CICO the lastest fad diet

Options
1…457910

Replies

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    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 loss
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    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 obesity
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    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.
  • not_a_runner
    not_a_runner Posts: 1,343 Member
    Options
    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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories