Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Did you ever think that there might be more than one reason people deny CICO?
Well, I've listed more than one reason, so obviously yes.3 -
CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
31 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
Are you Dr. Fung?18 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
I take it you didn't read the thread before jumping in...10 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »You cannot manage finances without understanding the debits and credits and this is defined.
As an accountant, this makes me laugh. Because most people have a completely backwards idea about debits and credits. A debit to your bank account means your balance goes up. A credit means it goes down. But many of you are reading this and thinking I have it completely backwards, and I don't.
The issue is most people don't realize the statement they get from the bank every month is the banks statement of what they owe you, not your statement of what you have.
Not sure what my point is, just that this comment made me laugh.
I woulda thought a debit on their books was a credit on mine, and that that was the whole point of them sending me a statement.
But what do I know, I was a liberal arts major*, and never finished my MBA.
But this as nothing to do with CICO or calorie counting, even metaphorically.
* Yes, the misused homophones on this thread are driving me crazy. But I restrain myself because I know language peevery is a class marker, and does not contribute affirmatively to actual communication.4 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
MMMMM ... is that not the guy who champions fasting and skipping meals ... I am pretty sure fasting and skipping meals counts as calorie restriction but mkay.
https://www.evolvedsportandnutrition.com/blog/why-you-should-think-twice-before-taking-dietary-advice-from-anyone-other-than-a-dietitian
https://rachelwilliamsfitness.com/2017/06/11/debunking-dr-jason-fungs-criticism-of-cico/9 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, it's already been well covered that many people misunderstand what CICO is. This is not a new idea in the conversation, and I assume most agree.
A follow up question is why, after the misunderstanding is cleared up, do some continue to deny CICO. Why cling to ideas that make no sense and that would rob you of the understanding that you do have control?
Answered above, I believe.
Why do people make other poor choices?
Why do people borrow money to buy a car when it's cheaper to save up and then buy one?
Why do people buy $5 candy at the movies when they can buy the same box at Wal*Mart and bring it in?
Why do people eat junk food when fruits, vegetables and lean proteins are better for you?
Why does advertising work?
People want instant gratification and are bad at critical reasoning.
Half the population has below average intelligence. I'm not shocked at all that people deny CICO. People deny the earth is a sphere. People believe their political party is working in their best interests. People believe all sorts of things despite evidence to the contrary.
They fight for their ideas. If you disagree, the fight or flight response is often triggered, not the rational thought centers.
I don't disagree, but I think the things you're saying make it even more important that we try to get through to such folks about managing to the long term result rather than instant gratification, because this is a hugely important insight that can be transformational in other aspects of one's life, once learned in one's gut.
I've brought up the Stanford marshmallow experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment) before.
I learned some useful things about long term investment - which is deferred gratification in disguise - from my rowing coach (gradual, almost imperceptibly effective but persistent personal change through long term manageable effort - not money investment - LOL). I was able to bring those lessons to weight loss, and to other areas of my life . . . in late middle age. It was a huge gift of life improvement from her to me.
I love to see people here be successful at weight loss and weight maintenance. But it's completely thrilling to me to see someone get how that persistent patience then applies to their other life goals.
It's a reason to keep trying.
ETA stupid bracket I accidentally deleted - *baby feline* BBCode!2 -
So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I don't know. You do lose weight if you eat less than you burn. You have to find a good balance for yourself thougg. I notice most calculators say I should eat 1500 calories a day to lose 2 lbs a week but I just cannot stick with that so usually I eat about 2000 a day and still lose good.0 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
That's all a bunch of pseudoscientific tinfoil hat BS.
And yes, Fung is a laughingstock amongst evidence based researchers. His theories may be cute and catchy and edgy and sell a lot of books, but he's nothing more than a prostitute who has abandoned his profession in pursuit of money.
Here's some specific research, for starters: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
Here's a research review with links to 148 different studies which confirm the validity of CICO: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/13 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
I'm going to be honest with you. You posted a picture of yourself in another thread and I'm concerned for you. You are a very slender individual who wondered if she needed to lose weight who is frightened to the point of scouring the internet looking for every worst case scenario imaginable about failing metabolisms, difficulty losing weight, and all sorts of out there things.
I am writing this as a mother, okay. Not a troll, or a forum bully or anything like that, but I see in you a young woman who is on the brink of very disordered behavior if not fully there already and I think you need to take a deep breath, an honest look at yourself, and go talk to your doctor and maybe ask for some help.
Lol. Thank you for your concern, but I'm really not on the brink of anorexia in any way (and at almost 35 and a mother myself, not quite that young of a woman haha). This is a debate forum on weight loss and fitness, it makes sense that this is what I write about here. I'm a researcher and I read about many, many different topics, most of which don't exactly apply to me personally but that I have an interest in. In this case, I'm not yet applying any of these worst case scenarios to myself, nor am I even that worried about my own weight at the moment. I have maintained a weight I was happy with for over ten years without difficulty, pretty much eating intuitively. However, I guess that may be part of the problem, as I am always on the lookout for the other shoe to fall,so to speak; feeling that my intake was already fairly low all these years (according to appetite however), I'm afraid of potential issues that getting older may bring as I feel I don't have the wiggle room in my diet for any slowdown in metabolism. I also want to be as informed about different issues, including the worst case scenarios, as, I mentioned earlier, my grandmother suffered from obesity starting only in her late thirties, and she did not overeat but she was prediabetic and had some sort of hormonal issues after a pregnancy, which is when the weight gain began; I inherited her body type exactly (very pear shaped), so I'm understandably concerned whether I will also be prone to similar health issues and what that may mean for me in the future. Also, I had several periods in my life where I felt my weight was not under my control in spite of my best efforts - incidentally, all correlated again to hormonal fluctuations - puberty, birth control pills which made me gain ten lbs that would not budge and then disappeared within months of going off, and one of my pregnancies, which was very different weight gain wise from my first in spite of watching my diet more closely. And on the other hand, during the years I maintained, I did not do it by tracking or weighing food. I did it through normal days, vacations, holidays, one pregnancy, periods of working out and not working out at all, there had to be many many times where I would eat in a surplus, and yet my weight never changed beyond regular water fluctuations. Which makes me think that there had to be something going on with metabolism where it adjusts to subtle changes in order to maintain a static weight. All these experiences naturally make me wary of weight gain that may be influenced by factors other than simple overeating (again because I'm not prone to overeating, having intuitively maintained a bmi of 19 for years). So I want to be informed and prepared. And the complete dismissal of the possibility of such issues on this forum is kind of frustrating.
Well, since I'm still old enough to be your mother, you're a kid to me
Trust me, it really is all calories.
The factors that you're worrying about with "metabolism"? No. Metabolism isn't really a thing, it's a sum of things. Your basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories used by all of the various metabolic processes in your body.
The greater factor for most people and what you should be focusing on is your TDEE, or total daily energy expenditure. Your basal metabolic rate is one thing, and you can't change that, but you can change your TDEE.
Oh, before I go on... I'd like to add that what you think are adjustments to your BMR to maintain static weight are likely adjustments to your TDEE. People can eat less and become lethargic and move less and expend less energy in the movement they do make so they burn less calories... bam... lowered energy expenditure/calories out.
You can exert control over this, though. Set a timer and move every hour. Got something cooking on the stove? Do some body weight squats. Brushing your teeth? Try those squats again. Pace around while the coffee brews. Do some push ups while something heats in the microwave. Park your car at the far end of parking lots. Take the stairs. Keep a really clean house. Dust and vacuum every day. It really does make a big difference.14 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
I'm going to be honest with you. You posted a picture of yourself in another thread and I'm concerned for you. You are a very slender individual who wondered if she needed to lose weight who is frightened to the point of scouring the internet looking for every worst case scenario imaginable about failing metabolisms, difficulty losing weight, and all sorts of out there things.
I am writing this as a mother, okay. Not a troll, or a forum bully or anything like that, but I see in you a young woman who is on the brink of very disordered behavior if not fully there already and I think you need to take a deep breath, an honest look at yourself, and go talk to your doctor and maybe ask for some help.
Lol. Thank you for your concern, but I'm really not on the brink of anorexia in any way (and at almost 35 and a mother myself, not quite that young of a woman haha). This is a debate forum on weight loss and fitness, it makes sense that this is what I write about here. I'm a researcher and I read about many, many different topics, most of which don't exactly apply to me personally but that I have an interest in. In this case, I'm not yet applying any of these worst case scenarios to myself, nor am I even that worried about my own weight at the moment. I have maintained a weight I was happy with for over ten years without difficulty, pretty much eating intuitively. However, I guess that may be part of the problem, as I am always on the lookout for the other shoe to fall,so to speak; feeling that my intake was already fairly low all these years (according to appetite however), I'm afraid of potential issues that getting older may bring as I feel I don't have the wiggle room in my diet for any slowdown in metabolism. I also want to be as informed about different issues, including the worst case scenarios, as, I mentioned earlier, my grandmother suffered from obesity starting only in her late thirties, and she did not overeat but she was prediabetic and had some sort of hormonal issues after a pregnancy, which is when the weight gain began; I inherited her body type exactly (very pear shaped), so I'm understandably concerned whether I will also be prone to similar health issues and what that may mean for me in the future. Also, I had several periods in my life where I felt my weight was not under my control in spite of my best efforts - incidentally, all correlated again to hormonal fluctuations - puberty, birth control pills which made me gain ten lbs that would not budge and then disappeared within months of going off, and one of my pregnancies, which was very different weight gain wise from my first in spite of watching my diet more closely. And on the other hand, during the years I maintained, I did not do it by tracking or weighing food. I did it through normal days, vacations, holidays, one pregnancy, periods of working out and not working out at all, there had to be many many times where I would eat in a surplus, and yet my weight never changed beyond regular water fluctuations. Which makes me think that there had to be something going on with metabolism where it adjusts to subtle changes in order to maintain a static weight. All these experiences naturally make me wary of weight gain that may be influenced by factors other than simple overeating (again because I'm not prone to overeating, having intuitively maintained a bmi of 19 for years). So I want to be informed and prepared. And the complete dismissal of the possibility of such issues on this forum is kind of frustrating.
I think you should think about it. "Terror" (to quote one of your earlier posts) is not a usual response to random anecdotes (very unusual ones at that).
"Metabolism" - an ill-defined term in casual parlance - does adjust to intake, to some extent. The adjustments are not huge or persistent, in medically normal subjects. (I grant that medicine doesn't currently understand everything.) And we can manipulate several of the most important components, through will and intention.
Like GottaBurnEmAll, I'm concerned about you. You seem disproportionately anxious, to me. But I'm as capable of being wrong as the next concerned granny. 15 -
“The factors that you're worrying about with "metabolism"? No. Metabolism isn't really a thing, it's a sum of things. Your basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories used by all of the various metabolic processes in your body.
The greater factor for most people and what you should be focusing on is your TDEE, or total daily energy expenditure. Your basal metabolic rate is one thing, and you can't change that, but you can change your TDEE.
Oh, before I go on... I'd like to add that what you think are adjustments to your BMR to maintain static weight are likely adjustments to your TDEE. People can eat less and become lethargic and move less and expend less energy in the movement they do make so they burn less calories... bam... lowered energy expenditure/calories out.
You can exert control over this, though. Set a timer and move every hour. Got something cooking on the stove? Do some body weight squats. Brushing your teeth? Try those squats again. Pace around while the coffee brews. Do some push ups while something heats in the microwave. Park your car at the far end of parking lots. Take the stairs. Keep a really clean house. Dust and vacuum every day. It really does make a big difference.”
I’m not sure that is completely correct. RMR will drop in response to an energy deficit. The greater the energy deficit, the greater the drop in RMR. And those adaptations have a nasty habit of hanging around for awhile. It’s why a slower weight loss (at a slightly higher calorie count) often results in longer lasting weight loss.
Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/252361755 -
I’m not sure that is completely correct. RMR will drop in response to an energy deficit. The greater the energy deficit, the greater the drop in RMR. And those adaptations have a nasty habit of hanging around for awhile. It’s why a slower weight loss (at a slightly higher calorie count) often results in longer lasting weight loss.
Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25236175
Yes, adaptive thermogenesis exists. But not nearly to the extent that people think/fear/obsess over. And certainly not ever enough to stop weight loss, or (even more ridiculous) cause weight gain. Never once in any documented study, including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, did that happen.14 -
Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true11 -
Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. But possible? Yes. Documented? Yes. What’s even cooler is that they’re beginning to understand the genetic basis for this response to energy restriction.
See Table 2 for Patient data. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
Genetics of resistance to weight loss: https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2017286#f18 -
CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.29
-
dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
"Starvation mode" is fiction. It doesn't exist. I don't know how this myth even persists. Especially if you've actually read this entire thread before posting.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/12 -
nettiklive wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
Your body doesn't just downregulate metabolism by that high of an amount.
We are highly efficient machines thanks to that apex predator, top of the food chain, highest form of life on the planet deal we got going on. If your body could just burn 300 calories less outside of emergency situations, it would do that all the time, because that would've been beneficial for survival back in the day, less metabolism = fat reserves last longer during famine = better chance of not starving to death vs. people who burn more calories.12 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
Know how I know that you don't know much about biology?16 -
Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?12 -
This content has been removed.
-
dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
"Starvation mode" is fiction. It doesn't exist. I don't know how this myth even persists. Especially if you've actually read this entire thread before posting.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Unfortunately, a shorthand explanation that's useful when given firsthand breaks down very quickly when passed via "the telephone game"
As a convenient shorthand when included with an explanation-to someone who isn't logging and "is eating very little and very healthy-except for an occasional cheat" it can be useful. When taken in isolation it's utter *kitten* and counterproductive.
Long version-1. You're not logging and you're not eating very little.
2. You don't appear to have an ED, but you are participating in privation/feast aka binge/purge cycling.
3. This is resulting in a NET weekly/monthly maintenance or gain level of calories
4. However due to the nature of your cycling, you're gaining fat and **losing LBM** This is the starvation part
5. Due to not being in a net deficit, you're not losing weight
6. So, Reduce your daily deficit, stop binging and start logging and you'll start losing weight.
Person hears blah blah starvation blah eat more blah blah
Person stops eating at ridiculous deficit, possibly starts haphazard logging and begins losing weight because of the elimination of the binge/feast component.
Hey it worked... and now there's another advocate for starvation mode and eat more/lose weight8 -
dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
It’s not surprising you are confused, there is a lot of misinformation prevalent in society today. This thread, especially if you read the first few pages, is full of good information about what CICO is, and more importantly, what it’s not, and why some of the myths (such as starvation mode) persist. There are great links to reputable scientific studies posted throughout from people like @AnvilHead , take a look at some of those.
Starvation Mode as you describe absolutely doesn't exist , think about concentration camp prisoners, starving children in third world countries, and people suffering from anorexia. Does eating too few calories cause them to stop losing or even gain weight? Of course not, if so no one would ever starve to death.
Read the stickied most helpful forum posts in the Getting Started section as well, there’s a lot of great info.14 -
stanmann571 wrote: »dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
"Starvation mode" is fiction. It doesn't exist. I don't know how this myth even persists. Especially if you've actually read this entire thread before posting.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Unfortunately, a shorthand explanation that's useful when given firsthand breaks down very quickly when passed via "the telephone game"
As a convenient shorthand when included with an explanation-to someone who isn't logging and "is eating very little and very healthy-except for an occasional cheat" it can be useful. When taken in isolation it's utter *kitten* and counterproductive.
Long version-1. You're not logging and you're not eating very little.
2. You don't appear to have an ED, but you are participating in privation/feast aka binge/purge cycling.
3. This is resulting in a NET weekly/monthly maintenance or gain level of calories
4. However due to the nature of your cycling, you're gaining fat and **losing LBM** This is the starvation part
5. Due to not being in a net deficit, you're not losing weight
6. So, Reduce your daily deficit, stop binging and start logging and you'll start losing weight.
Person hears blah blah starvation blah eat more blah blah
Person stops eating at ridiculous deficit, possibly starts haphazard logging and begins losing weight because of the elimination of the binge/feast component.
Hey it worked... and now there's another advocate for starvation mode and eat more/lose weight
I have to say that was thoroughly vetted, well done.
Thank you to AnvilHead too for the info and links.
Learning is fun.4 -
dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
It's confusing because "starvation mode" doesn't make sense and isn't true. The confusion is your hint that you're trying to believe something that isn't true. Some people take that confusion to mean that CICO isn't true rather than meaning "starvation mode" doesn't exist.8 -
dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
@dangerousdashie CICO is confusing only if it is applied to humans which was never the intent of the concept.
For humans at best CICO is a guessing game devoid of real science. It does not explain why people are driven to over/under eat and other causes of human disease and premature deaths.
No one posting here can even produce their own verifiable lab results proving they even know their own CICO so as human health/weight goes CICO is more mystical than anything else since counting calories is no long term protection against obesity.
When I found macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that worked for me then the binging stopped being an eating problem and over time I lost 50 pounds with no weight loss goal. I have maintained that loss for three years with no counting/measuring but just eating the ratio of carbs, protein and fats that work best to recover my health. Now at 67 my health is better than 30 years ago.
What macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that you need to eat can ONLY be determined by your own personal experimenting with different rations. NO one here can tell you how to eat because they do not know you and your health facts.
As a side note I do post under my real name with real profile info on MFP as well as various other non health forums as Google will show you. Currently I am binging on buying and rehabbing Ford tractors from mid 60's and up. This form of binging has not changed my weight either but keeps me moving.
Best of success.36 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
CICO is not a catchy idea - unless you mean in the sense that gravity is a catchy idea.
Untreated type 1 diabetics lose weight because they do not produce insulin and thus they cannot convert glucose in the blood stream into the tissues. They will have extremely high blood sugar levels but starving body tissue.
Not sure how to post it on here but photos of first child treated with insulin are amazing.
Fairly obviously CICO refers to calories into the tissues.
Just like diseases like chrohns disease might mean people can eat large amounts but not gain weight - because calories are not absorbed by the body
This does not invalidate CICO - and anyway would stop people gaining weight, not losing it.
11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
@dangerousdashie CICO is confusing only if it is applied to humans which was never the intent of the concept.
For humans at best CICO is a guessing game devoid of real science. It does not explain why people are driven to over/under eat and other causes of human disease and premature deaths.
No one posting here can even produce their own verifiable lab results proving they even know their own CICO so as human health/weight goes CICO is more mystical than anything else since counting calories is no long term protection against obesity.
When I found macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that worked for me then the binging stopped being an eating problem and over time I lost 50 pounds with no weight loss goal. I have maintained that loss for three years with no counting/measuring but just eating the ratio of carbs, protein and fats that work best to recover my health. Now at 67 my health is better than 30 years ago.
What macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that you need to eat can ONLY be determined by your own personal experimenting with different rations. NO one here can tell you how to eat because they do not know you and your health facts.
As a side note I do post under my real name with real profile info on MFP as well as various other non health forums as Google will show you. Currently I am binging on buying and rehabbing Ford tractors from mid 60's and up. This form of binging has not changed my weight either but keeps me moving.
Best of success.
If CICO wasn't meant to describe how weight loss/gain works for humans and other animals, what was the intention?14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »dangerousdashie wrote: »CICO is confusing. Calories in Calories out- Except for if you eat too little and go into starvation mode you won’t lose weight or you may even gain weight. It confuses me and I’m sure it confuses others too.
@dangerousdashie CICO is confusing only if it is applied to humans which was never the intent of the concept.
For humans at best CICO is a guessing game devoid of real science. It does not explain why people are driven to over/under eat and other causes of human disease and premature deaths.
No one posting here can even produce their own verifiable lab results proving they even know their own CICO so as human health/weight goes CICO is more mystical than anything else since counting calories is no long term protection against obesity.
When I found macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that worked for me then the binging stopped being an eating problem and over time I lost 50 pounds with no weight loss goal. I have maintained that loss for three years with no counting/measuring but just eating the ratio of carbs, protein and fats that work best to recover my health. Now at 67 my health is better than 30 years ago.
What macros (ratio of carbs, protein and fats) that you need to eat can ONLY be determined by your own personal experimenting with different rations. NO one here can tell you how to eat because they do not know you and your health facts.
As a side note I do post under my real name with real profile info on MFP as well as various other non health forums as Google will show you. Currently I am binging on buying and rehabbing Ford tractors from mid 60's and up. This form of binging has not changed my weight either but keeps me moving.
Best of success.
Except that the estimate(not guesses) are bounded by evidence, research, and actual lab reports.
Just because I don't know where my TDEE is within the range of 2600-2900 doesn't mean my TDEE is 1320.
What worked for you is great, but that's a discussion of satiety not CICO.
The range for a person of a given range and given age and gender is with 5-15% of a given centerpoint. Ditto for any given activity. or food. 100g of broccoli may have 35 calories or 38. It won't have 12 or 200 unless something has been added. The fact that we're using estimates doesn't mean we're guessing.13 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
@Hermesonly thanks for injecting some human science into the thread.
28
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions