boredom (and that I dislike Twinkies and would miss the foods I was not eating), but for a demonstration I could probably do it.
JustRobby did that 7-11 challenge thing, and I am sure I could lose weight easily eating only at 7-11, in part because the variety is limited. Not planning to, as I really prefer to eat the foods I like to eat, but this idea that it's not possible so must be a trick or made up seems weird to me. I know someone who lost about 50 lbs eating almost entirely fast food. She started gravitating to a better diet once she had (I think part of it was that she didn't like the idea that she HAD to change what she was eating -- she would have been the first to admit she had food issues -- but then once she could do it not because she had to, because fat, she realized cooking wasn't so bad and started doing it more and lost about 50 more lbs).
And, yeah, I've eaten a piece of pie for breakfast and been fine (rarely, but I wasn't unbearably hungry when I did). I think thoughtless eating is more an issue for most people than being hungry. The issue with low satiety foods is not that you are starving, but for most that you can probably keep eating them whether really hungry or not.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe information has been provided that the guy did not just eat Twinkies, but there's an effect of a mono diet that you get bored with the diet and eat less. See, e.g., potato diet, and I also think this is to some extent what happens on diets that some keto folk get excited about like the egg fast (Jimmy Moore would be the person I am thinking of here) or the carnivore thing (which has various supporters all over the internet).
I honestly can't imagine eating 12 Twinkies a day, but I don't think my issue would be hunger. It might be boredom (and that I dislike Twinkies and would miss the foods I was not eating), but for a demonstration I could probably do it.
JustRobby did that 7-11 challenge thing, and I am sure I could lose weight easily eating only at 7-11, in part because the variety is limited. Not planning to, as I really prefer to eat the foods I like to eat, but this idea that it's not possible so must be a trick or made up seems weird to me. I know someone who lost about 50 lbs eating almost entirely fast food. She started gravitating to a better diet once she had (I think part of it was that she didn't like the idea that she HAD to change what she was eating -- she would have been the first to admit she had food issues -- but then once she could do it not because she had to, because fat, she realized cooking wasn't so bad and started doing it more and lost about 50 more lbs).
And, yeah, I've eaten a piece of pie for breakfast and been fine (rarely, but I wasn't unbearably hungry when I did). I think thoughtless eating is more an issue for most people than being hungry. The issue with low satiety foods is not that you are starving, but for most that you can probably keep eating them whether really hungry or not.
Yup. Reflecting back when I did my similar challenge which you alluded to (https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1) my biggest problem was indeed boredom. I was plenty full enough, it just got old. I was miserable and desperate for some "real food" by the time it was all said and done. I am not sure I could of gone on for much longer without losing my mind. To this day I have still never again felt the desire to have one of those Taquitos off the rack at 7-11. I might be burned out on those things for life.
I did learn a great deal from the 7-11 experience though, which makes me glad I did it. Back then in early 2017 I was still pretty skeptical that it was all just calories to be honest. Sure I heard plenty of people on these very forums shout it from the mountaintops but for some reason my brain could just not accept this. So I guess what I am saying is I understand fully where the mentality on display above comes from. I understand why fad diets are appealing also. Radical change in food is needed to facilitate radical change in body right? It does sort of make sense in a simplistic kind of way.
I think the number one takeaway that can be had from experiments like this is that people need to learn to give themselves a break. Yes, try to eat a nutritious and properly balanced diet to the greatest extent possible, but don't have a nervous breakdown if you have a doughnut or a burger every once in awhile. The calories from those items are no different than the calories from a skinless chicken breast. I ultimately found the reality of CICO to be very liberating in how I approach my food choices.13 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »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.
I can easily go for half a day on a pop tart.
I could too! High five!2 -
The equation of calories in to calories out is all that is necessary for weight change. For loss, intake needs to be less than output. Balance is required for maintenance. Intake needs to be higher than output for gain.
But for HEALTH, the types of food you eat matter a lot more.1 -
SafioraLinnea wrote: »The equation of calories in to calories out is all that is necessary for weight change. For loss, intake needs to be less than output. Balance is required for maintenance. Intake needs to be higher than output for gain.
But for HEALTH, the types of food you eat matter a lot more.
I agree from my personal experience over the past 40 years.
It was only after that I found the types of food (macro) that worked for me that my health markers started reversing back to the positive side. The funny thing is I took weight loss off of the table three years ago to just focus on HEALTH then the weight lose happened on its own. For some reason when I found the types of food that worked for better health I could eat to stay stuffed but without the cravings of the prior 40 years and without counting anything. No longer having to think in terms of CICO to lose excess weight has brought ordered eating finally into my Way Of Eating.
In the end all that counts is what works for each of us. MFP helping me find the WOE that worked for was awesome and MFP still is helping me tweak my WOE as my general health continues to improve as I change the way I eat, move and think.9
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