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: »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)??
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.18 -
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?" . . . .
"When you hear hoofbeats think of horses, not zebras"
Diagnostically across a variety of specialties you work from the common to the uncommon based on symptoms. This is the same approach you see from doctors to engineers. And I would argue the most common reason to not lose weight is inaccuracy in measuring food intake.
(And just to be clear - I am agreeing with the person I am quoting)15 -
...and 99.9 times out of 100, their intake tracking is a hot mess. When (or should I say 'if') you finally get them to 'fess up and acknowledge the question, they're either eyeballing, using package measurements, measuring solids with spoons/cups, or not measuring at all. So they don't really even have a good idea of what their calorie intake is, despite their insistence that they're eating 1000 calories a day and not losing. Or they're maintaining a deficit all week and then going completely off the rails on weekends, eating everything in sight and wiping out their deficit for the week and then some.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?" . . . .
And then there are the ones who are convinced they burn 2,000 calories doing a Zumba class or cleaning house for an hour, and faithfully eat those calories back - so they don't go into "starvation mode", dont'cha know.
Again we're delving into calorie counting vs. CICO - but the point is that their CI is too high and/or their CO is too low, whether they realize it or not. They're not really in a deficit at all and whether they're accurately counting calories or not doesn't matter. Our bodies aren't tied to MFP's diary and don't care what we log or how we measure it - if we're eating too much we'll gain weight and if we're eating in a deficit we'll lose weight. Whether we track it, measure it, count it and log it or not.17 -
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.8 -
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.10 -
sunfastrose wrote: »"When you hear hoofbeats think of horses, not zebras"
Diagnostically across a variety of specialties you work from the common to the uncommon based on symptoms. This is the same approach you see from doctors to engineers. And I would argue the most common reason to not lose weight is inaccuracy in measuring food intake.
Quite honestly, after having myself experienced and knowing others that experienced a number of health concerns that were completely dismissed and brushed off by doctors simply because they weren't 'horses', I despise this statement.
It's all fine to START with the common and work to the uncommon, if you actually do that. Yet too many 'professionals' simply stop at the "well it's not a horse and clearly zebras don't live around here so I can't help you" phase.
Oh and don't even get me started on tech support, like our internet provider who would put us through hours of the same inane 'restart your router' instructions on the phone, when the problem in fact turned out to be on their end just as I and my husband were trying to tell them from the beginning.
Maybe patience is just not my strong suit, lol.16 -
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.
Do you have PCOS?
Are you IR?
Why are you set on finding situations that invalidate a simple concept, admitting that you are focusing on outliers and rare exceptions?
And to the bolded.... That. Does. Not. Happen.
People do not lose weight, true weight, eating more calories than their maintenance, regardless of what type of diet. Study after study, posted here, have shown no long term advantage to a low carb diet for weight loss, when calories and protein are held constant.
Also, a thought just struck me. Blambo, is that you?17 -
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.
In fact, it should. People with T1D or even advanced T2D often lose weight because they lack insulin and so can't transport carbs properly (including storing it as fat in the cells). It's normal to put on some weight when insulin is reintroduced.
The same would be true for having insulin and not being able to use it -- you are in essence wasting carbs you don't burn. So how do you gain? Pretty much everyone also eats fat. What I think happens with IR is that you aren't effectively using carbs you eat, so you feel hungry/low energy, or are more prone to energy crashes (which make you feel hungry), and you aren't getting the sense of satiety after eating that you should. So you eat more and put on weight -- but as with most, the fat added is largely from the fat you eat (which does not mean that fat makes you fat, excess calories do).
Someone with IR may find they feel more sated with a lower carb diet (or might not), and in many cases having a lower carb diet (or eating carbs WITH fiber and protein) will prevent that crash after eating that some get. And plus if you can't effectively use insulin you will be prone to excessive insulin spikes and elevated insulin (in a way healthy people are not) and that's not good for you. These are all good reasons to be concerned about carbs or how you eat them if IR that has absolutely nothing to do with some idea that calorie deficit is not what causes weight loss.
Low carb can be an effective way for some to achieve a calorie deficit. It is not an ALTERNATIVE to having a calorie deficit, of course. (I know you know this, AnvilHead.)4 -
I 'm gonna go a different way here. (Trigger warning: It may be unsympathetic . . . but this is the debate forum.)
I have a woman in my friend feed. She is younger than me, taller than me. When I first "met" her, she was still significantly overweight. She was eating something like 1000-1100 calories, but being moderately active.
I questioned her calorie intake; it seemed astonishingly low. She said she'd been working at weight loss for a long time, including the right consults with professionals. She had found no way to lose without eating this little, and still lost only slowly. But she'd done her research, made up her mind to cram absolutely as much top notch nutrition as she could into very limited calories, stay busy (NEAT-wise) and exercise to the extent feasible within certain injury limitations that affected her at the time.
I looked at her food diary. It was detailed, meticulous, impressive. She was getting much better nutrition on 1100 calories than most MFP-ers I've seen get on twice that budget. I saw what she did for exercise activity, saw the level headed comments she made, saw her patiently chip away at weight loss over a long time. For these and other reasons, I believed everything she logged and wrote.
As her physical issues resolved, she got a trainer and started more intensive exercise, including progressive weight training. When she finally reached goal weight, she started patiently and very slowly increasing calories in "reverse dieting" fashion, keeping the stellar nutrition.
Overall, she's lost 70+ pounds, looks great, can eat a bit more now (still pretty low for her age and size). At last report, all is well. I'm sure she wishes she could eat more, but I can't say I've ever seen much comment about that.
Because of her, I'm more likely to engage with and try to encourage people who may be in a similar spot with respect to calorie requirements (though, because of TOS, I won't advocate VLCD for anyone).
I see people here moderately often who "can't lose", feel it's unfair, appear resentful of those who (like me) can eat more, chase fads and strange metabolic theories, etc. Some are quick to take neutral questions or advice as criticism. (I'm not putting all "can't lose" folks in these categories, BTW . . . but there is an observable incidence.)
I try to be understanding and sympathetic to everyone, though it's really not a native part of my nature. I try really hard, I swear. I know I don't always succeed. And I'll admit to being judgemental on the inside, sometimes, even as I try to keep it out of my posts.
Attitude and outlook are relevant to weight loss success, along with the much-maligned CICO. Relevant to life balance, satisfaction, happiness, too.
One can spend energy wanting to change one's circumstances, or one can spend energy changing one's behavior. One of these has better odds of success.
See, to me, that's a prime example of why people get discouraged with the concept of losing weight through deficit (notice I'm purposefully not saying 'CICO').
Because personally, I would feel sad for this poor woman, and would want to know WHY - why, at a significant weight, did she have to eat this few calories to lose weight, when the average person of the same stats could probably eat 50% more (just guessing here obviously as I don't know her stats, but it says young, tall, and overweight which generally means highish BMR).
Was it a medical issue? Thyroid? Insulin resistance? And could she, perhaps, be one of those people who would be able to lose weight on 1800 calories of a keto diet?
Not arguing any of this - just questioning.
But you can see how someone less patient and dedicated in her place could punch out their stats in a calculator to get, say, 1800 calories to lose weight, and then eat it for weeks continuing to gain instead. They could drop it to 1400 and still maintain, and come on here and likely be accused of not logging accurately and eating more than they think. And also be told they shouldn't drop below 1200. And be utterly lost and confused, unless they actually went the medical diet route like she did.
A positive attitude is great, but it does little to resolve physiological challenges. It's a shame people like her need to struggle and deprive themselves so much more than typical, just to get to a healthy weight.13 -
People are arrogant and they think physics does not apply to them. Not an argument you can win with reason move on.7
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Do you have PCOS?
Are you IR?
Why are you set on finding situations that invalidate a simple concept, admitting that you are focusing on outliers and rare exceptions?
And to the bolded.... That. Does. Not. Happen.
People do not lose weight, true weight, eating more calories than their maintenance, regardless of what type of diet. Study after study, posted here, have shown no long term advantage to a low carb diet for weight loss, when calories and protein are held constant.
Also, a thought just struck me. Blambo, is that you?
LOL I don't know who Blambo is. But why are you making this personal??
Did I ever say anything about myself?
This is a debate forum - not the 'Help Me' forum. I am *debating* the existence of medical issues that could affect weight loss because I'm genuinely curious how they work. If someone could point me to some valid studies on the topic, I'll be glad to go read them and leave you guys alone )))
And just because I don't have PCOS or IR just yet, does not mean I never will - as I said, I have relevant family history; I also eat a 'grazing' diet fairly high in refined carbohydrates, which had so far not impacted my weight, yes due to CICO, but according to proponents of the insulin theory, this type of diet promotes insulin resistance over time. Again I have no clue whether this is a valid claim or not, as I'm having trouble finding scientific literature on the subject.12 -
nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Do you have PCOS?
Are you IR?
Why are you set on finding situations that invalidate a simple concept, admitting that you are focusing on outliers and rare exceptions?
And to the bolded.... That. Does. Not. Happen.
People do not lose weight, true weight, eating more calories than their maintenance, regardless of what type of diet. Study after study, posted here, have shown no long term advantage to a low carb diet for weight loss, when calories and protein are held constant.
Also, a thought just struck me. Blambo, is that you?
LOL I don't know who Blambo is. But why are you making this personal??
Did I ever say anything about myself?
This is a debate forum - not the 'Help Me' forum. I am *debating* the existence of medical issues that could affect weight loss because I'm genuinely curious how they work. If someone could point me to some valid studies on the topic, I'll be glad to go read them and leave you guys alone )))
And just because I don't have PCOS or IR just yet, does not mean I never will - as I said, I have relevant family history; I also eat a 'grazing' diet fairly high in refined carbohydrates, which had so far not impacted my weight, yes due to CICO, but according to proponents of the insulin theory, this type of diet promotes insulin resistance over time. Again I have no clue whether this is a valid claim or not, as I'm having trouble finding scientific literature on the subject.
Studies have been posted repeatedly throughout this thread, by AnvilHead and others. Have you read any of them?15 -
nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Do you have PCOS?
Are you IR?
Why are you set on finding situations that invalidate a simple concept, admitting that you are focusing on outliers and rare exceptions?
And to the bolded.... That. Does. Not. Happen.
People do not lose weight, true weight, eating more calories than their maintenance, regardless of what type of diet. Study after study, posted here, have shown no long term advantage to a low carb diet for weight loss, when calories and protein are held constant.
Also, a thought just struck me. Blambo, is that you?
LOL I don't know who Blambo is. But why are you making this personal??
Did I ever say anything about myself?
This is a debate forum - not the 'Help Me' forum. I am *debating* the existence of medical issues that could affect weight loss because I'm genuinely curious how they work. If someone could point me to some valid studies on the topic, I'll be glad to go read them and leave you guys alone )))
And just because I don't have PCOS or IR just yet, does not mean I never will - as I said, I have relevant family history; I also eat a 'grazing' diet fairly high in refined carbohydrates, which had so far not impacted my weight, yes due to CICO, but according to proponents of the insulin theory, this type of diet promotes insulin resistance over time. Again I have no clue whether this is a valid claim or not, as I'm having trouble finding scientific literature on the subject.
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.12 -
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?13 -
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.
10 -
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.
I'm going to ask you again to back up the bolded statement, this constant empty suggestion that the typical advice on this forum stops at "tighten up your logging and eat less" once the fact that an OP is logging accurately is established please.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?
Here’s an excellent review article on factors that explain variance in weight loss and adaptation to weight loss. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/9/5/468/pdf#page153 -
nettiklive wrote: »I 'm gonna go a different way here. (Trigger warning: It may be unsympathetic . . . but this is the debate forum.)
I have a woman in my friend feed. She is younger than me, taller than me. When I first "met" her, she was still significantly overweight. She was eating something like 1000-1100 calories, but being moderately active.
I questioned her calorie intake; it seemed astonishingly low. She said she'd been working at weight loss for a long time, including the right consults with professionals. She had found no way to lose without eating this little, and still lost only slowly. But she'd done her research, made up her mind to cram absolutely as much top notch nutrition as she could into very limited calories, stay busy (NEAT-wise) and exercise to the extent feasible within certain injury limitations that affected her at the time.
I looked at her food diary. It was detailed, meticulous, impressive. She was getting much better nutrition on 1100 calories than most MFP-ers I've seen get on twice that budget. I saw what she did for exercise activity, saw the level headed comments she made, saw her patiently chip away at weight loss over a long time. For these and other reasons, I believed everything she logged and wrote.
As her physical issues resolved, she got a trainer and started more intensive exercise, including progressive weight training. When she finally reached goal weight, she started patiently and very slowly increasing calories in "reverse dieting" fashion, keeping the stellar nutrition.
Overall, she's lost 70+ pounds, looks great, can eat a bit more now (still pretty low for her age and size). At last report, all is well. I'm sure she wishes she could eat more, but I can't say I've ever seen much comment about that.
Because of her, I'm more likely to engage with and try to encourage people who may be in a similar spot with respect to calorie requirements (though, because of TOS, I won't advocate VLCD for anyone).
I see people here moderately often who "can't lose", feel it's unfair, appear resentful of those who (like me) can eat more, chase fads and strange metabolic theories, etc. Some are quick to take neutral questions or advice as criticism. (I'm not putting all "can't lose" folks in these categories, BTW . . . but there is an observable incidence.)
I try to be understanding and sympathetic to everyone, though it's really not a native part of my nature. I try really hard, I swear. I know I don't always succeed. And I'll admit to being judgemental on the inside, sometimes, even as I try to keep it out of my posts.
Attitude and outlook are relevant to weight loss success, along with the much-maligned CICO. Relevant to life balance, satisfaction, happiness, too.
One can spend energy wanting to change one's circumstances, or one can spend energy changing one's behavior. One of these has better odds of success.
See, to me, that's a prime example of why people get discouraged with the concept of losing weight through deficit (notice I'm purposefully not saying 'CICO').
Because personally, I would feel sad for this poor woman, and would want to know WHY - why, at a significant weight, did she have to eat this few calories to lose weight, when the average person of the same stats could probably eat 50% more (just guessing here obviously as I don't know her stats, but it says young, tall, and overweight which generally means highish BMR).
Was it a medical issue? Thyroid? Insulin resistance? And could she, perhaps, be one of those people who would be able to lose weight on 1800 calories of a keto diet?
Not arguing any of this - just questioning.
But you can see how someone less patient and dedicated in her place could punch out their stats in a calculator to get, say, 1800 calories to lose weight, and then eat it for weeks continuing to gain instead. They could drop it to 1400 and still maintain, and come on here and likely be accused of not logging accurately and eating more than they think. And also be told they shouldn't drop below 1200. And be utterly lost and confused, unless they actually went the medical diet route like she did.
A positive attitude is great, but it does little to resolve physiological challenges. It's a shame people like her need to struggle and deprive themselves so much more than typical, just to get to a healthy weight.
She wasn't that young, just younger than me (I'm 62). I won't read her mind, but I don't recall ever seeing anything in our "conversations" that suggested she particularly considered it a struggle, though perhaps she did. She seemed to consider it mostly just facts to be dealt with.
And it wasn't a "medical diet", just self-planned nutritious regular food, quite varied. It sounded delicious, actually, except for the meat/fish part, anyway (joking a bit: I'm long-term vegetarian).
Personally, in my own life, I have found a positive attitude absolutely key in handling physiological challenges, though my challenges have had mostly to do with cancer and chemotherapy, hypothyrodism, and multi-year persistent unexplained sleep-disruption insomnia, not weight loss. All an attitude of frustration, despair, resentment, anxiety or the like does is make me feel miserable, and rob energy from managing the challenge, whatever it is. Focusing on what I can control or influence, and working on those things, leaves me happier, and feeling as if I'm in control of what happens, to the extent it can be controlled at all. YMMV.8 -
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.
20 -
And what you apparently completely fail to understand is that your TDEE isn't a number derived from a chart or spit out by a website calculator. It's a number you arrive at by monitoring your intake, expenditure and results and adjusting those factors over time as necessary. Nor is your TDEE static from day to day. TDEE is a combination of BMR, NEAT and EAT (and TEF, but that's a minor player). BMR is relatively static, but NEAT and EAT can vary widely from day to day - and from person to person.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.
If you are 15-20% below your actual, true TDEE, you will lose weight. No two ways about it. If you're relying on an arbitrary number you read from a website, you may or may not lose weight because that number may or may not be accurate and thus, you may or may not be in a caloric deficit.
Again, none of which invalidates the fact that weight loss is predicated entirely upon consuming less calories than you expend.
12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions