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
-
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.
CICO applies to humans and to any other animals.
CICO is not calorie counting - of course some people can lose or maintain without counting or measuring.
And of course different macros and good combinations are satisfying satiating nutritious to different people - nobody disputes that. But it is not what CICO means.
Just like some people enjoy parachuting. Some people can make paper planes that fly without measuring them.
These things do not mean gravity does not work .
15 -
What human science ?????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.
Thank you to those who replied. When I posted this I did not mean to imply that I believe in CICO or starvation mode. I was implying that I was suspicious of both of them and was confused at how little sense it makes! Nor am I saying that I disagree with CICO.
Thank you for all helpful answers! And a less hearty thank you to those who gave me helpful but judgmental replies. But still thank you!7 -
stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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?
https://google.com/search?q=cico&oq=CICO&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j35i39j0l3.6711j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is what I got when I Googled the term CICO.14 -
dangerousdashie 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.
Thank you to those who replied. When I posted this I did not mean to imply that I believe in CICO or starvation mode. I was implying that I was suspicious of both of them and was confused at how little sense it makes! Nor am I saying that I disagree with CICO.
Thank you for all helpful answers! And a less hearty thank you to those who gave me helpful but judgmental replies. But still thank you!
Not sure what issue you may have with CICO. It's pretty simple and clear as an underlying reality. But it also is pretty limited in application as it is not intended to address satiety, preferences etc. So for what it does, it does well. For what it doesn't do, that becomes a different topic.
It's kinda like using a formula for how fast an object accelerates in earth gravity and applying it to why an airplane flies. It's relevant, but there is so much more in play that it isn't adequate. But if talking about the basic formula, the airplane in not relevant.
As to starvation mode, the way you've described it is a myth. But I think that has been answered.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
https://google.com/search?q=cico&oq=CICO&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j35i39j0l3.6711j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is what I got when I Googled the term CICO.
How did those Google results lead you to conclude that CICO wasn't *intended* to describe how weight loss/gain happens for humans and other animals? What was it intended to describe (and to whom are you attributing this initial intention)?
7 -
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.
Serious question Gale. You take issue with CICO because you say that no one can precisely measure their own TDEE therefore you think it invalidates the concept. You’ve also said before you don’t think CICO is helpful because it doesn’t address “why” humans overeat and become obese.
You’ve found good success with your approach which is a macro split which is low carb. You even say in your post here:
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.
How is that any different than people telling you time and again that we don’t need to know the exact amount of calories we burn to the decimal point. That being in the ballpark and using estimates and monitoring/adjusting based on actual results is completely effective and exactly what the concept of CICO is meant to support. How is your statement that personal experimentation with different rations is important, any different than all of us saying that what causes a person to overeat is very individual and not what CICO is meant to address, that of course a person needs to find a way of eating that is both satiating and enjoyable if they are going to be successful in the long term?
21 -
Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.23
-
stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
This is true. I mean, everyone experiences temperature differently. If it's 65 degrees F outside, some people will be chilly and some will be warm. Temperature is a useless myth that is not useful to people so meteorologists should stop reporting it. I'm going to throw out my thermometers, I've always had the feeling they were inaccurate anyway.29 -
stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
This is true. I mean, everyone experiences temperature differently. If it's 65 degrees F outside, some people will be chilly and some will be warm. Temperature is a useless myth that is not useful to people so meteorologists should stop reporting it. I'm going to throw out my thermometers, I've always had the feeling they were inaccurate anyway.
Based on the reactions, at least one person needed a smiley. or a tag to understand your post.
I just wanted my awesome back.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
This is true. I mean, everyone experiences temperature differently. If it's 65 degrees F outside, some people will be chilly and some will be warm. Temperature is a useless myth that is not useful to people so meteorologists should stop reporting it. I'm going to throw out my thermometers, I've always had the feeling they were inaccurate anyway.
See, you completely misunderstand what the purpose of temperature is........ 13 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
This is true. I mean, everyone experiences temperature differently. If it's 65 degrees F outside, some people will be chilly and some will be warm. Temperature is a useless myth that is not useful to people so meteorologists should stop reporting it. I'm going to throw out my thermometers, I've always had the feeling they were inaccurate anyway.
See, you completely misunderstand what the purpose of temperature is........
Isn't it temperature that keeps my apartment warm?6 -
On the temperature thing, it's always something that's bugged me when people say human body temperature is 98.6F.
It bugs me because it implies an accuracy that should not be applied to human body temperature. The "proper" definition is that the human body is about 37C. With a range of .5C (or 36.5-37.5C). So, to me, this means that is about 98 and a half F. Just because the math says that 37C = 98.6F doesn't mean we can use that implied precision. 98 and a half is more accurate than 98.6 in this context.
So, the same with CICO. Yeah, we don't know exact numbers, so don't pretend that we do or don't pretend that we need to. Get a ballpark and adjust as needed. But of course that is NEVER brought up in CICO threads. Oh, wait, it is. Every frikken time.
Who wants the soapbox next?14 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
This is true. I mean, everyone experiences temperature differently. If it's 65 degrees F outside, some people will be chilly and some will be warm. Temperature is a useless myth that is not useful to people so meteorologists should stop reporting it. I'm going to throw out my thermometers, I've always had the feeling they were inaccurate anyway.
Based on the reactions, at least one person needed a smiley. or a tag to understand your post.
I just wanted my awesome back.
Sometimes I purposefully like to leave off emojis just to get the temperature of the room. Oh, wait...17 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
This is true. I mean, everyone experiences temperature differently. If it's 65 degrees F outside, some people will be chilly and some will be warm. Temperature is a useless myth that is not useful to people so meteorologists should stop reporting it. I'm going to throw out my thermometers, I've always had the feeling they were inaccurate anyway.
See, you completely misunderstand what the purpose of temperature is........
Isn't it temperature that keeps my apartment warm?
Temperature doesn't explain why I'll be freezing in a sweater and socks and my husband will be walking around in shorts laughing at me, so it's obviously an invalid concept.15 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
This is true. I mean, everyone experiences temperature differently. If it's 65 degrees F outside, some people will be chilly and some will be warm. Temperature is a useless myth that is not useful to people so meteorologists should stop reporting it. I'm going to throw out my thermometers, I've always had the feeling they were inaccurate anyway.
See, you completely misunderstand what the purpose of temperature is........
Isn't it temperature that keeps my apartment warm?
It depends on what kind of temperature - gas temperature isn't the same thing as electric temperature.6 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »But even if I can't get to the 25 BMI, as you pointed out, getting to my lowest sustainable weight, even if it puts me at a 30 BMI, is still way, way better than being at 57!
100% agreed. I'm stalled at around 27.5 and am staying put for a bit. It's way better than the ~45 I started at and if I never break through the magic 25, so be it. I'm fitter, run a lot more and look better at 53 than I did at 33 (except for the gray hair).
*laughs* and you can hide that with Clarol! lol
I'm 38, and I'm set now to enter my 40's in much shape than I did when I hit 30, even if I don't get to that 25 number. I will be absolutely estatic to get below 250; below 200 would be a dream come true. Getting below 160? I have a hard time picturing that.
To the bolded: Don't. Pleeeeaase don't.
The world needs more thinner, fitter bad-*baby-feline* old-people role models.
Apologies for the digression. Kinda.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The decision to stop dying my hair was one of the most liberating decisions of my life.
I love my salt and pepper hair AND not spending the time every month fearing for the safety of my furniture and making a mess of the bathroom.
Sorry I'm late to replying - its been a busy few weeks
I've actually never colored my hair ever. It absolutely amazed the girl who cut my hair last time; she was floored that it was, in her words "virgin hair".....
I don't mind my gray streaks; they're more silver than gray, and I just consider them to be natural highlights lol6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
And again, I would suggest that you are mis-characterizing the majority of the advice that is given on these forums, and the situations in which that advice is given.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
Tailoring advice to a vanishingly rare case, ill serves the common case.
I agree with the call for compassion, for starters anyway, in all cases.
"Eat more" is also commonly given advice here, as an aside.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
https://google.com/search?q=cico&oq=CICO&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j35i39j0l3.6711j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is what I got when I Googled the term CICO.
What do you think this demonstrates?
Also, are you aware that different people googling the same thing will get different results?7 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
I did not know it was 0.0099%. Do you have a source for that figure?9 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
I did not know it was 0.0099%. Do you have a source for that figure?
I just pulled that number out of thin air. You are still talking about the rare case in which this happens. Maybe you should give me the percentage of with people with this condition and we can work back from there.
ETA missed a word8 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
I did not know it was 0.0099%. Do you have a source for that figure?
I just pulled that number out of thin air. You are still talking about the rare case in which this happens. Maybe you should give me the percentage of with people with this condition and we can back from there.
Well .0099% is 1 out of 100000, or did I add an extra zero.
Either way. That's a LOT of people. It's probably actually a much smaller number Most of whom should be under a doctor's immediate care. 6 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.18 -
stanmann571 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
I did not know it was 0.0099%. Do you have a source for that figure?
I just pulled that number out of thin air. You are still talking about the rare case in which this happens. Maybe you should give me the percentage of with people with this condition and we can back from there.
Well .0099% is 1 out of 100000, or did I add an extra zero.
Either way. That's a LOT of people. It's probably actually a much smaller number Most of whom should be under a doctor's immediate care.
Thanks for doing the math for me. I thought I picked a pretty solid number for how thin the air was. Teaches me.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
I did not know it was 0.0099%. Do you have a source for that figure?
I just pulled that number out of thin air. You are still talking about the rare case in which this happens. Maybe you should give me the percentage of with people with this condition and we can back from there.
Well .0099% is 1 out of 100000, or did I add an extra zero.
Either way. That's a LOT of people. It's probably actually a much smaller number Most of whom should be under a doctor's immediate care.
The best way to validate a specious theory - find the rare, extreme outliers and apply the results to everybody.11
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
- 232.5K 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