CICO the lastest fad diet
Replies
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
Yes, there is.
Leptin and insulin resistance are very common in obese people.
Low testosterone and PCOS are fairly common.
These things don't keep people from losing weight altogether but certainly can make it slower.
Leptin drops when you lose weight which can decrease thyroid function and increase muscle efficiency so your BMR drops quite a bir. It's one of the causes of plateaus.
Go read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
Yes! Refeeds can help leptin levels.
And some of the people you're trying to school on leptin are the prominent posters in said 2k post refeeds thread...I think we may have a fair idea about leptin and its effects on weight loss. Leptin doesn't negate CICO, nor do thyroid or cortisol. It changes the CO part of the equation. It's still CICO, you just have to account for it (or be smart and incorporate diet breaks and refeeds into your weight loss plan...I may be biased on this...).
Isn't that what he said above?2 -
liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
Yes, there is.
Leptin and insulin resistance are very common in obese people.
Low testosterone and PCOS are fairly common.
These things don't keep people from losing weight altogether but certainly can make it slower.
Leptin drops when you lose weight which can decrease thyroid function and increase muscle efficiency so your BMR drops quite a bir. It's one of the causes of plateaus.
Go read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
Yes! Refeeds can help leptin levels.
They also help T3 and cortisol.
You're talking to a lot of people who implement refeeds and diet breaks as part of their strategy to offset the hormonal down regulations that occur with dieting.
Those hormonal down regulations don't change CICO to a significant extent to muddy the waters of the discussion. They often make dietary compliance harder, and they can mask scale movement due to water retention issues (this specifically applies to cortisol).
Your points regarding insulin resistance and leptin resistance in the obese can be addressed through exercise and macro balancing. This is still secondary to energy balance, as the video I posted by Mike Israetel shows. He sifted through the data. The main driver will always be calories.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
I accidentally posted it in the debate forum last week, but long story short I got too busy with work to go get an update on my thyroid meds. Went 10 days without and could barely hold my head up. Even after I got back on my meds it took 2 weeks for my weight to start moving again even counting and weighing and doing everything right. So there is a lot of truth in the hormones cause hell argument.
5 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
Yes, there is.
Leptin and insulin resistance are very common in obese people.
Low testosterone and PCOS are fairly common.
These things don't keep people from losing weight altogether but certainly can make it slower.
Leptin drops when you lose weight which can decrease thyroid function and increase muscle efficiency so your BMR drops quite a bir. It's one of the causes of plateaus.
Go read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
Yes! Refeeds can help leptin levels.
And some of the people you're trying to school on leptin are the prominent posters in said 2k post refeeds thread...I think we may have a fair idea about leptin and its effects on weight loss. Leptin doesn't negate CICO, nor do thyroid or cortisol. It changes the CO part of the equation. It's still CICO, you just have to account for it (or be smart and incorporate diet breaks and refeeds into your weight loss plan...I may be biased on this...).
Not trying to school anyone. Just putting facts out there because there seem to be a few confused people.
Also, I did say in my.posts that it doesn't negate CICO, just changes the math.2 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
It makes me wonder though--do people become obese because of the hormone issues, or do they have the hormone issues because they are obese?3 -
liftingbro wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
Yes, there is.
Leptin and insulin resistance are very common in obese people.
Low testosterone and PCOS are fairly common.
These things don't keep people from losing weight altogether but certainly can make it slower.
Leptin drops when you lose weight which can decrease thyroid function and increase muscle efficiency so your BMR drops quite a bir. It's one of the causes of plateaus.
Go read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
Yes! Refeeds can help leptin levels.
And some of the people you're trying to school on leptin are the prominent posters in said 2k post refeeds thread...I think we may have a fair idea about leptin and its effects on weight loss. Leptin doesn't negate CICO, nor do thyroid or cortisol. It changes the CO part of the equation. It's still CICO, you just have to account for it (or be smart and incorporate diet breaks and refeeds into your weight loss plan...I may be biased on this...).
Not trying to school anyone. Just putting facts out there because there seem to be a few confused people.
Also, I did say in my.posts that it doesn't negate CICO, just changes the math.
What does this have to do with the posted article?4 -
maggibailey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
I accidentally posted it in the debate forum last week, but long story short I got too busy with work to go get an update on my thyroid meds. Went 10 days without and could barely hold my head up. Even after I got back on my meds it took 2 weeks for my weight to start moving again even counting and weighing and doing everything right. So there is a lot of truth in the hormones cause hell argument.
So that would be an untreated medical condition. Decreased energy will have significantly reduced your NEAT which will of course impact your caloric needs and slow or stop losses depending on what deficit you were aiming for.
But I am pleased you're sorted out again now.
I am not saying some people don't have hormonal issues but it is brought up with such regularity as a major factor to weight loss sometimes that is beyond reasonable. There are very few people for whom hormonal imbalances will stop weight loss altogether and even fewer if they are diagnosed and treated. It's something that I don't think needs to be brought up with the genpop when it comes to explanation and implementation of CICO whatever method is chosen.
How often do we see threads where someone insists they are doing everything right, has even been to the doctor for a battery of tests so convinced are they that they can't lose on 1200 calories. Dig a little deeper and it's a logging issue. Very very rarely does someone come back and say it's a medical issue.
I don't think it's helpful to the wider discussion to pop up with "BUT HORMONES" when the impact is not nearly as significant as the one shouting it wants it to be.8 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
It makes me wonder though--do people become obese because of the hormone issues, or do they have the hormone issues because they are obese?
Adipose tissue is hormonally active, that's for sure. A lot of obese people with hormone issues no longer have them after becoming active and losing weight.9 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »Obese men, like me, especially over 50 have major hormonal issues
Low T is only one element. High estrogen levels due to increased aromatase production, low dopamine,
elevated prolactin levels plus all the leptin & insulin resistance that occurs
So, in my case, in addition to controlling my calorie intake I have been using all manner of protocols to raise T, lower estradiol, lower prolactin, block aromatase, increase insulin sensitivity and I will be doing re-feeds at some point to deal with falling leptin
However, none of those things would create weight loss if I were eating more calories than I burn
It makes me wonder though--do people become obese because of the hormone issues, or do they have the hormone issues because they are obese?
in my own case, I developed all the hormonal problems after becoming obese
i.e I didn't have them before I put on a lot of weight4 -
I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.16
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
And a good part of that small population would have those issues resolved by, wait for it, weight loss.15 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
Yes, there is.
Leptin and insulin resistance are very common in obese people.
Low testosterone and PCOS are fairly common.
These things don't keep people from losing weight altogether but certainly can make it slower.
Leptin drops when you lose weight which can decrease thyroid function and increase muscle efficiency so your BMR drops quite a bir. It's one of the causes of plateaus.
Go read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
Yes! Refeeds can help leptin levels.
And some of the people you're trying to school on leptin are the prominent posters in said 2k post refeeds thread...I think we may have a fair idea about leptin and its effects on weight loss. Leptin doesn't negate CICO, nor do thyroid or cortisol. It changes the CO part of the equation. It's still CICO, you just have to account for it (or be smart and incorporate diet breaks and refeeds into your weight loss plan...I may be biased on this...).
Not trying to school anyone. Just putting facts out there because there seem to be a few confused people.
Also, I did say in my.posts that it doesn't negate CICO, just changes the math.
What does this have to do with the posted article?
Well maybe I'm crazy but I thought the OP was about CICO, I stated my stance on it and cleared up a misunderstanding my previous posts may have caused.
4 -
liftingbro wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
Yes, there is.
Leptin and insulin resistance are very common in obese people.
Low testosterone and PCOS are fairly common.
These things don't keep people from losing weight altogether but certainly can make it slower.
Leptin drops when you lose weight which can decrease thyroid function and increase muscle efficiency so your BMR drops quite a bir. It's one of the causes of plateaus.
Go read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
Yes! Refeeds can help leptin levels.
And some of the people you're trying to school on leptin are the prominent posters in said 2k post refeeds thread...I think we may have a fair idea about leptin and its effects on weight loss. Leptin doesn't negate CICO, nor do thyroid or cortisol. It changes the CO part of the equation. It's still CICO, you just have to account for it (or be smart and incorporate diet breaks and refeeds into your weight loss plan...I may be biased on this...).
Not trying to school anyone. Just putting facts out there because there seem to be a few confused people.
Also, I did say in my.posts that it doesn't negate CICO, just changes the math.
What does this have to do with the posted article?
Well maybe I'm crazy but I thought the OP was about CICO, I stated my stance on it and cleared up a misunderstanding my previous posts may have caused.
You thought the OP wasn't about the article that was posted?
How?4 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population6 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
And every single one of them will lose weight eating less than they burn.
I think the other poster meant people who have issues losing weight due to their hormones.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
Yes, there is.
Leptin and insulin resistance are very common in obese people.
Low testosterone and PCOS are fairly common.
These things don't keep people from losing weight altogether but certainly can make it slower.
Leptin drops when you lose weight which can decrease thyroid function and increase muscle efficiency so your BMR drops quite a bir. It's one of the causes of plateaus.
Go read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
Yes! Refeeds can help leptin levels.
And some of the people you're trying to school on leptin are the prominent posters in said 2k post refeeds thread...I think we may have a fair idea about leptin and its effects on weight loss. Leptin doesn't negate CICO, nor do thyroid or cortisol. It changes the CO part of the equation. It's still CICO, you just have to account for it (or be smart and incorporate diet breaks and refeeds into your weight loss plan...I may be biased on this...).
Not trying to school anyone. Just putting facts out there because there seem to be a few confused people.
Also, I did say in my.posts that it doesn't negate CICO, just changes the math.
What does this have to do with the posted article?
Well maybe I'm crazy but I thought the OP was about CICO, I stated my stance on it and cleared up a misunderstanding my previous posts may have caused.
You thought the OP wasn't about the article that was posted?
How?
No, I'm confused that the other poster seems to think i was OT in the previous post. I have been clearly been posting about CICO and the OP is clearly about CICO.
way, we are clearly getting OP at this point.0 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
And a good part of that small population would have those issues resolved by, wait for it, weight loss.
This may be true, but it doesn't change having the condition now.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
Obese middle aged females have hormonal issues too.
You know what? It doesn't change the fact that eating less calories than you burn makes weight loss happen.
Source: am middle aged woman with hypothyroidism who managed to lose fat just fine
How did this rabbit trail start again?
Calories are the main driver people, the rest of all of these rabbit trails are just noise.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »How did this rabbit trail start again?
It starts by someone posting something on MFP.
Gotta admit, I'm confused as to where this thread has gone. I thought it was about an article about CICO being a diet fad. A poorly written one at that.
8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
Obese middle aged females have hormonal issues too.
You know what? It doesn't change the fact that eating less calories than you burn makes weight loss happen.
Source: am middle aged woman with hypothyroidism who managed to lose fat just fine
How did this rabbit trail start again?
Calories are the main driver people, the rest of all of these rabbit trails are just noise.
I don't think anyone has been saying anything that refutes or argues that point.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »maggibailey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »When I talked about hormones earlier it may have confused some.
Having a hormone imbalance doesn't invalidate the basic principles of calories in, calories out. What hormone imbalacesdo is changes the math. Because of an imbalance you may need to eat less to lose weight or you may store calories as fat easier. Calories still matter but knowing how many you burn gets way more tricky with an imbalance.
Is there a statistically significant percentage of the population with hormonal issues so pronounced that it is significantly impacting weight loss? I see it come up a lot in the forums when people want to push back about the simplicity of CICO (whether you agree with it or not) from some quarters but never see this extrapolate to the real world.
I accidentally posted it in the debate forum last week, but long story short I got too busy with work to go get an update on my thyroid meds. Went 10 days without and could barely hold my head up. Even after I got back on my meds it took 2 weeks for my weight to start moving again even counting and weighing and doing everything right. So there is a lot of truth in the hormones cause hell argument.
So that would be an untreated medical condition. Decreased energy will have significantly reduced your NEAT which will of course impact your caloric needs and slow or stop losses depending on what deficit you were aiming for.
But I am pleased you're sorted out again now.
I am not saying some people don't have hormonal issues but it is brought up with such regularity as a major factor to weight loss sometimes that is beyond reasonable. There are very few people for whom hormonal imbalances will stop weight loss altogether and even fewer if they are diagnosed and treated. It's something that I don't think needs to be brought up with the genpop when it comes to explanation and implementation of CICO whatever method is chosen.
How often do we see threads where someone insists they are doing everything right, has even been to the doctor for a battery of tests so convinced are they that they can't lose on 1200 calories. Dig a little deeper and it's a logging issue. Very very rarely does someone come back and say it's a medical issue.
I don't think it's helpful to the wider discussion to pop up with "BUT HORMONES" when the impact is not nearly as significant as the one shouting it wants it to be.
I completely agree and I always say “I have a thyroid issue and no problem losing weigh “. But dear god I don’t guess I had ever gone without my meds. I barely made it through work and then fell asleep on the couch every day. No doubt CI/CO still would have worked but I was eating 1200 on the days I could stay awake to eat them and my very predictable weight loss stopped completely. I can see the frustration now
. But yes less calories I still would have lost weight and no most people are not dealing with hormones that would stop weight loss. Just saying it would have been incredibly difficult at that rate.
2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
I'm British and 25% of the adult populatiob are classified obese (I checked Govt stats)
a fair chunk of those have hormonal problems of all kinds (Type II for instance)
Discussing how hormonal issues affect people trying to lose weight is completely relevant
and the issue came up naturally if you read the whole thread
the guy saying this stuff is OT is completely wrong
Millions of people have all kinds of metabolic hormonal conditions that complicate the CICO equation
or don't they?2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
Obese middle aged females have hormonal issues too.
You know what? It doesn't change the fact that eating less calories than you burn makes weight loss happen.
Source: am middle aged woman with hypothyroidism who managed to lose fat just fine
How did this rabbit trail start again?
Calories are the main driver people, the rest of all of these rabbit trails are just noise.
Calories always the driver on body mass.
The hormone thing just changes the variables in the in/outt math.
You can have all sorts of hormone issues and still lose weight. May have more challenges along the way than a hormonally optimal person but doesn't stop weight loss.
If you aren't losing weight it's not the someone's fault. It's typically the 3500 calories= a pound thing. We know now that the equation really only works in a vacuum. It's not as simple as plugging numbers into a calculator. Hormones are just one of several reasons why counting calories can be tricky.4 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
I'm British and 25% of the adult populatiob are classified obese (I checked Govt stats)
a fair chunk of those have hormonal problems of all kinds (Type II for instance)
Discussing how hormonal issues affect people trying to lose weight is completely relevant
and the issue came up naturally if you read the whole thread
the guy saying this stuff is OT is completely wrong
Millions of people have all kinds of metabolic hormonal conditions that complicate the CICO equation
or don't they?
How many of that 25% fall into the other filters you yourself specified is my point.
I have been using these forums for nearly 3 years now and have read a lot of research and done a lot of learning. Plus just general observation of dieters generally. The number of people who have had their calorie needs significantly impacted by a medical issue is tiny. I am including thyroid conditions, T2, PCOS, long term dieters (cortisol and leptin for those) and a plethora of other things. Teeny tiny. That's where my belief it is majoring in the minors comes in.
Always happy to learn something new but thus far I haven't seen anything that is going to make me start talking about hormones in any significant way as a general rule. There are exceptions of course, I'm not a major contributor to the refeeds threads for nothing.3 -
liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
Obese middle aged females have hormonal issues too.
You know what? It doesn't change the fact that eating less calories than you burn makes weight loss happen.
Source: am middle aged woman with hypothyroidism who managed to lose fat just fine
How did this rabbit trail start again?
Calories are the main driver people, the rest of all of these rabbit trails are just noise.
Calories always the driver on body mass.
The hormone thing just changes the variables in the in/outt math.
You can have all sorts of hormone issues and still lose weight. May have more challenges along the way than a hormonally optimal person but doesn't stop weight loss.
If you aren't losing weight it's not the someone's fault. It's typically the 3500 calories= a pound thing. We know now that the equation really only works in a vacuum. It's not as simple as plugging numbers into a calculator. Hormones are just one of several reasons why counting calories can be tricky.
Calculators are close enough estimates for starting points if you make a good effort to track diligently, then adjust to real world results.
Close enough is usually good enough, and hormonal issues aren't usually enough to wipe out a 3500 calorie differential, unless water weight is confounding things (which it sometimes is). Hormones usually only impact things by fractions of this amount, and trends over time can tell the story.
Raising these issues muddies the waters for most people, and I really, really wish you could see that you're doing more harm than good and not really adding productively to any of this discussion.
The fact is, that even with hormones or what have you aside, people in and of themselves will deviate from standard norms just statistically and there will be outliers. It's always suggested to start with calculators and then adjust based on real world data.
This doesn't mean that online calculators aren't useful starting points. Together with real world data, they can be powerful tools. Once you know how your real numbers relate differentially to the calculators, you're golden.
There are people on this site who differ statistically from the norm who do just fine because they've tracked and know.
This is not complicated.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
Obese middle aged females have hormonal issues too.
You know what? It doesn't change the fact that eating less calories than you burn makes weight loss happen.
Source: am middle aged woman with hypothyroidism who managed to lose fat just fine
How did this rabbit trail start again?
Calories are the main driver people, the rest of all of these rabbit trails are just noise.
I don't think anyone has been saying anything that refutes or argues that point.
Some people are asserting that hormones come before calories.3 -
Rickster1967 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
I'm British and 25% of the adult populatiob are classified obese (I checked Govt stats)
a fair chunk of those have hormonal problems of all kinds (Type II for instance)
Discussing how hormonal issues affect people trying to lose weight is completely relevant
and the issue came up naturally if you read the whole thread
the guy saying this stuff is OT is completely wrong
Millions of people have all kinds of metabolic hormonal conditions that complicate the CICO equation
or don't they?
Your hormones don't complicate the CICO equation.
They complicate your food choices.2 -
I just read the article and it is very misleading. Before I got on MFP I had been trying to lose weight by low carb diet (which actually worked--kept it off for 6 years), eating a salad 2x a day with my meal, clean eating... I wasn't losing. I was gaining. I had no idea how MUCH food in calories I was eating. I wasn't fat most of my life and could always just cut back and lose weight quite quickly but I hadn't weighed myself except at the doctor's office in the last decade and being over 50, assumed that I couldn't lose now. But once I started tracking on MFP it was very easy. I already ate mostly whole foods anyway, but I ate too much. I wish I had known about CICO 5 years ago--I wouldn't have gained 50 lbs. This article, like other sources, just complicates the process for most people (I'm not including people with diabetes, hormonal issues). I've lost 32 lbs since July using MFP and tracking calories (which is not CICO but a way to create a deficit), and I'm confident I will lose the 68 more I want to lose. For years, I had heard that "a calorie is not a calorie," and that "calories in, calories out" did not work because macros interacted differently in your body.
I absolutely agree that when obese, the first thing is to get the weight OFF. Just by losing the 30 lbs so far, all the digestive and intestinal issues I was having DISAPPEARED--they were gone after just 3 months in a deficit. Others have reported that their sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol numbers are so much better after losing some weight.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Rickster1967 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I would have been highly disappointed if a straightforward discussion of CICO didn't end up becoming a discussion about outlying medical issues that realistically affect a relatively small population.
There are huge numbers of obese men aged 45+ with all kinds of hormonal issues relating to their weight
it's ridiculous to claim this only covers a small population
Because I'm lazy and it's nearly bedtime in the UK. What percentage of the population is 1. obese 2. male 3. over 45 4. experiencing hormonal issues 5. is that statistically significant and 6. does it severely impact ability to lose weight physiologically.
Edit to add: You can use the US population, I know us Brits aren't nearly as important.
Obese middle aged females have hormonal issues too.
You know what? It doesn't change the fact that eating less calories than you burn makes weight loss happen.
Source: am middle aged woman with hypothyroidism who managed to lose fat just fine
How did this rabbit trail start again?
Calories are the main driver people, the rest of all of these rabbit trails are just noise.
I don't think anyone has been saying anything that refutes or argues that point.
Some people are asserting that hormones come before calories.
Are you sure? I haven't seen it.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions