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 ?
Options
Replies
-
nettiklive wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
I have to wonder if you're not reading all the replies, or reading regular posts in these forums at all.
OF COURSE, different people with the same stats may have a different BMR. Calculators can only give you a starting point.
You need to start with what they give you, log accurately and consistently for at least 4-6 weeks, and then tweak your calories up or down from there based on what your weight is doing. We tell people that constantly.
NO ONE says that the number a calculator spits out based on your stats is 100% correct. That doesn't mean "CICO" doesn't work. It means the calculator isn't a fortune teller. It doesn't mean it's impossible for the vast majority of people to lose weight, it just means you have to do some basic math and be patient.
I honestly don't even understand the stuff you asked about insulin, but I feel like you are grasping at worst case, one in a million possibilities and trying to argue that something bizarre being theoretically possible means the whole system is corrupt.12 -
I had stomach flu a few times in the past. I didnt eat for days and barely drank fluids yet the scale said I gained 2 lbs. I have gained or lost 10 lbs in a month without changing my diet, but by taking birth control pills or thyroid meds. Some weight loss or gain is hormonal and defies the laws of CICO. But, for the most part it works.
Scale weight over a long time reflects CICO, but fluctuations in the short term can be due to a host of other factors of which you likely aren't aware. The body retains water for an astonishing number of reasons, and this is reflected on the scale and is independent of caloric intake.
Most people who have been here a long time are familiar with these reasons.
As for the weight loss?
Hormones? No, more likely increased activity due to those pills affecting your hormones which burned more calories, and additionally, I sincerely doubt you were accurately tracing your food intake to make a statement that your food intake was exactly the same with any certainty.
People don't defy they laws of CICO, they just fail to understand some of the finer nuances of fluid retention and factors that can impact their daily living.7 -
I had stomach flu a few times in the past. I didnt eat for days and barely drank fluids yet the scale said I gained 2 lbs. I have gained or lost 10 lbs in a month without changing my diet, but by taking birth control pills or thyroid meds. Some weight loss or gain is hormonal and defies the laws of CICO. But, for the most part it works.
No. Meds, illness, injury and other outside influences can alter the CO part of the equation or cause water retention, but nobody creates fat out of thin air - if you're eating at a deficit, you will lose weight.
But if those meds or hormonal issues are causing the body to function on 800 calories a day when someone without those issues and same weight and body composition would normally require 1300 to function, then someone could gain weight on 1200 calories a day. Thats not normal.
CICO still applies. In that hypothetical instance, that hypothetical woman would need to eat less than 800 cals to lose weight, and would need to see a hypothetical doctor to get her condition squared away so she wouldn't be hypothetically malnourished. If a medical condition causes the body to only need 800 cals to run (and I have no idea if that's possible) that is affecting the CO part of the equation. It's CICO.10 -
I had stomach flu a few times in the past. I didnt eat for days and barely drank fluids yet the scale said I gained 2 lbs. I have gained or lost 10 lbs in a month without changing my diet, but by taking birth control pills or thyroid meds. Some weight loss or gain is hormonal and defies the laws of CICO. But, for the most part it works.
No. Meds, illness, injury and other outside influences can alter the CO part of the equation or cause water retention, but nobody creates fat out of thin air - if you're eating at a deficit, you will lose weight.
But if those meds or hormonal issues are causing the body to function on 800 calories a day when someone without those issues and same weight and body composition would normally require 1300 to function, then someone could gain weight on 1200 calories a day. Thats not normal.
Those numbers don't happen unless you are around 4'5" and 70 years old.8 -
nettiklive wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
I'm going to be honest with you. You posted a picture of yourself in another thread and I'm concerned for you. You are a very slender individual who wondered if she needed to lose weight who is frightened to the point of scouring the internet looking for every worst case scenario imaginable about failing metabolisms, difficulty losing weight, and all sorts of out there things.
I am writing this as a mother, okay. Not a troll, or a forum bully or anything like that, but I see in you a young woman who is on the brink of very disordered behavior if not fully there already and I think you need to take a deep breath, an honest look at yourself, and go talk to your doctor and maybe ask for some help.25 -
I have to wonder if you're not reading all the replies, or reading regular posts in these forums at all.
OF COURSE, different people with the same stats may have a different BMR. Calculators can only give you a starting point.
You need to start with what they give you, log accurately and consistently for at least 4-6 weeks, and then tweak your calories up or down from there based on what your weight is doing. We tell people that constantly.
NO ONE says that the number a calculator spits out based on your stats is 100% correct. That doesn't mean "CICO" doesn't work. It means the calculator isn't a fortune teller. It doesn't mean it's impossible for the vast majority of people to lose weight, it just means you have to do some basic math and be patient.
I honestly don't even understand the stuff you asked about insulin, but I feel like you are grasping at worst case, one in a million possibilities and trying to argue that something bizarre being theoretically possible means the whole system is corrupt.
That's not what I was saying. I didn't even touch the fact that people will have different BMRs, because that can be explained by many factors such as muscle mass, NEAT, etc.
I'm suggesting the possibility (suggesting, not stating for a fact), that even for two people of the SAME, say lab-measured RMR, their metabolic response and the rate of metabolic adaptation may vary a lot. So that one person could lose with a deficit of 300 calories, while another with the same stats and RMR would need a deficit twice as big, because their metabolism would adapt faster and more drastically. That would in part explain the difference between people who seem to gain weight easily and have trouble losing, and those who are 'naturally' slim and have trouble gaining. I know everyone blames NEAT and poor tracking, but it's really difficult to believe that's the end-all in accounting for such dramatic differences.
The insulin - again, I don't know, I'm not an expert; but I have read literature that said that insulin resistance impedes weight loss because while there is glucose in the blood, the body will not be burning fat. How true or not it is, I have no idea.11 -
I had stomach flu a few times in the past. I didnt eat for days and barely drank fluids yet the scale said I gained 2 lbs. I have gained or lost 10 lbs in a month without changing my diet, but by taking birth control pills or thyroid meds. Some weight loss or gain is hormonal and defies the laws of CICO. But, for the most part it works.
No. Meds, illness, injury and other outside influences can alter the CO part of the equation or cause water retention, but nobody creates fat out of thin air - if you're eating at a deficit, you will lose weight.
But if those meds or hormonal issues are causing the body to function on 800 calories a day when someone without those issues and same weight and body composition would normally require 1300 to function, then someone could gain weight on 1200 calories a day. Thats not normal.
If someone who is the same weight, height and body composition as someone who maintains on 1300 calories is maintaining at 800 calories they are most likely in a coma. Do you mean that some meds or hormone imbalances (like uncorrected thyroid issues) can cause one person's CO to be less than another similar person without that issue - sure. CO can be affected to some degree by those things. It doesn't mean "Some weight loss or gain is hormonal and defies the laws of CICO.", it means some people in these circumstances expend fewer calories than standard CICO calculations would predict.3 -
nettiklive wrote: »But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
The bolded is true, I think (almost certainly so), although I don't think the differences are as significant as I think you are assuming, and I also don't think we know what anyone's BMR is anyway -- one of the mistakes people make is this idea that a calculator can tell you your BMR.
But the problem is that this has NOTHING to do with CICO. That people have different TDEEs and may have their CI or CO affected differently by activity or what they eat or having a calorie deficit (again, not to a dramatic degree for the most part, but yes, differently), doesn't at ALL go against CICO if you understand what CICO is.
Why you got pushback was not for saying this, I don't think, but for the idea that some people have their metabolism (their TDEE) so dramatically affected by a deficit, even a mild one, that they cannot lose weight and cannot counter the reduction by increased activity. There's nothing I've ever seen to suggest that's true, and it makes no sense. The studies (like the Minnesota starvation experiment, where the men were eating at a deficit, not nothing), demonstrate otherwise, in fact, even though they were of normal weight and then thinner, and we know that having less body fat is going to make fat loss harder, normally (this is why obese people can worry less about having a mild deficit and eating protein and still not lose much muscle).
Also, you seem really fixated by the ideas that (1) some people may lose/gain weight easier than others (which I think is a pointless things to focus on and is irrelevant to CICO), and (2) that some people's metabolisms wipe out deficits, even when first dropping calories and obese, for which there is exactly no evidence.
It should be easy to prove -- take a group of obese people and put them in a metabolic ward study.4 -
nettiklive wrote: »
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
Yes, mice have some very interesting field tests across the board, and if science could easily translate it to human DNA then there would be many problems solved. Until then, CICO.
I agree that two people can eat the same and end up different weights assuming all else is equal.... but no its not going to be like one person ends up 120lbs and the other is 170lbs.
I think of all the studies I read average was like 3-7lbs difference and still that was short term, i.e. less than 6 months. Long term like a year they might have all ended up the same with no difference.
I also want to note that not one person here guaranteed an amount of weight you will lose or when it will process... just that CICO works. One person might lose 1 pound a week and another person 3 ... still both lose.
"What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?"
Then one person was off when calculating their BMR. But even so, if both maintain the same calories every day the one "gaining" fat would even out as her extra weight would increase her BMR and she would be at maintenance, then when she decreases she will lose.
"Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance? "
Same thing, the one not losing can adjust again and she will lose... although again BMR is BMR so probably calculated wrong but whatevs.
"There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process."
Your right ... your body will burn whatever it can, usually muscle first but also fat which is why people protein load in an attempt to maintain muscle.
More than that when there is nothing left to burn but stored fat that is what will happen.
"why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?"
"The effect of diet on the pathogenesis of obesity is a key contributing factor; however, the impact of diet on the gut microbiome structure remains poorly understood. Studies using high-throughput sequencing to compare variations in microbial community composition in animals and humans following different diets13,97 suggest that differences in the diet modify the relative abundance of gut microorganisms. High-fat, high-sugar (ie, Western-type diet), or high-plant polysaccharide-containing diets have been shown to significantly alter the microbiome composition at different phylogenetic levels."
Meaning we possibly alter our bodies when we eat poorly on a genetic level, which has nothing to do with weight loss.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
I'm going to be honest with you. You posted a picture of yourself in another thread and I'm concerned for you. You are a very slender individual who wondered if she needed to lose weight who is frightened to the point of scouring the internet looking for every worst case scenario imaginable about failing metabolisms, difficulty losing weight, and all sorts of out there things.
I am writing this as a mother, okay. Not a troll, or a forum bully or anything like that, but I see in you a young woman who is on the brink of very disordered behavior if not fully there already and I think you need to take a deep breath, an honest look at yourself, and go talk to your doctor and maybe ask for some help.
Lol. Thank you for your concern, but I'm really not on the brink of anorexia in any way (and at almost 35 and a mother myself, not quite that young of a woman haha). This is a debate forum on weight loss and fitness, it makes sense that this is what I write about here. I'm a researcher and I read about many, many different topics, most of which don't exactly apply to me personally but that I have an interest in. In this case, I'm not yet applying any of these worst case scenarios to myself, nor am I even that worried about my own weight at the moment. I have maintained a weight I was happy with for over ten years without difficulty, pretty much eating intuitively. However, I guess that may be part of the problem, as I am always on the lookout for the other shoe to fall,so to speak; feeling that my intake was already fairly low all these years (according to appetite however), I'm afraid of potential issues that getting older may bring as I feel I don't have the wiggle room in my diet for any slowdown in metabolism. I also want to be as informed about different issues, including the worst case scenarios, as, I mentioned earlier, my grandmother suffered from obesity starting only in her late thirties, and she did not overeat but she was prediabetic and had some sort of hormonal issues after a pregnancy, which is when the weight gain began; I inherited her body type exactly (very pear shaped), so I'm understandably concerned whether I will also be prone to similar health issues and what that may mean for me in the future. Also, I had several periods in my life where I felt my weight was not under my control in spite of my best efforts - incidentally, all correlated again to hormonal fluctuations - puberty, birth control pills which made me gain ten lbs that would not budge and then disappeared within months of going off, and one of my pregnancies, which was very different weight gain wise from my first in spite of watching my diet more closely. And on the other hand, during the years I maintained, I did not do it by tracking or weighing food. I did it through normal days, vacations, holidays, one pregnancy, periods of working out and not working out at all, there had to be many many times where I would eat in a surplus, and yet my weight never changed beyond regular water fluctuations. Which makes me think that there had to be something going on with metabolism where it adjusts to subtle changes in order to maintain a static weight. All these experiences naturally make me wary of weight gain that may be influenced by factors other than simple overeating (again because I'm not prone to overeating, having intuitively maintained a bmi of 19 for years). So I want to be informed and prepared. And the complete dismissal of the possibility of such issues on this forum is kind of frustrating.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Did you ever think that there might be more than one reason people deny CICO?
Well, I've listed more than one reason, so obviously yes.3 -
CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
31 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
Are you Dr. Fung?18 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
I take it you didn't read the thread before jumping in...10 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »You cannot manage finances without understanding the debits and credits and this is defined.
As an accountant, this makes me laugh. Because most people have a completely backwards idea about debits and credits. A debit to your bank account means your balance goes up. A credit means it goes down. But many of you are reading this and thinking I have it completely backwards, and I don't.
The issue is most people don't realize the statement they get from the bank every month is the banks statement of what they owe you, not your statement of what you have.
Not sure what my point is, just that this comment made me laugh.
I woulda thought a debit on their books was a credit on mine, and that that was the whole point of them sending me a statement.
But what do I know, I was a liberal arts major*, and never finished my MBA.
But this as nothing to do with CICO or calorie counting, even metaphorically.
* Yes, the misused homophones on this thread are driving me crazy. But I restrain myself because I know language peevery is a class marker, and does not contribute affirmatively to actual communication.4 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
MMMMM ... is that not the guy who champions fasting and skipping meals ... I am pretty sure fasting and skipping meals counts as calorie restriction but mkay.
https://www.evolvedsportandnutrition.com/blog/why-you-should-think-twice-before-taking-dietary-advice-from-anyone-other-than-a-dietitian
https://rachelwilliamsfitness.com/2017/06/11/debunking-dr-jason-fungs-criticism-of-cico/9 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, it's already been well covered that many people misunderstand what CICO is. This is not a new idea in the conversation, and I assume most agree.
A follow up question is why, after the misunderstanding is cleared up, do some continue to deny CICO. Why cling to ideas that make no sense and that would rob you of the understanding that you do have control?
Answered above, I believe.
Why do people make other poor choices?
Why do people borrow money to buy a car when it's cheaper to save up and then buy one?
Why do people buy $5 candy at the movies when they can buy the same box at Wal*Mart and bring it in?
Why do people eat junk food when fruits, vegetables and lean proteins are better for you?
Why does advertising work?
People want instant gratification and are bad at critical reasoning.
Half the population has below average intelligence. I'm not shocked at all that people deny CICO. People deny the earth is a sphere. People believe their political party is working in their best interests. People believe all sorts of things despite evidence to the contrary.
They fight for their ideas. If you disagree, the fight or flight response is often triggered, not the rational thought centers.
I don't disagree, but I think the things you're saying make it even more important that we try to get through to such folks about managing to the long term result rather than instant gratification, because this is a hugely important insight that can be transformational in other aspects of one's life, once learned in one's gut.
I've brought up the Stanford marshmallow experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment) before.
I learned some useful things about long term investment - which is deferred gratification in disguise - from my rowing coach (gradual, almost imperceptibly effective but persistent personal change through long term manageable effort - not money investment - LOL). I was able to bring those lessons to weight loss, and to other areas of my life . . . in late middle age. It was a huge gift of life improvement from her to me.
I love to see people here be successful at weight loss and weight maintenance. But it's completely thrilling to me to see someone get how that persistent patience then applies to their other life goals.
It's a reason to keep trying.
ETA stupid bracket I accidentally deleted - *baby feline* BBCode!2 -
So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I don't know. You do lose weight if you eat less than you burn. You have to find a good balance for yourself thougg. I notice most calculators say I should eat 1500 calories a day to lose 2 lbs a week but I just cannot stick with that so usually I eat about 2000 a day and still lose good.0 -
Hermesonly wrote: »CICO is a catchy idea, and it's easy for most people to grasp. Plus it's entertaining (for some) to shame dieters with the accusation that if they'd only eat less and move more they'd be successful. The fact is, however, that CICO is an antiquated and simplistic idea that isn't based on science.
The body doesn't deal in calories. There's no "calorie" processing mechanism. The body deals in proteins, fats and carbohydrates and they are all handled differently by the digestive system. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, fats into fatty acids, and carbs into smaller sugars/glucose. Hormones control this process and hormones ultimately set our body weight and level of body fat. Obesity is not a calorie problem, it is an insulin problem. CICO proponents insist that a calorie is a calorie, which is nonsense. Dietary fats only minimally raise blood glucose and insulin. Carbohydrates raise blood glucose and stimulate the release of insulin. Protein raises insulin levels, but not blood glucose because it also raises other hormones like glucagon and incretins.Insulin tells cells and the liver what to do with glucose, it drives hunger and fat storage--ultimately both when and where it is stored. It is a direct causal factor. One way this is easily observable is in noting the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. Type 1 Diabetics, because they have abnormally low levels of insulin, often cannot gain weight no matter how much they eat. Type 2 Diabetics, because excess insulin causes insulin resistance in cells, often have difficulty losing weight no matter how little they eat.
You can dismiss the new research and the radical docs who are pushing aside the old nonsensical ideas about weight and weightloss, but it's harder to dismiss the science. I'm gathering that you don't like Jason Fung, but I'd be interested to know what specific research you can site that proves he is wrong.
The Aetiology of Obesity: YouTube. Available from: https:// www.youtube.com/ watch? v = YpllomiDMX0.
That's all a bunch of pseudoscientific tinfoil hat BS.
And yes, Fung is a laughingstock amongst evidence based researchers. His theories may be cute and catchy and edgy and sell a lot of books, but he's nothing more than a prostitute who has abandoned his profession in pursuit of money.
Here's some specific research, for starters: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
Here's a research review with links to 148 different studies which confirm the validity of CICO: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/13 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
But CICO is JUST about weight loss/gain. It has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness. No one here says CICO is the whole story for health or fitness, so what is the point in someone arguing that it's not?
Weight loss, health, and fitness are all different things. And there is no reason to assume that everyone cares about all three of them unless they specifically say they do.
I honestly don't understand how someone can spend enough time on the boards to have an opinion, and honestly say we only tell people CICO CICO CICO. We are constantly posting and having discussions about satiety, different options for meal timing, which macros some people find filling, etc. And when asked for examples of threads where this myopic CICO with no nuance is obvious, we never get one.
So I'm still falling back on - people who say CICO isn't the complete picture either don't understand what CICO is, have a need to evangelize about their diet whether it's topical or not, or haven't spent enough time here to have an accurate read of what goes on.
I'm one of those people who said 'CICO MAY not be the complete picture'.
What I was trying to say is not the CICO doesn't work at a base level - it does.
But that the weight-loss method of eating at a nutritionally reasonable deficit may not work the same for different people - even if you take, say, two people with the exact same stats and BMR and place them on a controlled diet. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying this is definitely the case - I'm not a scientist and I haven't conducted any studies on the subject, but neither have I seen any that disprove it - though there are studies on mice which were similar and that suggested that hormones and gut microbes may play a part, where one mouse would become obese and one wouldn't in spite of the same diet and activity.
Now, for the people that like to bring in the anorexic and starvation strawmen: obviously, if you stop eating full-stop; or, eat extremely minimal amounts, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, no doubt.
Unfortunately most of us can't just stop eating to lose weight. And that's where the rest of that 'picture' comes in. Trying to lose weight on what is a reasonable intake that still provides adequate nutrition and energy.
What if when two women of the same BMR eat a surplus of, say, 300 calories, one woman's BMR revs up by those 300 calories to burn the excess, keeping her at the same weight; while the other woman's BMR remains the same, and these 300 calories get deposited as fat?
Conversely, if they're both eating in a 300 calories deficit, one women's BMR may remain the same and burn these 300 calories to function; while the other's metabolic rate will downregulate by 300 calories and remain in maintenance?
Why is that not possible?
Again, I'm not talking about extremes like the Minessota study here. Yes, maybe if that second woman eats at a 1000 deficit for weeks she will eventually lose weight. But her deficit may always need to be much bigger than someone else's. Is that not a possibility?
There are also issues with insulin and other hormonal and metabolic pathways. The body doesn't just directly burn fat, it does so through a complex process. Since we talk about dying from starvation, does that mean an obese person could essentially sustain themselves with NO food for months while fueling their body through their fat reserves? Is it not possible for someone to die from starvation while still being overweight? Why or why not?
I'm not pushing 'woo' or being ornery here, honestly; I'm sincerely just throwing these questions out there because they're in my head, and because from what I've read and seen, science is just beginning to tap the iceberg of some these issues and doctors themselves admit that there is still a LOT they don't know about some of the biological processes around obesity. If it was proven that it simply came down solely to caloric restriction and nothing else, why would things like gut biomes or the role of leptin or insulin even be a field of research?
I'm going to be honest with you. You posted a picture of yourself in another thread and I'm concerned for you. You are a very slender individual who wondered if she needed to lose weight who is frightened to the point of scouring the internet looking for every worst case scenario imaginable about failing metabolisms, difficulty losing weight, and all sorts of out there things.
I am writing this as a mother, okay. Not a troll, or a forum bully or anything like that, but I see in you a young woman who is on the brink of very disordered behavior if not fully there already and I think you need to take a deep breath, an honest look at yourself, and go talk to your doctor and maybe ask for some help.
Lol. Thank you for your concern, but I'm really not on the brink of anorexia in any way (and at almost 35 and a mother myself, not quite that young of a woman haha). This is a debate forum on weight loss and fitness, it makes sense that this is what I write about here. I'm a researcher and I read about many, many different topics, most of which don't exactly apply to me personally but that I have an interest in. In this case, I'm not yet applying any of these worst case scenarios to myself, nor am I even that worried about my own weight at the moment. I have maintained a weight I was happy with for over ten years without difficulty, pretty much eating intuitively. However, I guess that may be part of the problem, as I am always on the lookout for the other shoe to fall,so to speak; feeling that my intake was already fairly low all these years (according to appetite however), I'm afraid of potential issues that getting older may bring as I feel I don't have the wiggle room in my diet for any slowdown in metabolism. I also want to be as informed about different issues, including the worst case scenarios, as, I mentioned earlier, my grandmother suffered from obesity starting only in her late thirties, and she did not overeat but she was prediabetic and had some sort of hormonal issues after a pregnancy, which is when the weight gain began; I inherited her body type exactly (very pear shaped), so I'm understandably concerned whether I will also be prone to similar health issues and what that may mean for me in the future. Also, I had several periods in my life where I felt my weight was not under my control in spite of my best efforts - incidentally, all correlated again to hormonal fluctuations - puberty, birth control pills which made me gain ten lbs that would not budge and then disappeared within months of going off, and one of my pregnancies, which was very different weight gain wise from my first in spite of watching my diet more closely. And on the other hand, during the years I maintained, I did not do it by tracking or weighing food. I did it through normal days, vacations, holidays, one pregnancy, periods of working out and not working out at all, there had to be many many times where I would eat in a surplus, and yet my weight never changed beyond regular water fluctuations. Which makes me think that there had to be something going on with metabolism where it adjusts to subtle changes in order to maintain a static weight. All these experiences naturally make me wary of weight gain that may be influenced by factors other than simple overeating (again because I'm not prone to overeating, having intuitively maintained a bmi of 19 for years). So I want to be informed and prepared. And the complete dismissal of the possibility of such issues on this forum is kind of frustrating.
Well, since I'm still old enough to be your mother, you're a kid to me
Trust me, it really is all calories.
The factors that you're worrying about with "metabolism"? No. Metabolism isn't really a thing, it's a sum of things. Your basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories used by all of the various metabolic processes in your body.
The greater factor for most people and what you should be focusing on is your TDEE, or total daily energy expenditure. Your basal metabolic rate is one thing, and you can't change that, but you can change your TDEE.
Oh, before I go on... I'd like to add that what you think are adjustments to your BMR to maintain static weight are likely adjustments to your TDEE. People can eat less and become lethargic and move less and expend less energy in the movement they do make so they burn less calories... bam... lowered energy expenditure/calories out.
You can exert control over this, though. Set a timer and move every hour. Got something cooking on the stove? Do some body weight squats. Brushing your teeth? Try those squats again. Pace around while the coffee brews. Do some push ups while something heats in the microwave. Park your car at the far end of parking lots. Take the stairs. Keep a really clean house. Dust and vacuum every day. It really does make a big difference.14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions