Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Dr Jason Fung - The Useless Concept of Calories
Options
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.
I think you assumed you that I'm agreeing with Jason Fung? See this is why it's pointless doing debates on MFP because people just assume things.
No, I think he is responding to your false dichotomy that if you focus on CICO you must ignore anything else, like hormones. Specifically, this statement:On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones...
The refeed thread and discussion of Lyle demonstrates that people are conscious of hormones.
Personally, I have not found a need to think about hormonal influences much -- I did take a few diet breaks for mental reasons, so may have covered myself without having to, and my own research indicates that exercise is probably one of the more important things, as noted above, for those who may have things like leptin resistance post weight loss are very important, probably more important than food choice.
I do find that what I eat matters (because it affects my ability to keep a calorie balance that I want) but not really because of hunger (I'm sure I'd be hungry on some diets, but they seem to be diets that I haven't ever considered for other reasons). And I say that thinking this is totally consistent with a focus on CICO.
If someone wants to say that eating a particular way (LCHF or some other diet that supposedly affects hormones) works better for them, no argument here. But saying calories don't matter or are a myth or that if not for bad food choices we would have effortlessly and without thinking remained thin or that hormones made us unable to control calories and not responsible for making bad choices with respect to how much we ate, ugh. Not saying you are saying that, it's how I understand Fung.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
CICO is physics. It IS that simple because it breaks the whole process down to the lowest common denominator. You physically can not lose fat if you are not absorbing fewer calories than your body is using. That is a fact based on the laws of physics.
There's things that can change the amount of calories your body absorbs and/or uses so how much you need is not always clear, but having to consume less than you're using is the bottom line that any diet that you may choose to follow has to abide by, or else it won't do anything.
No, I'm sorry it's not that simple. Maybe for the people on MFP, but for the other 99% of people it's definitely not. It's doable. Definitely. But it's not that simple. We're too complex for simplicity. Also there's different people with different metabolisms. Some people have to just make a small deficit and whoosh the weight falls off, whereas other people just look at food and they pack on the pounds.
It is that simple. In fact, people are very good at losing weight; i can bet almost everyone you know has lost weight at one time. Its the maintenance that is hard because people never learn strategies to get there amd often take super aggressive approaches to lose weight. MFP just makes it easy to quantify.21 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.
I think you assumed you that I'm agreeing with Jason Fung? See this is why it's pointless doing debates on MFP because people just assume things.
No, I think he is responding to your false dichotomy that if you focus on CICO you must ignore anything else, like hormones. Specifically, this statement:On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones...
The refeed thread and discussion of Lyle demonstrates that people are conscious of hormones.
Personally, I have not found a need to think about hormonal influences much -- I did take a few diet breaks for mental reasons, so may have covered myself without having to, and my own research indicates that exercise is probably one of the more important things, as noted above, for those who may have things like leptin resistance post weight loss are very important, probably more important than food choice.
I do find that what I eat matters (because it affects my ability to keep a calorie balance that I want) but not really because of hunger (I'm sure I'd be hungry on some diets, but they seem to be diets that I haven't ever considered for other reasons). And I say that thinking this is totally consistent with a focus on CICO.
If someone wants to say that eating a particular way (LCHF or some other diet that supposedly affects hormones) works better for them, no argument here. But saying calories don't matter or are a myth or that if not for bad food choices we would have effortlessly and without thinking remained thin or that hormones made us unable to control calories and not responsible for making bad choices with respect to how much we ate, ugh. Not saying you are saying that, it's how I understand Fung.
I was talking about the people out there who say you only need a caloric deficit to lose weight. They completely ignore hormones. Atleast when I listened to Lyle McDonald I felt as though he understood the frustration of losing fat with hormonal issues and also how crazily losing weight has caused lots of women to develop hypothyroidism, PCOS and IR.9 -
I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
Which hormones specifically? And what is Teta's protocol and what hormones does it address?
And if you spend time on the board, you will see that people with PCOS or IR, follow LCHF? Its a fairly recongized thing because there is significant evidence supporting it. Its when you extrapolate those finding to those without tjose conditions that is a bit absurd.
Estrogen, progesterone, insulin and cortisol.
Jade Tetas protocol is eating right amount of calories and right style of training according to the menstrual cycle, and hormones. Yes I've found quite a few people on here with PCOS, although there's 5 difference types of PCOS so it's hard to tell which one each person has.14 -
I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
Which hormones specifically? And what is Teta's protocol and what hormones does it address?
And if you spend time on the board, you will see that people with PCOS or IR, follow LCHF? Its a fairly recongized thing because there is significant evidence supporting it. Its when you extrapolate those finding to those without tjose conditions that is a bit absurd.
Estrogen, progesterone, insulin and cortisol.
It would be a very rare minority who has to worry about those hormones. And the ones that do, generally know about their medical issues. I suspect you might be one which is why you are extrapolating to the general populous.
And trust me, i am a fan of Lyles and follow his refeed stuff, but i am rather lean trying to get leaner.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
CICO is physics. It IS that simple because it breaks the whole process down to the lowest common denominator. You physically can not lose fat if you are not absorbing fewer calories than your body is using. That is a fact based on the laws of physics.
There's things that can change the amount of calories your body absorbs and/or uses so how much you need is not always clear, but having to consume less than you're using is the bottom line that any diet that you may choose to follow has to abide by, or else it won't do anything.
No, I'm sorry it's not that simple. Maybe for the people on MFP, but for the other 99% of people it's definitely not. It's doable. Definitely. But it's not that simple. We're too complex for simplicity. Also there's different people with different metabolisms. Some people have to just make a small deficit and whoosh the weight falls off, whereas other people just look at food and they pack on the pounds.
Things like hormone imbalances and individual metabolism differences do change the "CO" portion of the equation but not nearly as much as some people try to give them credit for. I think they often have far more affect on appetite and energy, not the actual CICO equation. And I'm sorry, but the bolded is simply not true without greatly over-dramatizing reality.18 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.
I think you assumed you that I'm agreeing with Jason Fung? See this is why it's pointless doing debates on MFP because people just assume things.
No, I think he is responding to your false dichotomy that if you focus on CICO you must ignore anything else, like hormones. Specifically, this statement:On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones...
The refeed thread and discussion of Lyle demonstrates that people are conscious of hormones.
Personally, I have not found a need to think about hormonal influences much -- I did take a few diet breaks for mental reasons, so may have covered myself without having to, and my own research indicates that exercise is probably one of the more important things, as noted above, for those who may have things like leptin resistance post weight loss are very important, probably more important than food choice.
I do find that what I eat matters (because it affects my ability to keep a calorie balance that I want) but not really because of hunger (I'm sure I'd be hungry on some diets, but they seem to be diets that I haven't ever considered for other reasons). And I say that thinking this is totally consistent with a focus on CICO.
If someone wants to say that eating a particular way (LCHF or some other diet that supposedly affects hormones) works better for them, no argument here. But saying calories don't matter or are a myth or that if not for bad food choices we would have effortlessly and without thinking remained thin or that hormones made us unable to control calories and not responsible for making bad choices with respect to how much we ate, ugh. Not saying you are saying that, it's how I understand Fung.
I was talking about the people out there who say you only need a caloric deficit to lose weight. They completely ignore hormones. Atleast when I listened to Lyle McDonald I felt as though he understood the frustration of losing fat with hormonal issues and also how crazily losing weight has caused lots of women to develop hypothyroidism, PCOS and IR.
You do ONLY need a calorie deficit to lose weight. Hormones CANNOT create energy from nothing or make energy disappear. Hormones may affect the CO portion of the energy balance equation, but the equation still holds-- you have to eat less than you burn to lose weight. No magic protocols from integrative or holistic voodoo witch doctors are going to change that...........but they will surely take the money from the gullible23 -
I just read the Jade Teta protocol. Once I could get past rolling my eyes at alkalyzing the body, the BCAA's, the unnecessary glycogen depletion trick to see the scale drop on Mondays (which the BCAA's supposedly combat by being part of a "metabolic fasting beverage") and the no counting calories because ... you're cycling the diet? What?
He's basically doing low carb then refeeds during the weekends with some training thrown in around it. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Except the "baffle 'em with BS" words he adds to what he's doing.
I'd suggest that you skip Jade Teta and just go straight to Lyle McDonald for the real science without the BS.
Editing to add that personally, I have gotten a lot from the refeeds and diet breaks thread. I guess I am someone who experiences the impacts of dieting hard on certain hormones and have struggled greatly for a year because of it. At this point, I'm just trying to lose vanity weight, but it's still important to me and it was vexing and it was a hormonal issue apparently. Dealing with the underlying problem with the advice I've taken on board from that thread has been a game changer. And yet, I'm still employing CICO. I even made a detailed post just yesterday about my calorie counts. So this is me, being all about CICO and hormones. Come join us in that thread.13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.
I think you assumed you that I'm agreeing with Jason Fung? See this is why it's pointless doing debates on MFP because people just assume things.
No, I think he is responding to your false dichotomy that if you focus on CICO you must ignore anything else, like hormones. Specifically, this statement:On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones...
The refeed thread and discussion of Lyle demonstrates that people are conscious of hormones.
Personally, I have not found a need to think about hormonal influences much -- I did take a few diet breaks for mental reasons, so may have covered myself without having to, and my own research indicates that exercise is probably one of the more important things, as noted above, for those who may have things like leptin resistance post weight loss are very important, probably more important than food choice.
I do find that what I eat matters (because it affects my ability to keep a calorie balance that I want) but not really because of hunger (I'm sure I'd be hungry on some diets, but they seem to be diets that I haven't ever considered for other reasons). And I say that thinking this is totally consistent with a focus on CICO.
If someone wants to say that eating a particular way (LCHF or some other diet that supposedly affects hormones) works better for them, no argument here. But saying calories don't matter or are a myth or that if not for bad food choices we would have effortlessly and without thinking remained thin or that hormones made us unable to control calories and not responsible for making bad choices with respect to how much we ate, ugh. Not saying you are saying that, it's how I understand Fung.
I was talking about the people out there who say you only need a caloric deficit to lose weight. They completely ignore hormones. Atleast when I listened to Lyle McDonald I felt as though he understood the frustration of losing fat with hormonal issues and also how crazily losing weight has caused lots of women to develop hypothyroidism, PCOS and IR.
You're getting things mixed up. A calorie deficit is the only thing you need to lose weight. What that deficit looks like in relation to averages presented by various calculators may be different on an individual basis when mitigating factors like hormone conditions are added in.
I have a very distinct 8 week cycle as a female. Something I have really been nailing down the last few months (I've always known about it but suddenly decided to pay proper attention). Easier for me because I'm on the pill and can easily track 4 weeks and 4 weeks. It's an 8 week thing for me because I have two distinctly different cycles, my joke is one ovary hates me.
But all that means is that I have more issues with water retention than most seem to and I have a ravenous few days every eight weeks. Sure it's hormonal but that doesn't impact on how I lose weight. And by weight I mean fat. For that I need a calorie deficit and the patience to see it show up on the scale.
Every single person on the planet loses weight via a calorie deficit. Everyone. Hormones or any other complicating factor just change the calories out part of the equation which means adjusting the calories in to be in line with goals.
Edit to add: I am in Lyle's FB group, I have seen a couple of the podcasts he has done on the topic of women and training and fat loss. I will be reading the book. None of that changes the fundamentals of weight loss and it doesn't make women a special case. It largely relates back to water retention at various times and strength loss etc. And such specific training schedules are really only necessary for athletes, as much I'd like to call myself an athlete I'm not. So regular old training with a regular old moderation in a deficit approach to dieting is perfectly fine.17 -
I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
Which hormones specifically? And what is Teta's protocol and what hormones does it address?
And if you spend time on the board, you will see that people with PCOS or IR, follow LCHF? Its a fairly recongized thing because there is significant evidence supporting it. Its when you extrapolate those finding to those without tjose conditions that is a bit absurd.
Estrogen, progesterone, insulin and cortisol.
It would be a very rare minority who has to worry about those hormones. And the ones that do, generally know about their medical issues. I suspect you might be one which is why you are extrapolating to the general populous.
And trust me, i am a fan of Lyles and follow his refeed stuff, but i am rather lean trying to get leaner.
Women are a minority?
I know the other poster is talking about issues related to PCOS, but according to Lyle's podcasts related to women and fat loss, there are cyclical issues related to estrogen/progesterone cycling which affect training and fat loss. They'll be covered in his forthcoming book.
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I just read the Jade Teta protocol. Once I could get past rolling my eyes at alkalyzing the body, the BCAA's, the unnecessary glycogen depletion trick to see the scale drop on Mondays (which the BCAA's supposedly combat by being part of a "metabolic fasting beverage") and the no counting calories because ... you're cycling the diet? What?
He's basically doing low carb then refeeds during the weekends with some training thrown in around it. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Except the "baffle 'em with BS" words he adds to what he's doing.
I'd suggest that you skip Jade Teta and just go straight to Lyle McDonald for the real science without the BS.
Editing to add that personally, I have gotten a lot from the refeeds and diet breaks thread. I guess I am someone who experiences the impacts of dieting hard on certain hormones and have struggled greatly for a year because of it. At this point, I'm just trying to lose vanity weight, but it's still important to me and it was vexing and it was a hormonal issue apparently. Dealing with the underlying problem with the advice I've taken on board from that thread has been a game changer. And yet, I'm still employing CICO. I even made a detailed post just yesterday about my calorie counts. So this is me, being all about CICO and hormones. Come join us in that thread.
At this point talking to people on this forum is a complete utter waste of time. He clearly states that you need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance to lose weight. Of course you must be blinded with rage, skimmed all the good stuff and taken something out of context. I've been reading his stuff for weeks and he says that purist Cico folk are angry people! How right he is! So you think that the human body is some sort of calculator? We must have all these hormones for NO reason. They're the ones that decide whether the calories are going to be used as energy or stored as fat. Okay, I'm off. Have a good night people!47 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I just read the Jade Teta protocol. Once I could get past rolling my eyes at alkalyzing the body, the BCAA's, the unnecessary glycogen depletion trick to see the scale drop on Mondays (which the BCAA's supposedly combat by being part of a "metabolic fasting beverage") and the no counting calories because ... you're cycling the diet? What?
He's basically doing low carb then refeeds during the weekends with some training thrown in around it. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Except the "baffle 'em with BS" words he adds to what he's doing.
I'd suggest that you skip Jade Teta and just go straight to Lyle McDonald for the real science without the BS.
Editing to add that personally, I have gotten a lot from the refeeds and diet breaks thread. I guess I am someone who experiences the impacts of dieting hard on certain hormones and have struggled greatly for a year because of it. At this point, I'm just trying to lose vanity weight, but it's still important to me and it was vexing and it was a hormonal issue apparently. Dealing with the underlying problem with the advice I've taken on board from that thread has been a game changer. And yet, I'm still employing CICO. I even made a detailed post just yesterday about my calorie counts. So this is me, being all about CICO and hormones. Come join us in that thread.
At this point talking to people on this forum is a complete utter waste of time. He clearly states that you need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance to lose weight. Of course you must be blinded with rage, skimmed all the good stuff and taken something out of context. I've been reading his stuff for weeks and he says that purist Cico folk are angry people! How right he is! So you think that the human body is some sort of calculator? We must have all these hormones for NO reason. They're the ones that decide whether the calories are going to be used as energy or stored as fat. Okay, I'm off. Have a good night people!
Hormones have all kinds of important functions, completely separate from weight gain/loss. I'm not saying they don't play a role in weight, but to suggest we must have hormones for no reason if we don't agree they all have a clear and measurable affect on most people's weight management is kind of absurd.
And maybe I'm being dense, but I'd think first and foremost whether we NEED energy or not would play the biggest role in whether calories are used as energy or stored as fat, right?12 -
It seems the only frustrated person is you.
Why participate in debate if you can't just politely rebuttal your opinion without attacking someone else's character? Debate isn't always about convincing people of your view point. It's never going to happen. Look at politics and religion they are prime examples. @GottaBurnEmAll has a perfectly valid point in her side of this debate.
17 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I just read the Jade Teta protocol. Once I could get past rolling my eyes at alkalyzing the body, the BCAA's, the unnecessary glycogen depletion trick to see the scale drop on Mondays (which the BCAA's supposedly combat by being part of a "metabolic fasting beverage") and the no counting calories because ... you're cycling the diet? What?
He's basically doing low carb then refeeds during the weekends with some training thrown in around it. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Except the "baffle 'em with BS" words he adds to what he's doing.
I'd suggest that you skip Jade Teta and just go straight to Lyle McDonald for the real science without the BS.
Editing to add that personally, I have gotten a lot from the refeeds and diet breaks thread. I guess I am someone who experiences the impacts of dieting hard on certain hormones and have struggled greatly for a year because of it. At this point, I'm just trying to lose vanity weight, but it's still important to me and it was vexing and it was a hormonal issue apparently. Dealing with the underlying problem with the advice I've taken on board from that thread has been a game changer. And yet, I'm still employing CICO. I even made a detailed post just yesterday about my calorie counts. So this is me, being all about CICO and hormones. Come join us in that thread.
At this point talking to people on this forum is a complete utter waste of time. He clearly states that you need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance to lose weight. Of course you must be blinded with rage, skimmed all the good stuff and taken something out of context. I've been reading his stuff for weeks and he says that purist Cico folk are angry people! How right he is! So you think that the human body is some sort of calculator? We must have all these hormones for NO reason. They're the ones that decide whether the calories are going to be used as energy or stored as fat. Okay, I'm off. Have a good night people!
Energy balance decides whether calories are used as energy or permanently stored as fat. Hormones aren't the determining factor when it comes to fat storage. Water? Yup. Cortisol can mess with you in that regard.
No anger is involved on my part, I assure you. I just know BS masking truth when I see it.
His protocol of cycling carbs and doing refeeds on the weekend is sound for balancing thyroid, leptin, and ghrelin if you are cognizant of calorie intake while doing it. It's what the refeed/diet breaks thread is about. You just don't need to dress up the concept with all the other stuff he throws into the mix.13 -
the 'boom!' really killed me.
4 -
Why are so many women riddled with hormonal problems?? Is this a self diagnosed thing or diagnosed by an actual doctor with blood tests etc
I have heard so many people say "I cant lose weight because of my hormones" or they say their thyroid is tanked, only to find out per their doctor that they are completely normal.
As for keto... Yes i lost weight easier when i low carbed, but only because i cut out the foods that i had no self control around. My appetite and cravings did also decrease, because I'm one of the lucky ones that gets full on fat and protein. I never cut down protein whilst low carbing, I struggled to get it under 120g daily, so the combination of the high fat and decent amount of protein worked well for me.
To clarify, I didn't lose weight because keto fixed my myriad of "Hormonal' issues, it worked because i found it easier to keep my CI less than my CO. This is a blessing for those of us with crappy willpower, which i think is the biggest problem to begin with... It's easy to say NO to chips, bread, pasta, rice, donuts, crackers etc etc when they're banned from the house, out of sight and easy reach, out of mind.15 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.
I think you assumed you that I'm agreeing with Jason Fung? See this is why it's pointless doing debates on MFP because people just assume things.
I'm just going to shake my head at this. I addressed your post in the context of this thread. There was no need for any assumption on my part.
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.
I think you assumed you that I'm agreeing with Jason Fung? See this is why it's pointless doing debates on MFP because people just assume things.
No, I think he is responding to your false dichotomy that if you focus on CICO you must ignore anything else, like hormones. Specifically, this statement:On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones...
The refeed thread and discussion of Lyle demonstrates that people are conscious of hormones.
Personally, I have not found a need to think about hormonal influences much -- I did take a few diet breaks for mental reasons, so may have covered myself without having to, and my own research indicates that exercise is probably one of the more important things, as noted above, for those who may have things like leptin resistance post weight loss are very important, probably more important than food choice.
I do find that what I eat matters (because it affects my ability to keep a calorie balance that I want) but not really because of hunger (I'm sure I'd be hungry on some diets, but they seem to be diets that I haven't ever considered for other reasons). And I say that thinking this is totally consistent with a focus on CICO.
If someone wants to say that eating a particular way (LCHF or some other diet that supposedly affects hormones) works better for them, no argument here. But saying calories don't matter or are a myth or that if not for bad food choices we would have effortlessly and without thinking remained thin or that hormones made us unable to control calories and not responsible for making bad choices with respect to how much we ate, ugh. Not saying you are saying that, it's how I understand Fung.
I was talking about the people out there who say you only need a caloric deficit to lose weight. They completely ignore hormones. Atleast when I listened to Lyle McDonald I felt as though he understood the frustration of losing fat with hormonal issues and also how crazily losing weight has caused lots of women to develop hypothyroidism, PCOS and IR.stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
CICO is physics. It IS that simple because it breaks the whole process down to the lowest common denominator. You physically can not lose fat if you are not absorbing fewer calories than your body is using. That is a fact based on the laws of physics.
There's things that can change the amount of calories your body absorbs and/or uses so how much you need is not always clear, but having to consume less than you're using is the bottom line that any diet that you may choose to follow has to abide by, or else it won't do anything.
No, I'm sorry it's not that simple. Maybe for the people on MFP, but for the other 99% of people it's definitely not. It's doable. Definitely. But it's not that simple. We're too complex for simplicity. Also there's different people with different metabolisms. Some people have to just make a small deficit and whoosh the weight falls off, whereas other people just look at food and they pack on the pounds.
To the bolded:
One's weight loss rate at a given (carefully estimated) calorie intake is the best definition of one's deficit.
If, at X calories, one person's weight "falls off" but another of the same size/age/activity "packs on pounds", the two have different TDEEs, whether through different BMR, NEAT, EAT/TEA, TEF, hormones, medical conditions, or unicorn dust supplements.
Calorie requirement calculators don't calculate, they estimate.9 -
Everyone is partially right. A deficit is all that matters in losing weight but what and when you eat effect the deficit. Hormones can cause a person to absorb more or excrete more and can have impacts on hunger which all effect deficits.30
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions