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
-
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I am going to revisit my recommendation that you talk to your doctor.
You are fixated on this idea that people can be so broken that physics don't apply to them, and that this is a commonplace.
It's not, and frankly, your posts are concerning.
You have been told time and again that these nightmare scenarios that you envision don't happen, and you keep seeking them out and dreaming them up and there has to come a point where you either take on board the information that people who know far more than you do are trying to impart, or you realize that you're on a dangerous path and take stock of yourself.
Again, why are we making this personal?
I did not create a thread in the Getting Started forum asking for help or advice.
I'm participating in a DEBATE on the DEBATE forum. I'm not personally 'fixated' on any idea; I just have trouble simply dismissing certain theories that seem feasible to me, even though I don't have enough medical knowledge to say for certain one way or another. So I'm offering up my arguments and questions and hoping for informative answers in return (rather than diagnoses, but thank you for your concern). As I said, even researchers in the field have stated that they're only beginning to find out about the role of various biological factors in weight loss and gain, and yet MFP's just seem to completely dismiss all of them.
For instance, no one has actually given a detailed response to my question about PCOS.
What, exactly, is the mechanism by which a low carb diet will work better for an insulin resistant PCOS sufferer than a simple caloric deficit with high carbs?
You might find some of these interesting:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855917
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23420000
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15616799
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16002798
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27825940
9 -
This is my second time on MFP. I lost about 30 pounds in 2013 over 7 months. About a pound/week, initially at 1200 cal/day, while simultaneously training for an international Masters tournament. My resting heart rate dropped to 48 bpm (and I was NOT that fit), I was constantly constipated despite a diet that was probably twice as high in fibre as previously, I was cold all the time and lost some hair. (Yes my thyroid was normal, tested twice) I had to do a stress test for the tournament and had to go way further into it than I enjoyed, just to get my heart rate up. I also had some frustrating weight loss plateaus. Following some good advice from this community I cut out a workout and addded 400 cal/day...and my weight loss rate almost doubled, my heart rate rebounded to a healthy 60 bpm, and I felt much; much better. So I guess I ate more to weigh less (of course still under my TDEE).
So put me down as someone who loses faster at a higher calorie count. Given my physical symptoms I’m guessing I adapt fairly robustly to a significant energy deficit. This time around I’m aiming for 1500-1600/day and losing steadily, and maintaining a healthy resting heart rate of 64bpm. I’m glad I got some solid, supportive advice here, instead of being told reflexively to tighten up my logging or cut calories further.
Also, I'm going to assume you aren't familiar with the 100 page Refeeds and Diet Breaks thread? Or been in any of the dozens of threads I've seen where a poster is directed to that thread after their open diary looked accurate but they still weren't losing?8 -
nettiklive wrote: »
But you're not debating. You are wondering if situations that no one has seen evidence of might actually exist and using them to suggest that a basic foundational theory of science might not be correct. You're inventing extreme hypothetical situations and asking us to prove they don't exist, which FYI is literally impossible (you can't prove a negative).
In other threads, and possibly this one I don't even remember anymore, you have been provided with links to read. If you poke around in the other CICO threads in the debate forum, you'll find other resources and links to studies. I don't know what else to tell you.
Goodness. How many times do I need to repeat that I am NOT arguing that CICO as "a basic theory of science" is not correct.
Yes, it is always correct just like gravity is always correct. Let's just leave it there.
But the conversation here really isn't about debating this. It's about the application of this theory to the physiological process of weight loss or gain via creating a caloric deficit or surplus. No one is dismissing the theory. What people are saying is that in spite of the theory, people following a rational caloric deficit or surplus (not a 'real' deficit though!! But what they think should be a deficit based on calculations) may not be able to lose or gain weight due to various mechanisms that will be in place to obstruct this deficit from happening. I agree that in a severe, prolonged deficit, like real starvation, people will eventually lose weight! But can everyone lose by eating at a 15-20% deficit from their TDEE? Probably not, because it's easier for the body to dial down non-essential processes to make up for it, and some people's bodies will be naturally more efficient at doing so than others.
The conversation here IS debating CICO. You and another poster have hijacked this thread into an argument about how useful an understanding of CICO really is.
And again you demonstrate that you don't understand the terms you are using. By definition, TDEE is the number of calories a body burns. If for some reason your body down regulates your calorie burn, your TDEE goes down. It's not that eating 15% less than your TDEE doesn't work anymore, it's that 15% of your TDEE is now a lower number.
Please please please please please read all of the many links you have been provided. There is in fact info out there that you are looking for. But if you would rather think that this is so impossible for so many people rather than take a step back and actually read what's been provided to you, there's nothing else anyone here can do.14 -
No again
"Calories are what matter for weight loss but for overall health you should look at the quality of the foods that you are eating.
CICO is simple, eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight! How you achieve this is up to you and different for everyone. Take some time to trial and error what works for you. For some, it is everything in moderation. For others, they may need to avoid foods that derail them from their goal. You have to find what works for you.
CICO is an energy balance, it is what influences all weight loss, gain, and maintenance! (you can go on bout this as much as you want)"
It's not that hard. The thing is that no one has the definitely answer that will work for everyone so telling someone to eat whatever they want is not usually helpful.
So what you want us to tell people is exactly what we already tell people.14 -
nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
Usually the instructions for this sort of thing includes an inventory list. ... Just sayin'. So presumably, if you're missing a piece, you would know if you read the instructions.
I cannot believe how patient some of the other people in this forum are.
That, and it seems highly reminiscent of the threads we see where - on page 2 or 3 - oh, yeah OP has undisclosed medical issues (aka the cracked board). Oh, you have PCOS? Yeah - low carb would probably be a really good idea for you. But, until that was disclosed, there was no reason for anyone to think OP would "need" low-carb.
So why would a low carb diet be a good idea for PCOS, and why would having PCOS even matter if it's ALL down to CICO (and low carb only works due to cutting out calories)??
If it's all about calories, why can't I eat peanutbutter with a peanut allergy, huh????
That's how your post sounded.12 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I am going to revisit my recommendation that you talk to your doctor.
You are fixated on this idea that people can be so broken that physics don't apply to them, and that this is a commonplace.
It's not, and frankly, your posts are concerning.
You have been told time and again that these nightmare scenarios that you envision don't happen, and you keep seeking them out and dreaming them up and there has to come a point where you either take on board the information that people who know far more than you do are trying to impart, or you realize that you're on a dangerous path and take stock of yourself.
Again, why are we making this personal?
I did not create a thread in the Getting Started forum asking for help or advice.
I'm participating in a DEBATE on the DEBATE forum. I'm not personally 'fixated' on any idea; I just have trouble simply dismissing certain theories that seem feasible to me, even though I don't have enough medical knowledge to say for certain one way or another. So I'm offering up my arguments and questions and hoping for informative answers in return (rather than diagnoses, but thank you for your concern). As I said, even researchers in the field have stated that they're only beginning to find out about the role of various biological factors in weight loss and gain, and yet MFP's just seem to completely dismiss all of them.
For instance, no one has actually given a detailed response to my question about PCOS.
What, exactly, is the mechanism by which a low carb diet will work better for an insulin resistant PCOS sufferer than a simple caloric deficit with high carbs?
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.18 -
nettiklive wrote: »
But you're not debating. You are wondering if situations that no one has seen evidence of might actually exist and using them to suggest that a basic foundational theory of science might not be correct. You're inventing extreme hypothetical situations and asking us to prove they don't exist, which FYI is literally impossible (you can't prove a negative).
In other threads, and possibly this one I don't even remember anymore, you have been provided with links to read. If you poke around in the other CICO threads in the debate forum, you'll find other resources and links to studies. I don't know what else to tell you.
Goodness. How many times do I need to repeat that I am NOT arguing that CICO as "a basic theory of science" is not correct.
Yes, it is always correct just like gravity is always correct. Let's just leave it there.
But the conversation here really isn't about debating this. It's about the application of this theory to the physiological process of weight loss or gain via creating a caloric deficit or surplus. No one is dismissing the theory. What people are saying is that in spite of the theory, people following a rational caloric deficit or surplus (not a 'real' deficit though!! But what they think should be a deficit based on calculations) may not be able to lose or gain weight due to various mechanisms that will be in place to obstruct this deficit from happening. I agree that in a severe, prolonged deficit, like real starvation, people will eventually lose weight! But can everyone lose by eating at a 15-20% deficit from their TDEE? Probably not, because it's easier for the body to dial down non-essential processes to make up for it, and some people's bodies will be naturally more efficient at doing so than others.
There is no evolutionary reason why your body wouldn't have a 20% lower TDEE all the time if it could just do that without an emergency.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
Usually the instructions for this sort of thing includes an inventory list. ... Just sayin'. So presumably, if you're missing a piece, you would know if you read the instructions.
I cannot believe how patient some of the other people in this forum are.
That, and it seems highly reminiscent of the threads we see where - on page 2 or 3 - oh, yeah OP has undisclosed medical issues (aka the cracked board). Oh, you have PCOS? Yeah - low carb would probably be a really good idea for you. But, until that was disclosed, there was no reason for anyone to think OP would "need" low-carb.
So why would a low carb diet be a good idea for PCOS, and why would having PCOS even matter if it's ALL down to CICO (and low carb only works due to cutting out calories)??
Because people with PCOS often have insulin resistance, and for them (and that), a low carb diet is helpful. It is all down to calories, but certain medical conditions can muddy the waters. Even on a low carb diet, you still need to count calories.
Speaking of insulin resistance - all the Fung sycophants spout his malarkey about insulin being the cause of obesity. Would it not make sense, then, that being insulin resistant would actually make it easier to lose weight, since you're not as prone to insulin causing fat storage as he claims? His entire theory about the cause of obesity hinges around insulin and he's an adamant CICO denier despite mountains of science proving he's wrong. He sure sells a lot of books, though. P.T. Barnum was right about a sucker being born every minute.
Not really.
He actually says that for those with insulin resistance they may have a harder time losing weight because of the higher circulating insulin levels... Fasting and low carb will help to lower that level of insulin which can make it easier for those with IR to lose weight, as seen in some studies (A to Z I think?).
I would not call Fung a CICO denier. He knows that you need CI<CO in order to lose weight. His book (Obesity Code - I'm re-reading it now because I have nothing new to read) discusses how other factors will affect CO and CI which can make it very hard to lose weight. Factors like lowered body temp; leptin, ghrelin, & insulin changes; high carb diets in those with IR; eating too frequently (in those with IR); slower metabolism when faced with a large caloric deficit over a long period of time; and even not enough protein. That's all. It's about how those factors affect CICO.
That's even worse because he's essentially saying the sole existence of insulin makes you gain weight. IR people have higher resting insulin amounts because the insulin isn't doing it's job at the normal amounts. If it's not doing its job, it can't make you gain weight if that's your theory. He's saying insulin just sitting there doing nothing is somehow making you gain weight.9 -
nettiklive wrote: »TicoCortez wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
And in this analogy how would you feel about someone who insists that process given in the instructions for building the shelf, and the math used to measure the number of parts necessary (you know...counting them) is obviously flawed by nature because you, and and others got boxes with missing parts? I mean, isn't the correct answer, "Use the same process to build the shelf, and make sure to count the parts, while taking steps to correct other possible issues, like contacting customer service to get replacement parts sent? None of which changes the underlying requirements for achieving a functional bookshelf
Essentially, recognize that the underlying process is what it is, count all the parts, and if there are other issues affecting that process, adjust as necessary to get your desired end result. Changing the energy balance is how one loses weight. The standard math formula to measure that balance is CICO. Nutrient balance, special dietary/medical needs are the other issues one needs to address. This can be addressed by different diets, kinds of exercise, medicine, etc.. Weight loss** is the bookshelf.
**Or whatever one may choose as a goal.
But I never said that the underlying instructions are flawed. It's just that adhering to them will not always be enough to produce the results they're expected to produce - because of other things that may interfere. Considering the possibility that a part can, in fact, be damaged, is much more helpful than just insisting that the person must go over the instructions again and again just to make sure he didn't miss a screw (even though the missing screw would make a lot less difference to the finished product than, say, a broken board). Yes, in most cases going over the instructions is enough to fix it, but in some cases, you do need to go and spend hours on the phone with customer service and then wait a long time for a replacement part. ( I have never put together a piece of furniture in my life btw so take my examples with a grain of salt, haha. )
CICO isn't 'flawed' as a concept. But we're not talking g about it purely as a concept in this forum. We're talking about caloric restriction as a weight loss method, and that is what really should be at the center of the debate.
I worked at a computer help desk. Presented with a certain type of anecdote, I will ask "Is it plugged in?" . Some will glance at it and say "yes". Some (not many) will glance and say "Ooops, sorry I wasted your time! I feel so stupid!" and I'll reassure them that they've merely made a helpful contribution to my job security. Some will be offended that I thought they were stupid, and read me the riot act or hang up on me.
I will always be as polite, speedy and constructive as I can be with each one. Caller #3's problem will always take longer to solve, because of how they approached the dialog. They will also experience negative emotions, which is regrettable for them, because of how they approached the dialog. They will blame me. (I don't care, because I've met callers #1 & #2, too.)
On MFP, presented with a certain type of anecdote, I will always ask "how do you measure your intake?" . . . .
I understand your pain.
Back in the 90s, when I worked at a factory as a technician, there were 3 things to ask/verify when a piece of equipment wasn't working properly: 1) is it plugged in; 2) is it turned on; 3) what is it doing that it's not supposed to be doing, or what is it not doing that it's supposed to?
On a few occasions, the answer to 1 and/or 2 was, "no." Problem solved.9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »This is exactly why I try to stay off the forums. You all claim to be so supportive. I never indicated a misunderstanding on CICO nor did I say it doesn't work. I started by saying it was the way to lose weight however the execution was not that simple and get jumped on for not understanding CICO or I must be new. I have been on MFP for 7 years on and off. I have lost an extreme amount of weight but since I don't have 14k posts, my 170lb weight loss must not indicate any knowledge if weight loss or the struggles.
I am on many ither forums that I highly participate in because they are far more positive and supportive. MFP is the best for calorie counting but the worst for advice and support.
I’m afraid I’m with you there. Whether it is intentional misunderstanding, or one sided demands for evidence and one sided rejection of anecdotal support - or strawman restatements of my discussion points or my questions, or the multiple dismissive (at best) immediate response posts by the usual suspects. Or the latest - one person saying CICO isn’t calorie counting and the next person saying CICO is the calorie component to weight loss (get your story straight, gals) — I never did figure out how to communicate without the bash/ ridicule/ woo fest commencing. Just a little ‘I feel for you’ post before I disappear into the woodwork again - so no one needs to respond, I’ll be properly silent in my disagreement, disregard or even simple queries for some time after this again.
You are not alone, but probably anyone reasonable who might agree with some or all of what you have posted (like me) have long since given up.
Calorie counting isn't the same as the mechanism by which calories are operating. There's not a story that's not straight.
Calories are ingested, and calories are burned. You can count them or not. The ingestion and burning still happens even if you're blissfully ignorant of the fact.
Now, technically, you're not ingesting calories themselves, but they are a measure we use to indicate the energy provided by the food we eat. But this is a whole other discussion.
Where's Shouty Guy when you need him?
NB: He makes just as much sense as the CICO deniers in most MFP threads on this topic. His presentation is just a little unpolished.
Actually I love "Shouty Guy", whom by the various profiles is always a female. Last time they came on the forums I posted "WELCOME BACK--IS IT TIME FOR SOME MEDICATION?" It threw him or her for a loop. They responded "Ah--thanks".8 -
snowflake954 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »This is exactly why I try to stay off the forums. You all claim to be so supportive. I never indicated a misunderstanding on CICO nor did I say it doesn't work. I started by saying it was the way to lose weight however the execution was not that simple and get jumped on for not understanding CICO or I must be new. I have been on MFP for 7 years on and off. I have lost an extreme amount of weight but since I don't have 14k posts, my 170lb weight loss must not indicate any knowledge if weight loss or the struggles.
I am on many ither forums that I highly participate in because they are far more positive and supportive. MFP is the best for calorie counting but the worst for advice and support.
I’m afraid I’m with you there. Whether it is intentional misunderstanding, or one sided demands for evidence and one sided rejection of anecdotal support - or strawman restatements of my discussion points or my questions, or the multiple dismissive (at best) immediate response posts by the usual suspects. Or the latest - one person saying CICO isn’t calorie counting and the next person saying CICO is the calorie component to weight loss (get your story straight, gals) — I never did figure out how to communicate without the bash/ ridicule/ woo fest commencing. Just a little ‘I feel for you’ post before I disappear into the woodwork again - so no one needs to respond, I’ll be properly silent in my disagreement, disregard or even simple queries for some time after this again.
You are not alone, but probably anyone reasonable who might agree with some or all of what you have posted (like me) have long since given up.
Calorie counting isn't the same as the mechanism by which calories are operating. There's not a story that's not straight.
Calories are ingested, and calories are burned. You can count them or not. The ingestion and burning still happens even if you're blissfully ignorant of the fact.
Now, technically, you're not ingesting calories themselves, but they are a measure we use to indicate the energy provided by the food we eat. But this is a whole other discussion.
Where's Shouty Guy when you need him?
NB: He makes just as much sense as the CICO deniers in most MFP threads on this topic. His presentation is just a little unpolished.
Actually I love "Shouty Guy", whom by the various profiles is always a female. Last time they came on the forums I posted "WELCOME BACK--IS IT TIME FOR SOME MEDICATION?" It threw him or her for a loop. They responded "Ah--thanks".
Shouty and I get along quite well too. I had not considered the female angle though.7 -
nettiklive wrote: »
At this point I'm honestly not sure if you are so desperately trying to believe that there is some great conspiracy that you are honestly not able to understand what CICO is, or if you are just stirring the pot.
Just because there are things that change CI in ways that we can't as individuals see, doesn't mean you can't figure out your calorie goal by accurate and consistent logging and some critical thinking. People who have medical condituons, adaptive thermogenesis, or are just outliers on the fringes if normal variation can lose weight by starting with their standard calorie goal, then logging and tweaking, logging and tweaking. Yes, it's more difficult for them and that sucks. But it doesn't change the process or the equation at the foundation of the process.
Not trying to stir the pot! I'm genuinely curious about the role that things like PCOS and insulin resistance play in the weight loss process, because I'm having trouble finding credible information online. If insulin resistant people do better on low carb, why is that? Just because it cuts calories more, or is it something to do with insulin in the blood preventing fat loss, like Fung and his followers claim?
Again I'm NOT arguing CICO at its core. I'm debating the effectiveness of caloric restriction as a weight loss tool in the certain 'outliers' - forget about the perfectly healthy average person for now.
FWIW I hate the idea of keto and low carb. But I hear over and over of people, particularly those affected by issues such as PCOS and IR, unable to lose weight with a regular deficit and then losing dramatic amounts on keto or low-carb while eating more calories overall. I know there's water weight loss with low carb but these stories still seem too frequent to dismiss, and I do wonder where insulin fits into all this. I would never advocate going low carb at this point in my life - yet I'm not discounting the possibility of some people for whom it does work, due not only to lower calories but to some sort of increased insulin sensitivity or whatever the process may be. I'm not a doctor or scientist, so I'm genuinely just pondering these questions while admitting that I don't know everything; the doctors themselves in fact admit to as much, while many on this forum believe they have the only right answer figured out.
I think that LCHF is often better for people with PCOS and IR because it does lower insulin. Those with IR already have an excessively high amount of insulin floating around, and insulin is an energy storage hormone. It is going to want to store the energy you eat so first it will store the fat. Higher carb and moderate or higher fat is often a disaster for people with IR because dietary fat is being stored as fat and insulin is still being kept high so you store more fat and insulin stays high... It can be a bad cycle.
If one cuts carbs, insulin levels drop enough that dietary fat is no longer automatically being stored. If one goes very low carb for some months they become fat adapted and they become better at using fat for fuel, and not storage. Weight loss becomes a bit easier than when carbs and fat are both moderate to high.
Ornish, with his low fat high carb, is also known to help. You will have higher carb, but hopefully it is fibre rich to help keep BG and insulin response not too high, but even if it is a bit high, there is very little dietary fat to store.
This video with Dr Naimen is quite good. He comes from a low carb bias but is quick to say it is not for everyone, but it may be better for those with IR, as is an Ornish style of diet.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JipRwP754jA 13 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
Usually the instructions for this sort of thing includes an inventory list. ... Just sayin'. So presumably, if you're missing a piece, you would know if you read the instructions.
I cannot believe how patient some of the other people in this forum are.
That, and it seems highly reminiscent of the threads we see where - on page 2 or 3 - oh, yeah OP has undisclosed medical issues (aka the cracked board). Oh, you have PCOS? Yeah - low carb would probably be a really good idea for you. But, until that was disclosed, there was no reason for anyone to think OP would "need" low-carb.
So why would a low carb diet be a good idea for PCOS, and why would having PCOS even matter if it's ALL down to CICO (and low carb only works due to cutting out calories)??
Because people with PCOS often have insulin resistance, and for them (and that), a low carb diet is helpful. It is all down to calories, but certain medical conditions can muddy the waters. Even on a low carb diet, you still need to count calories.
Speaking of insulin resistance - all the Fung sycophants spout his malarkey about insulin being the cause of obesity. Would it not make sense, then, that being insulin resistant would actually make it easier to lose weight, since you're not as prone to insulin causing fat storage as he claims? His entire theory about the cause of obesity hinges around insulin and he's an adamant CICO denier despite mountains of science proving he's wrong. He sure sells a lot of books, though. P.T. Barnum was right about a sucker being born every minute.
Not really.
He actually says that for those with insulin resistance they may have a harder time losing weight because of the higher circulating insulin levels... Fasting and low carb will help to lower that level of insulin which can make it easier for those with IR to lose weight, as seen in some studies (A to Z I think?).
I would not call Fung a CICO denier. He knows that you need CI<CO in order to lose weight. His book (Obesity Code - I'm re-reading it now because I have nothing new to read) discusses how other factors will affect CO and CI which can make it very hard to lose weight. Factors like lowered body temp; leptin, ghrelin, & insulin changes; high carb diets in those with IR; eating too frequently (in those with IR); slower metabolism when faced with a large caloric deficit over a long period of time; and even not enough protein. That's all. It's about how those factors affect CICO.
That's even worse because he's essentially saying the sole existence of insulin makes you gain weight. IR people have higher resting insulin amounts because the insulin isn't doing it's job at the normal amounts. If it's not doing its job, it can't make you gain weight if that's your theory. He's saying insulin just sitting there doing nothing is somehow making you gain weight.
He does not say if insulin is in existence that you will gain too much weight, nor does he say that is its only purpose, but excessive insulin, due to IR somewhere (organs, brain, muscle, where ever - IR is not uniform throughout the body but tends to affect some areas) can make it harder to reach a calorie deficit. He says people need to take responsibility for that fact and do things that will help lower that insulin level like lose weight by eating a low carb diet, fasting, and getting some exercise. Doing those things will make weight management easier. Injecting insulin rather than eating low carb tends to make matters worse. Many with IR find that they gain even more weight once they add exogenous insulin. Many find weight gain becomes easier once endogenous insulin starts staying too high too. That was me, I gained weight after IR was started.
Plus he is not saying it is all about insulin. That is one hormone that makes a difference but he addresses other factors in his book. But even if it was, insulin is doing its job still otherwise we would waste away to nothing. There is just too much of it in response to carbs, and protein to a lesser degree.
11 -
stevencloser wrote: »
If it's all about calories, why can't I eat peanutbutter with a peanut allergy, huh????
That's how your post sounded.
I'm not talking about health reasons here, I thought we were talking about low carb being better for *weight loss* in insulin resistant patients.
If peanut butter made it harder for allergic people to lose weight, I would question the process by which it happens too.
(actually there's a slew of people online swearing up and down that a certain intolerance like gluten will make them blow up but that's a whole other piece of woo I'm not really buying even though again, I can't dismiss it completely because, who knows. So much gets attributed to allergies and intolerances these days that this is another topic I feel a bit lost on, especially when kids are involved - try mentioning any sort of behavioral or health issue in a child on a mom board and watch the advice to cut gluten, food dyes, dairy etc roll in)10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.6 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.
Have you read any of the links that have been provided to you in this discussion?11 -
How do you suppose they got overweight in the first place?nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.
I think the answer to that question is abundantly obvious by the ongoing conversation, lol.nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.
Have you read any of the links that have been provided to you in this discussion?7 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
Usually the instructions for this sort of thing includes an inventory list. ... Just sayin'. So presumably, if you're missing a piece, you would know if you read the instructions.
I cannot believe how patient some of the other people in this forum are.
That, and it seems highly reminiscent of the threads we see where - on page 2 or 3 - oh, yeah OP has undisclosed medical issues (aka the cracked board). Oh, you have PCOS? Yeah - low carb would probably be a really good idea for you. But, until that was disclosed, there was no reason for anyone to think OP would "need" low-carb.
So why would a low carb diet be a good idea for PCOS, and why would having PCOS even matter if it's ALL down to CICO (and low carb only works due to cutting out calories)??
Because people with PCOS often have insulin resistance, and for them (and that), a low carb diet is helpful. It is all down to calories, but certain medical conditions can muddy the waters. Even on a low carb diet, you still need to count calories.
Speaking of insulin resistance - all the Fung sycophants spout his malarkey about insulin being the cause of obesity. Would it not make sense, then, that being insulin resistant would actually make it easier to lose weight, since you're not as prone to insulin causing fat storage as he claims? His entire theory about the cause of obesity hinges around insulin and he's an adamant CICO denier despite mountains of science proving he's wrong. He sure sells a lot of books, though. P.T. Barnum was right about a sucker being born every minute.
Not really.
He actually says that for those with insulin resistance they may have a harder time losing weight because of the higher circulating insulin levels... Fasting and low carb will help to lower that level of insulin which can make it easier for those with IR to lose weight, as seen in some studies (A to Z I think?).
I would not call Fung a CICO denier. He knows that you need CI<CO in order to lose weight. His book (Obesity Code - I'm re-reading it now because I have nothing new to read) discusses how other factors will affect CO and CI which can make it very hard to lose weight. Factors like lowered body temp; leptin, ghrelin, & insulin changes; high carb diets in those with IR; eating too frequently (in those with IR); slower metabolism when faced with a large caloric deficit over a long period of time; and even not enough protein. That's all. It's about how those factors affect CICO.
That's even worse because he's essentially saying the sole existence of insulin makes you gain weight. IR people have higher resting insulin amounts because the insulin isn't doing it's job at the normal amounts. If it's not doing its job, it can't make you gain weight if that's your theory. He's saying insulin just sitting there doing nothing is somehow making you gain weight.
He does not say if insulin is in existence that you will gain too much weight, nor does he say that is its only purpose, but excessive insulin, due to IR somewhere (organs, brain, muscle, where ever - IR is not uniform throughout the body but tends to affect some areas) can make it harder to reach a calorie deficit. He says people need to take responsibility for that fact and do things that will help lower that insulin level like lose weight by eating a low carb diet, fasting, and getting some exercise. Doing those things will make weight management easier. Injecting insulin rather than eating low carb tends to make matters worse. Many with IR find that they gain even more weight once they add exogenous insulin. Many find weight gain becomes easier once endogenous insulin starts staying too high too. That was me, I gained weight after IR was started.
Plus he is not saying it is all about insulin. That is one hormone that makes a difference but he addresses other factors in his book. But even if it was, insulin is doing its job still otherwise we would waste away to nothing. There is just too much of it in response to carbs, and protein to a lesser degree.
People who are IR have high insulin because normal amounts of insulin don't do the job anymore, including the "store energy" part. The existence of higher amounts of insulin in an IR patient does not create more fat storage because the amount they have which is high does the work of the amount that is normal in someone who is not IR.
Like someone who got used to taking painkillers needing higher doses to get the same effect as a normal person taking a lower dose.6 -
How do you suppose they got overweight in the first place?nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.
I think the answer to that question is abundantly obvious by the ongoing conversation, lol.nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.
Have you read any of the links that have been provided to you in this discussion?
How many calories are in information that's been fed to you like a baby bird, do you think?6 -
nettiklive wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
If it's all about calories, why can't I eat peanutbutter with a peanut allergy, huh????
That's how your post sounded.
I'm not talking about health reasons here, I thought we were talking about low carb being better for *weight loss* in insulin resistant patients.
If peanut butter made it harder for allergic people to lose weight, I would question the process by which it happens too.
(actually there's a slew of people online swearing up and down that a certain intolerance like gluten will make them blow up but that's a whole other piece of woo I'm not really buying even though again, I can't dismiss it completely because, who knows. So much gets attributed to allergies and intolerances these days that this is another topic I feel a bit lost on, especially when kids are involved - try mentioning any sort of behavioral or health issue in a child on a mom board and watch the advice to cut gluten, food dyes, dairy etc roll in)
Low carb eating makes weight loss easier for insulin resistance people because it makes compliance easier.
Due to their issues with ghrelin and leptin, they aren't as satiated by carbohydrates as some other people are, and sticking to a calorie deficit is difficult, and a lack of satiety leads to issues with keeping to a calorie goal -- for some of them.
I've been around the forums a very long time. There was a very successful poster who used to post here who had insulin resistance but didn't want to or enjoy low carbing, so she didn't. She reversed her insulin resistance and successfully lost weight without reducing carbohydrates.
So none of the recommendations to go low carb for IR have anything to do with altering anything internally within the body. They have to do with the particulars of the condition and what, due to the circumstances of varying hormone levels that population has, satiates them. Even within that population, there are anecdotes of people for whom mileage varies.11 -
nettiklive wrote: »
At this point I'm honestly not sure if you are so desperately trying to believe that there is some great conspiracy that you are honestly not able to understand what CICO is, or if you are just stirring the pot.
Just because there are things that change CI in ways that we can't as individuals see, doesn't mean you can't figure out your calorie goal by accurate and consistent logging and some critical thinking. People who have medical condituons, adaptive thermogenesis, or are just outliers on the fringes if normal variation can lose weight by starting with their standard calorie goal, then logging and tweaking, logging and tweaking. Yes, it's more difficult for them and that sucks. But it doesn't change the process or the equation at the foundation of the process.
Not trying to stir the pot! I'm genuinely curious about the role that things like PCOS and insulin resistance play in the weight loss process, because I'm having trouble finding credible information online. If insulin resistant people do better on low carb, why is that? Just because it cuts calories more, or is it something to do with insulin in the blood preventing fat loss, like Fung and his followers claim?
Again I'm NOT arguing CICO at its core. I'm debating the effectiveness of caloric restriction as a weight loss tool in the certain 'outliers' - forget about the perfectly healthy average person for now.
FWIW I hate the idea of keto and low carb. But I hear over and over of people, particularly those affected by issues such as PCOS and IR, unable to lose weight with a regular deficit and then losing dramatic amounts on keto or low-carb while eating more calories overall. I know there's water weight loss with low carb but these stories still seem too frequent to dismiss, and I do wonder where insulin fits into all this. I would never advocate going low carb at this point in my life - yet I'm not discounting the possibility of some people for whom it does work, due not only to lower calories but to some sort of increased insulin sensitivity or whatever the process may be. I'm not a doctor or scientist, so I'm genuinely just pondering these questions while admitting that I don't know everything; the doctors themselves in fact admit to as much, while many on this forum believe they have the only right answer figured out.
I think that LCHF is often better for people with PCOS and IR because it does lower insulin. Those with IR already have an excessively high amount of insulin floating around, and insulin is an energy storage hormone. It is going to want to store the energy you eat so first it will store the fat. Higher carb and moderate or higher fat is often a disaster for people with IR because dietary fat is being stored as fat and insulin is still being kept high so you store more fat and insulin stays high... It can be a bad cycle.
If one cuts carbs, insulin levels drop enough that dietary fat is no longer automatically being stored. If one goes very low carb for some months they become fat adapted and they become better at using fat for fuel, and not storage. Weight loss becomes a bit easier than when carbs and fat are both moderate to high.
Ornish, with his low fat high carb, is also known to help. You will have higher carb, but hopefully it is fibre rich to help keep BG and insulin response not too high, but even if it is a bit high, there is very little dietary fat to store.
This video with Dr Naimen is quite good. He comes from a low carb bias but is quick to say it is not for everyone, but it may be better for those with IR, as is an Ornish style of diet.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JipRwP754jA
Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.18 -
Where is that awesome button when you need it...8
-
Dunno13 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.
Trust me, those scenarios only happen to people on Tumblr.
I used to believe those same sorts of things.
I used to believe I was one of those people.
Every person who claims they are consuming a certain number of calories and not losing weight and it sounds sketchy? They're really bad at counting calories.
Watch this video. It's one of the first things I saw when I joined these forums and it was an eye opener:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9AdlhB18o 17 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. The point being that the actual burning of fat is a more complex process than is implied on here. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.6 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.
Inhibit != Prohibit.5 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.
You're welcome.
The context of calories is what's important in the hormone discussions, and this is why it's always stressed that calories are king.
Back when I first joined, another claim that used to get made by low carbers a lot (they don't make it much any more, but some newbies do, and this isn't a dig against them, it's a dig against the shills peddling books about it) is that carbs turn to fat and get stored as fat and that's why low carbing is good.
Well, carbs very rarely get turned to fat (this process is known as de novo lipogensis) and when they do, it's never in a calorie deficit. There's that context of calorie intake again.
Excess caloric intake causes dietary fat to get stored as fat and remain stored (fat gets stored and burned as needed throughout the day all the time), it's the most economic path for your body to process food, so that's the one that happens. Energy balance (calories) is the final arbiter. Thankfully, most knowledgeable people in the low carb community are up on the science of this now.9 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.
Inhibit != Prohibit.
Additionally, lipolysis (fat burning) happens just fine between meals and at night during sleep when insulin levels are lower.6 -
nettiklive 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.
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.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?5 -
soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions