CICO the lastest fad diet
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Yeah, I think so. Anyone who thinks that hormones complicate CICO to the point that the scale doesn't move*? They're putting hormones first.
*unless water weight in the case of cortisol is masking fat loss3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Actually, I agree that calculators are a good starting point. You just have to keep in mind that just because you don't lose weight when your calculation says you should that there are multiple factors.
Hormones are one, proper tracking is probably the biggest, water weight is another......etc.
I"m not saying most people's biggest problem are hormones. That's simply not the facts.There are people who it does make a big difference but most people it's just one of many small factors. For 90%+ of people hormone imbalances play relatively small roles in whether they are losing weight or not.
My main point on CICO is simply that it is highly variable and hormones are one of many.0 -
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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
15 -
Christine_72 wrote: »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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
I know some. One very well. It has been a real struggle for her.3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
Even if we do know someone and they are, on the face of it, having issues losing weight how do we have any way of knowing exactly what they are doing in order to lose weight. Accurately tracking/successfully creating a known deficit and compliance. I'm sure all of us have talked a good talk or have genuinely believed we were doing everything right. Often that's not the case. It's not the condition causing them to wipe out any deficit. After all, if they're maintaining then clearly they are capable of creating a deficit from there.
I know someone with hypothyroid, now treated. Hasn't lost weight because by her own admission she eats too much.7 -
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
If you eliminate lifestyle induced male hormonal imbalances the population is very small. When I referenced "medical issues" I was referring to the ones that are mostly unpreventable, no those resulting from obesity2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
I know some. One very well. It has been a real struggle for her.
I really am curious how your sister's hormone disease actually truly impacts her ability to lose fat. Are they unable to stabilize her levels for some reason? What methods has she implemented to lose fat that seem to have been such a struggle?
There are people on these forums who have lost their thyroids due to cancer who have had success losing large amounts of fat, so I'm interesting in hearing about outliers and what their particular situations entail.
2 -
liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Actually, I agree that calculators are a good starting point. You just have to keep in mind that just because you don't lose weight when your calculation says you should that there are multiple factors.
Hormones are one, proper tracking is probably the biggest, water weight is another......etc.
I"m not saying most people's biggest problem are hormones. That's simply not the facts.There are people who it does make a big difference but most people it's just one of many small factors. For 90%+ of people hormone imbalances play relatively small roles in whether they are losing weight or not.
My main point on CICO is simply that it is highly variable and hormones are one of many.
It's not "highly" variable, though. It's minorly variable. You're talking maybe .8 pounds a week instead of a pound a week in most cases. And sometimes it works the other way where it's 1.2 pounds instead of a pound (this is assuming we're back to the 3500 calorie scenario).
It's not really a very large differential. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.11 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
Even if we do know someone and they are, on the face of it, having issues losing weight how do we have any way of knowing exactly what they are doing in order to lose weight. Accurately tracking/successfully creating a known deficit and compliance. I'm sure all of us have talked a good talk or have genuinely believed we were doing everything right. Often that's not the case. It's not the condition causing them to wipe out any deficit. After all, if they're maintaining then clearly they are capable of creating a deficit from there.
I know someone with hypothyroid, now treated. Hasn't lost weight because by her own admission she eats too much.
^ This
I am hypo, I lose weight just fine when I want to. (When I don't, it's because cake and pizza...)
I actually am able to maintain and lose on fairly high calories.
The handful of people around the forums who are also hypo or thyroid-less all seem to agree, CICO still applies.
Compliance is definitely an issue. Even in those with no medical conditions. I can't count the number of times I've heard "I can't lose weight on 1200 calories!!!" And they're only eating that much like, 4 days a week.....5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
It's not even so much that people are diagnosed with them (heck, I have hypothyroidism), it's that they act like that diagnosis is all consuming.
T2D, PCOS, IR, hypothyroidism??? None of those change the fact that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
For some people, playing around with the macro balance might make confounding water weight issues and some of the hormonal issues involved with their particular health issue easier to deal with. That still doesn't change the overarching concept that energy balance is king.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
It's not even so much that people are diagnosed with them (heck, I have hypothyroidism), it's that they act like that diagnosis is all consuming.
Yes. In a lot of cases with hypo, people have likely had it for quite a long time before diagnosis.
Diagnose them and suddenly they think they are broken snowflakes.
Like. You've had this. It's not new.2 -
not_a_runner wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »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?
Yeh but why??? WTF is going on that every man, woman and dog has Insulin/thyroid/hormonal problems?
I have never met a single, solitary person in real life that has these health conditions. I have met plenty that have used them as excuses for being overweight, but curiously have never been diagnosed with any of them...
Call me crazy or perhaps cynical, but these people got fat and/or cant lose weight because they're eating too damn much! Not because of some health condition they hope they have that is magically causing their issues.
It's not even so much that people are diagnosed with them (heck, I have hypothyroidism), it's that they act like that diagnosis is all consuming.
Yes. In a lot of cases with hypo, people have likely had it for quite a long time before diagnosis.
Diagnose them and suddenly they think they are broken snowflakes.
Like. You've had this. It's not new.
I got diagnosed with a new medical condition today and it's like... meh. Another drop in the bucket. Carry on with life.
I started losing weight because I had reached the point of snowy snowflakiness and I was tired of it and started fighting back. I got over that and done with it.9 -
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.
The original article was about the bad effects of CICO (which it presented as a fad diet).
Whether or not there's some substantial effect of hormones has nothing to do with the arguments in the article.
Indeed, the best argument for effect of hormones is (1) preexisting medical condition (not caused by the pretend CICO fad diet, then), or (2) cutting too low over time or even the effect of any deficit over time (which would relate to ANY diet, not merely the pretend CICO fad diet).1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
But if you can lose with the condition, what does it have to do with anything.
(One problem is that very different things are being conflated: hypothyroidism, IR, low T, the effect of prolonged weight loss.)2 -
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?
I think I'm "the guy" who said it was off topic.
It's off topic because it has nothing to do with why the article claimed the pretend CICO is bad.
BryLander pointed out that claims that CICO do not work and that people cannot lose weight with a calorie deficit based on "hormones" do not, in fact, apply to most people, and that's true, as most of the people you are talking about with hormonal issues of some sort obviously can lose weight. And can do so with a straightforward calorie deficit (although for health obviously they should also eat well.)1 -
liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Actually, I agree that calculators are a good starting point. You just have to keep in mind that just because you don't lose weight when your calculation says you should that there are multiple factors.
Hormones are one, proper tracking is probably the biggest, water weight is another......etc.
I"m not saying most people's biggest problem are hormones. That's simply not the facts.There are people who it does make a big difference but most people it's just one of many small factors. For 90%+ of people hormone imbalances play relatively small roles in whether they are losing weight or not.
My main point on CICO is simply that it is highly variable and hormones are one of many.
If someone is not losing weight, that person does not have a calorie deficit, period.
For a small number of people, it's possible they have untreated hypothyroid to an extent that you need an unreasonable calorie deficit to lose (and feel too crummy to manage). But for others, no.
Many may overestimate what their calorie needs are, yes.
Many (many more, IMO and based on the research) may underestimate what they are actually eating, yes.
So for some they may not immediately manage to get a calorie deficit. This is not a difficult problem to solve. Eat less or move more until you start losing. If you have a lot to lose (which is related to many of the identified hormone problems), this should not be difficult. For some, who are leaner and perhaps overdoing it, there may be issues with cortisol and water retention and so on.
But again, none of this relates to the claim that CICO (the pretend fad diet) is a bad, bad trend because people will eat bad, nutrient deficit diets and cut too low and cut out food groups and what not as claimed in the article.2 -
If CICO is a fad, then we can say that one fad does work to help overweight people lose weight and become healthy.6
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
It's not that these things are factually incorrect. It's the presentation. Referring to CICO as a "fad" sort of set the tone for the whole article.
I either didn't save an update I made to my post, or I accidentally deleted it. In it, I pointed out the article wasn't written by MedLinePlus, they purchased it from a vendor of news articles for health-related blogs and websites called HealthDay. A doctor can purchase a package and have a nice newsfeed for his/her blog or site without having to write the articles (or hire someone to do so). The "fad" and "diet craze" B.S. is a clickbait technique; same thing as the clickbait links you see on Facebook with titles like "You won't believe what these celebrities look like today!"; then when you click through, the content bears little resemblance to the clickbait headline. I think you can thank search engine marketing techniques for the overblown presentation.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Where is the writer getting that CICO is a diet fad from? Is there are study or survey or "All Cake CICO diet plan" book they can point to? Or are they just annoyed by a couple of people they know who insist they can eat dessert and still lose weight while they know you have to suck down green smoothies and eat tons of plain chicken and eggs?
There are certainly people who do not particularly care about long term health when losing weight. They just want to be a number on the scale, fit a dress or look good in a swimsuit in a month. There are people who understand weight loss is about calories and restrict below the recommended minimums to get faster losses and don't care about nutritional goals much. It is kind of like people abusing drugs or something. They know it could be bad for them someday but don't care.
I think the article hit the "you should eat nutritious foods and exercise too" idea but tried to make it seem too much like weight management through calories was less important to health than nutrition long term. I don't think the article convinced me that is the case with the way it was written. If some studies had been cited it might have been more convincing than quotes from nutritionists or dieticians.
CICO is not a fad diet. It is a formula describing weight management. You have to adjust your CICO to meet whatever weight goal you have.
You can lose weight in a healthy way. You can lose weight in an unhealthy way. Both require a calorie deficit.
Weight management is a big part of health. Nutrition and exercise are pretty important for other aspects of health and satisfaction.
Eating enough calories and a variety of foods from all the food groups is a damn good idea if you want to be healthy. Cake should not make up the bulk of your calories daily- particularly if your calorie goal is 1200 calories.
I think it's all this nonsense:
http://www.health.com/weight-loss/cico-diet
https://www.today.com/health/could-cico-diet-calories-calories-out-help-you-lose-weight-t119599
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-cico-diet-2017-11
http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/2017/11/12/most-popular-weight-loss-diet-on-reddit-would-never-be-recommended-by-nutritionists.html
Apparently they aren't just talking CICO, they are talking about 'the CiCo Diet' and the assumption is that when told to eat what we want, we will all want to eat nothing but junk food.
I’ve never heard of the cico diet. Is there a book on Amazon? I’ve heard of Flexible Dieting and IIFYM, but those entail maintaining specific macro balances.
And if the assumption is that we will want to eat nothing but junk food, that’s a pretty stupid assumption for them to make considering that’s not even the case for obese individuals who are making no attempt to lose weight and better their health.5 -
That's really what annoys me the most.
"Oh dear, if you tell people they can eat whatever they want, they will eat all junk food."
Hmm, does that mean the person claiming that WANTS to be able to eat an only junk food diet. Pretty weird, IMO, as I think an only junk food diet sounds awful. Or does it mean that person assumes (condescendingly) that OTHER people (mostly the fat ones) want to eat an all junk food diet and would if you didn't trick them by telling them they can't lose weight doing so.
Either way, not that cool.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »https://medlineplus.gov/news/fullstory_169921.html
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 22, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- What if you could have your cake, eat it, too, and lose weight?
A nutritional fad called CICO -- short for "Calories In, Calories Out" -- promises just that for those looking to shed some pounds.
...
MFP does not advocate a fad diet or a diet craze. In fact, the word "diet" is literally banned from this site, in favour of "lifestyle change".
MFP also does not say counting calories alone improves health. Counting calories is good for weight loss. Overall health is a separate issue from weight loss, and needs to be looked at by both those who are fat and those who are thin.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Actually, I agree that calculators are a good starting point. You just have to keep in mind that just because you don't lose weight when your calculation says you should that there are multiple factors.
Hormones are one, proper tracking is probably the biggest, water weight is another......etc.
I"m not saying most people's biggest problem are hormones. That's simply not the facts.There are people who it does make a big difference but most people it's just one of many small factors. For 90%+ of people hormone imbalances play relatively small roles in whether they are losing weight or not.
My main point on CICO is simply that it is highly variable and hormones are one of many.
It's not "highly" variable, though. It's minorly variable. You're talking maybe .8 pounds a week instead of a pound a week in most cases. And sometimes it works the other way where it's 1.2 pounds instead of a pound (this is assuming we're back to the 3500 calorie scenario).
It's not really a very large differential. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Actually no.
Established calories for foods varies quite a bit, calories burned is nearly impossible to calculate or estimate without a lab. When I say highly variable I'm talking CICO as a whole.
Calories in foods vary from what we plug in on MFP.
Calories burned per listings here are probably widely off.
Everone's hormonal make up and genetics are different.
Two people can eat an apple and chicken breast and they can metabolize quite differently.
All this stuff here on MFP is good to start but each person's metabolism is different and may need some very large adjustments.
If it was as simple as just plug your info into MFP and follow the intake levels religiously everyone would lose weight every week in a very linear path. We know that doesn't happen.
15 -
A bit of an aside but a question none the less, on this site it is praised, celebrated, and pushed a bit when people maintain or lose on calorie levels that are higher than what the calculators tout they should, but instantly scoffed at when anyone claims to need less than the calculator says. I maintain right around 1700 to 1900 at 5’10”. I have never been overweight. I don’t claim I’m broken I lose when I feel like my pants are too tight and I’m not starving. I do know how many calories I eat so it’s not that I foolishly don’t know how to measure and I’m only 38. Today I hit 8k steps which is pretty average for me. I feel there are probably as many people on the lower end like me, as there are 5’4” women maintaining on 2500 but only one of them is ok to bring up without being told you don’t know how to measure your food. Why is that?5
-
It's not if you need less than what the calculator says per se. It's when someone claims that they maintain on 1200 (or worse, 1,000) and thus need to eat 800 in order to lose.
3 -
Maybe but my bet is if I started a thread and said I can’t lose I’m eating 1700 calories I move a lot and I don’t lose weight, the majority of the answers would be “you don’t have to eat that little get a food scale and start tightening up your tracking, if you were actually eating 1700 at your height and age you would lose. I eat 2200 and lose a pound a week.” When the reality is that I would not. Again I totally get that 8 out of 10 of the posts like that are probably a logging issue but for the two that are not those replies always make me cringe.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »liftingbro wrote: »Well, it's been confused for a long time that all that matters is calories in calories out. Problem is there are hormones and they are a bigger factor than some think but highly variable from person to person
Yup, and different macros affect your body differently so depending on the person, their goals, etc there's more to the story than just calories.
Yup,leptin, insulin , testosterone and others can change the whole calories in vs calories out equation quite a bit.
Insulin is my personal devil. I can CICO all I want but if that insulin isn't in check, I lose nothing. BUT I truly believe that CICO works GREAT too. There is no single right answer. So many factors, such as insulin, age, metabolic damage, disease can affect which methods work best for you. When I was in my 20's, I absolutely loss weight eating McDonald's everyday. But because I was super careful about my calories, I was able to drop weight. I miss those days.....
CICO is not something that works, it's HOW every single diet you may ever do works. Insulin does not stop your weight loss, overeating calories is.
I concur with what you said but the hormones do affect appetite which does affect CI. We all do not have perfect will power to not eat when the hormones are strong and drive blood sugar low. How may have afternoon crashes after eating carbs. Lots of people talk about that. It is very common. When I do IF and skip lunch, I never have a crash and subsequently I'm not looking for more sugar or caffeine to keep me going.5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »People cannot let go of their need to have a magic bullet / snake oil solution to weight gain. Here is an extract of a comment on an obesity article on social media:
All of the comments on his post just gushed over this. Some of what he is doing may have merit in terms of general health practices, but have nothing to do with losing weight, other than incidentally causing him to eat less calories in general by eating less processed food or intermittently fasting.
I don't know why you are knocking him. If he found success in this, then let him have his victory and be happy for him. He's not taking anything away from you and your weight loss journey. Different stroke for different folks. If you don't like it, then scroll on, but don't be tacky and post his personal post on a public forum without his permission.
1) He posted this on a public site, so his comments are all fair game. Note how I kept his name and picture anonymous?
2) He is needlessly over-complicating weight loss and making people believe that they must give up processed food, eat plant-based diets, and intermittently fast to lose weight. No, no, and no. This sort of instruction is what intimidates people into needlessly abandoning the simple and sustainable to embrace the complex and temporary, and then becoming frustrated because it is not sustainable for most people because they want processed food, meat, and have difficulty fasting for 16+ hours at a time.
I find it interesting that a heavy person would have a difficult time fasting for 16 hours. That is only tell lunch. The only way I think that would be very hard is if their hormones are screwed up.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
4.6 percent of the US population (over 12 yo) has hypothyroidism
And the percentage who have hypothyroidism to the point that it's an impact to weightloss is likely statistically insignificant.
More pointedly, as one standard deviation for RMR is around 5-8% of the average, the 5% hypo penalty is pretty close to lost in the statistical noise anyway.3 -
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
True but your hormones will influence how much you eat!5 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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
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.
And about everyone of them will be more likely to eat less than they burn if they watch what they eat and when they eat.4
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