Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
First a faux triggering followed by a real one, that is some next level forum-ing
1) nothing shared regarding CICO in this thread has expanded my knowledge of CICO. I completely, wholly, thoroughly understand CICO.
2) reread 1 and bet the farm in it.
3) understanding that I understand (which I really really really hope you do
) the rest of your responses above make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are so off the point of what I posted (especially the part about patiently explaining something, when did that happen, lol). that I presume you have me mixed up with someone else
Dude, you're trying to both sides about terminology. One of the basics of debate is agreed upon terminology. Words mean things. And you said something in error and need to be corrected on it.
To whit:CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories.
CICO is something your body does independent of your mind conscientiously deciding to do it. It's the body balancing the energy you put into it and the energy it expends. FULL STOP.
CICO is NOT literally you tracking calories. That is called calorie counting. That is a conscientious choice. You can do it or not.
Fun fact: Dogs? Their weight is regulated by CICO. Cats? Them too! Infants? The same! Do any of them count calories? Nope.
Why is this important, because terms mean things.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
First a faux triggering followed by a real one, that is some next level forum-ing
1) nothing shared regarding CICO in this thread has expanded my knowledge of CICO. I completely, wholly, thoroughly understand CICO.
2) reread 1 and bet the farm in it.
3) understanding that I understand (which I really really really hope you do ) the rest of your responses above make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are so off the point of what I posted (especially the part about patiently explaining something, when did that happen, lol). that I presume you have me mixed up with someone else
Dude, you're trying to both sides about terminology. One of the basics of debate is agreed upon terminology. Words mean things. And you said something in error and need to be corrected on it.
To whit:CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories.
CICO is something your body does independent of your mind conscientiously deciding to do it. It's the body balancing the energy you put into it and the energy it expends. FULL STOP.
CICO is NOT literally you tracking calories. That is called calorie counting. That is a conscientious choice. You can do it or not.
Fun fact: Dogs? Their weight is regulated by CICO. Cats? Them too! Infants? The same! Do any of them count calories? Nope.
Why is this important, because terms mean things.
New term I’m copyrighting - CCICCO©. “Counting calories in - counting calories out.” Amazing, huge, meaningful, and important.13 -
stevencloser wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
Do you know the concept of "Water weight"?
Glad I kept reading before posting as I was going to make a similar observation. CICO determines true weight changes, but not transient.
As an extreme and (hopefully) illustrative example, if you weigh yourself, drink a gallon of tap water, and then weigh yourself again, you can’t (or shouldn’t) claim “CICO doesn’t work for me” because the scale weight increased 8.36 pounds.8 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
First a faux triggering followed by a real one, that is some next level forum-ing
1) nothing shared regarding CICO in this thread has expanded my knowledge of CICO. I completely, wholly, thoroughly understand CICO.
2) reread 1 and bet the farm in it.
3) understanding that I understand (which I really really really hope you do ) the rest of your responses above make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are so off the point of what I posted (especially the part about patiently explaining something, when did that happen, lol). that I presume you have me mixed up with someone else
Upthread, didn’t you say “I was using CICO to mean calorie counting, I can see why some people would be confused”?
Regardless of whether that was you or not, your subsequent replies continue to suggest that YOU are mixed up and not me.
This is a 53 page thread filled with countless patient replies from many posters. The continued, seemingly willful (in your case) insistence that a term means something that it doesn’t or that we should all abandon the scientific definition in favor of “yeah you know what I mean” is what has prompted many of us to lose out patience when tailoring our responses. And that’s the real reason that I am “triggered” by this thread, if you want to call it that. People can’t even be bothered to try to read through the thread before jumping in and criticizing people’s posting styles, making claims that have been discussed and refuted already.15 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »If there's no debate, and the people arguing with me are 100% correct, then why does this thread even exist, and why does it cause so much controversy?
Here is my theory on why there is a lot debate centered on the term "CICO"...it is simply that different people are using that term, and terms associated with it, to mean very different things than other people and so those two groups don't agree not because they don't actually believe the same thing but rather because they are simply defining their terms differently.
One way to test this is to come up with an analogy that uses completely different terms and then ask the two groups to point at what they think the terms they are using apply to. For example.
I have 100 dollars. I know that if I receive 50 dollars but spend 60 dollars that I will have 90 dollars. I know this because of the concept of addition and subtraction....that the change in my money is simply a matter of how much money I make versus how much I spend. Unfortunately I am the CEO of a major company and it isn't always obvious how much my company is spending and how much it is receiving. We have mechanisms to track money coming in and coming out from various contractors but sometimes things are misreported or mismanaged or misaccounted and it can be difficult to get it right. Some contractors are much more efficient and can get a job done for much less money so I can't always assume that a given contractor will cost the same amount as another even if the job is the same, therefore it can be difficult to estimate my costs. I can guesstimate how much money came in and how much was spent and do my best to track it but I might find my company comes up with a different estimate than a marketing firm does or another contractor.
Now, for me and how I use terms, the analogy in this to CICO would be the concept of addition and subtraction. For you, you seem to be using the term CICO to refer to efficiencies between different contractors and attempts at accounting that might not all be the same. When you tell me you don't think CICO is the be-all-end-all because it is different for different people what I hear, because of my definition of terms, is that you don't believe in the concept of addition and subtraction.
CICO, strictly speaking, is a mathmatical and physical concept relating to thermodynamics. It is the math. Trying to get accurate accounting for CI and CO is where it gets messy and things can vary person to person and situation to situation and estimations can be off. Calorie counting is methods that attempt to track CI and CO, kind of like accounting practices. That fact, however, doesn't invalidate the concept of CICO anymore than getting your bottom line wrong in your accounting department because of its practices is an indictment of addition and subtraction itself.11 -
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts…”
–Daniel Patrick Moynihan12 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »If there's no debate, and the people arguing with me are 100% correct, then why does this thread even exist, and why does it cause so much controversy?
Here is my theory on why there is a lot debate centered on the term "CICO"...it is simply that different people are using that term, and terms associated with it, to mean very different things than other people and so those two groups don't agree not because they don't actually believe the same thing but rather because they are simply defining their terms differently.
One way to test this is to come up with an analogy that uses completely different terms and then ask the two groups to point at what they think the terms they are using apply to. For example.
I have 100 dollars. I know that if I receive 50 dollars but spend 60 dollars that I will have 90 dollars. I know this because of the concept of addition and subtraction....that the change in my money is simply a matter of how much money I make versus how much I spend. Unfortunately I am the CEO of a major company and it isn't always obvious how much my company is spending and how much it is receiving. We have mechanisms to track money coming in and coming out from various contractors but sometimes things are misreported or mismanaged or misaccounted and it can be difficult to get it right. Some contractors are much more efficient and can get a job done for much less money so I can't always assume that a given contractor will cost the same amount as another even if the job is the same, therefore it can be difficult to estimate my costs. I can guesstimate how much money came in and how much was spent and do my best to track it but I might find my company comes up with a different estimate than a marketing firm does or another contractor.
Now, for me and how I use terms, the analogy in this to CICO would be the concept of addition and subtraction. For you, you seem to be using the term CICO to refer to efficiencies between different contractors and attempts at accounting that might not all be the same. When you tell me you don't think CICO is the be-all-end-all because it is different for different people what I hear, because of my definition of terms, is that you don't believe in the concept of addition and subtraction.
CICO, strictly speaking, is a mathmatical and physical concept relating to thermodynamics. It is the math. Trying to get accurate accounting for CI and CO is where it gets messy and things can vary person to person and situation to situation and estimations can be off. That fact, however, doesn't invalidate the concept of CICO anymore than getting your bottom line wrong in your accounting department is an indictment of addition and subtraction itself.
I always love your posts Aaron but you’ve outdone yourself in this thread with the relatable analogies.12 -
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »If there's no debate, and the people arguing with me are 100% correct, then why does this thread even exist, and why does it cause so much controversy?
Here is my theory on why there is a lot debate centered on the term "CICO"...it is simply that different people are using that term, and terms associated with it, to mean very different things than other people and so those two groups don't agree not because they don't actually believe the same thing but rather because they are simply defining their terms differently.
One way to test this is to come up with an analogy that uses completely different terms and then ask the two groups to point at what they think the terms they are using apply to. For example.
I have 100 dollars. I know that if I receive 50 dollars but spend 60 dollars that I will have 90 dollars. I know this because of the concept of addition and subtraction....that the change in my money is simply a matter of how much money I make versus how much I spend. Unfortunately I am the CEO of a major company and it isn't always obvious how much my company is spending and how much it is receiving. We have mechanisms to track money coming in and coming out from various contractors but sometimes things are misreported or mismanaged or misaccounted and it can be difficult to get it right. Some contractors are much more efficient and can get a job done for much less money so I can't always assume that a given contractor will cost the same amount as another even if the job is the same, therefore it can be difficult to estimate my costs. I can guesstimate how much money came in and how much was spent and do my best to track it but I might find my company comes up with a different estimate than a marketing firm does or another contractor.
Now, for me and how I use terms, the analogy in this to CICO would be the concept of addition and subtraction. For you, you seem to be using the term CICO to refer to efficiencies between different contractors and attempts at accounting that might not all be the same. When you tell me you don't think CICO is the be-all-end-all because it is different for different people what I hear, because of my definition of terms, is that you don't believe in the concept of addition and subtraction.
CICO, strictly speaking, is a mathmatical and physical concept relating to thermodynamics. It is the math. Trying to get accurate accounting for CI and CO is where it gets messy and things can vary person to person and situation to situation and estimations can be off. That fact, however, doesn't invalidate the concept of CICO anymore than getting your bottom line wrong in your accounting department is an indictment of addition and subtraction itself.
I always love your posts Aaron but you’ve outdone yourself in this thread with the relatable analogies.
I got two woos for complementing one of the most patient, knowledgeable, science minded people on these boards?17 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?
THERE IS NO CICO METHOD!!!! THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CALL IT A METHOD OR ARE COMMONLY REFERRING TO CALORIE COUNTING AS THE CICO DIET DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CICO IS!!!
Did you mean triggered like that?
There are a couple of reasons why this chaps my hide in particular.
1. Because it has been explained REPEATEDLY and PATIENTLY that CICO is a fundamental energy balance equation and people (like yourself) keep insisting that we should ignore the actual scientific definition and adopt something that is a bastardization of the term simply because it would be easier.
2. Because people then extrapolate and suggest that anyone saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss, or that you must be in a calorie deficit in order to lose, or that you can eat any sort of foods you enjoy and still lose weight as long as your CI<CO must not care about nutrition. That has also happened REPEATEDLY in this thread.
So let me ask you - why, if people have patiently explained why they believe there is a misunderstanding and have provided clarification over and over again using different analogies, technical definitions, real world explanations, math, documented studies, etc what the actual definition of CICO is, why do YOU insist on sticking with your interpretation of it, knowing that it is a conflation? Why are you suggesting everyone else just needs to go with the status quo, align with the confused masses - why not become an advocate for the real, scientific definition?
First a faux triggering followed by a real one, that is some next level forum-ing
1) nothing shared regarding CICO in this thread has expanded my knowledge of CICO. I completely, wholly, thoroughly understand CICO.
2) reread 1 and bet the farm in it.
3) understanding that I understand (which I really really really hope you do ) the rest of your responses above make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are so off the point of what I posted (especially the part about patiently explaining something, when did that happen, lol). that I presume you have me mixed up with someone else
Upthread, didn’t you say “I was using CICO to mean calorie counting, I can see why some people would be confused”?
Regardless of whether that was you or not, your subsequent replies continue to suggest that YOU are mixed up and not me.
This is a 53 page thread filled with countless patient replies from many posters. The continued, seemingly willful (in your case) insistence that a term means something that it doesn’t or that we should all abandon the scientific definition in favor of “yeah you know what I mean” is what has prompted many of us to lose out patience when tailoring our responses. And that’s the real reason that I am “triggered” by this thread, if you want to call it that. People can’t even be bothered to try to read through the thread before jumping in and criticizing people’s posting styles, making claims that have been discussed and refuted already.
My MFP food log: I enter what I eat, calories in. I enter my excercise and my TDEE is estimated - calories out. Calories in - calories out. This is independent of the CICO acronym associated with thermodynamic laws: keeping a food log is an accounting of calories in and calories out. So the fact that I referenced calorie counting as “calories in calories out” is not some wild confused tangent I went on, it is literally what is measured when one logs one’s diet - I get where it would confuse people in some contexts, but that doesn’t render it incorrect.
12 -
I remember this one time when I was wrong and just couldn’t bring myself to admit it...
22 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
Do you know the concept of "Water weight"?
Glad I kept reading before posting as I was going to make a similar observation. CICO determines true weight changes, but not transient.
As an extreme and (hopefully) illustrative example, if you weigh yourself, drink a gallon of tap water, and then weigh yourself again, you can’t (or shouldn’t) claim “CICO doesn’t work for me” because the scale weight increased 8.36 pounds.
OMG! You're both right! I didn't realize that eating a low carb diet and drinking plenty of water would result in a 24 lb weight loss over the past 10 weeks that's purely water weight! Thank you for enlightening me.18 -
Also talks about the crock of crap cico theory and the B.S. science behind it. Get with the times people. Old outdated false science being disproved every day by 100's of thousands of people, doctors, dieticians etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgWBKJsJtk0 31 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Also talks about the crock of crap cico theory and the B.S. science behind it. Get with the times people. Old outdated false science being disproved every day by 100's of thousands of people, doctors, dieticians etc.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgWBKJsJtk0
Care to back up your nonsense with actual scientific sources?
10 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
21 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »
The problem is when one extrapolates specific advice to somebody with a specific condition as being applicable to everybody. Just because somebody is allergic to peanuts doesn't mean that peanuts are poison for everybody else.nellypurcelly wrote: »...To quote my endocrinologist, "You can cut calories to try to lose weight all you want, but as long as you're eating gluten and carbs, you're banging your head against the wall."...
Gluten and carbs don't bother me in the least. I've accomplished significant losses in both weight and bodyfat and significant improvements in both strength and physique eating plenty of them. So that advice, while it may be true for you with your specific medical condition, whatever that may be, has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anybody else without that medical condition, whatever it may be.
None of which has anything to do with CICO - the undeniable fact that if you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. By whatever means that is accomplished.
Exactly! Which is why if I eat a 1300 calorie diet that includes gluten and carbs, I can't lose weight. However, if I eat a 1300 calorie diet without gluten and carbs, my weight drops pretty rapidly. That was my only point. What works for one person doesn't work for everyone, even when the calories are equal.
Do you know the concept of "Water weight"?
Glad I kept reading before posting as I was going to make a similar observation. CICO determines true weight changes, but not transient.
As an extreme and (hopefully) illustrative example, if you weigh yourself, drink a gallon of tap water, and then weigh yourself again, you can’t (or shouldn’t) claim “CICO doesn’t work for me” because the scale weight increased 8.36 pounds.
OMG! You're both right! I didn't realize that eating a low carb diet and drinking plenty of water would result in a 24 lb weight loss over the past 10 weeks that's purely water weight! Thank you for enlightening me.
You lost weight by creating a caloric deficit
15 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't deny CICO. I think much, if not all, weight management comes down to it.
But I don't believe that all the calorie calculators are for everyone. They are based on averages. So your body may not quite be burning the number of calories predicted by "whatever calculator" you are using.
Many will disagree with me (special snowflake, blah blah blah)--but try being a 50 something woman with hormonal fluctuations that throw everything off (including your metabolic rate), and then try throwing in some hypothyroidism, and maybe some insulin resistance, and it LOOKS like CICO isn't working. It is, but those hormonal problems put a dent in your BMR for sure.
I am a 50 something woman with a bum thyroid and autoimmune problems. And you know what I read constantly on here?
ADJUST ACCORDING TO RESULTS.
I have never understood trying to work forwards from experience and adjusting "facts" to suit what happens to oneself rather than trying to reconcile one's experience with objective scientific fact. If you know something to be true, and your experience doesn't bear it out, the truth isn't wrong, something is off with your data. Reassess, learn more, and move on.
There's no BUT, in other words.
So no to BUT try being 50.
BTW, I lost 90 pounds adjusting expectations to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to expectations. Life is more productive that way.
So much yup to this.
Signed,
62 and hypothyroid, lost 50+
And 67 and hypothyroid, lost 50+7 -
johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.16 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
Would you be willing to open your diary to prove your point?8 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
Would you be willing to open your diary to prove your point?
Um, yours is not open to the public. Why would I make my personal information available? I'm sure if I did, you'd just say that I recorded things incorrectly, or that it doesn't show you what I actually consumed, only what I recorded. There is literally nothing I could do or say to convince you. I'm not an idiot. I know how to log foods, and I use the verified items whenever possible. You're going to believe what you want, and I'm glad that works for you. Just stop trying to tell other people that what works for you works for absolutely everyone. I would never try to tell people that my eating plan will work for everyone. I'm not that presumptuous.17 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Ludwig, Freedman, Taubes, Hyman, Feinman and a cast of ketovangelist bloggers - Good Lord, that page reads like a who's who of woo. I think all that's missing is Mercola, Fung and Dr. Oz. And yet again, it's a blog from a keto propaganda site, not research. Bring something of value to the table at some point.
Here's some actual scientific research review to counter that steaming pile of garbage:
https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
And 148 peer-reviewed studies linked in this pdf verifying the validity of CICO:
https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/19 -
When it comes down to it I don't really care if someone uses CICO to mean the first law of thermodynamics or uses CICO to mean calorie counting as long as they explain themselves well. If they hang on the name of the thing without bothering to explain what they mean and they have one definition in their head while others have a different definition is where things get to be a problem, especially if they insist that what we name something is what is important rather than the concepts behind it.
Reminded of the late great Richard Feynman on the value of treating the names of things like it is knowledge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s
That goes to both "sides" of the "what is CICO" definition debate.13 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Also talks about the crock of crap cico theory and the B.S. science behind it. Get with the times people. Old outdated false science being disproved every day by 100's of thousands of people, doctors, dieticians etc.
With this overwhelming, humongous mountain of evidence you continually refer to, why is it that your sources are all youtube videos and quack/woo blog entries? Why not peer-reviewed research? How about some science? Because I haven't seen one lick of it from you yet. Nothing but a bunch of unproven anecdotes and keto propaganda. Surely you can do better than that if the evidence is so utterly convincing. Surely you can find some actual scientists/researchers who have proven even one point you've tried to make.18 -
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/snowflake-gif.gifnellypurcelly wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
Would you be willing to open your diary to prove your point?
Um, yours is not open to the public. Why would I make my personal information available? I'm sure if I did, you'd just say that I recorded things incorrectly, or that it doesn't show you what I actually consumed, only what I recorded. There is literally nothing I could do or say to convince you. I'm not an idiot. I know how to log foods, and I use the verified items whenever possible. You're going to believe what you want, and I'm glad that works for you. Just stop trying to tell other people that what works for you works for absolutely everyone. I would never try to tell people that my eating plan will work for everyone. I'm not that presumptuous.
16 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
First law of thermodynamics...the second law is about the total entropy of isolated system which isn't really related to the change in energy in an open system. Mock it if you want, but at least get your terms right....that is sort of what this whole "debate" has really been about after all.20 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
First law of thermodynamics...the second law is about the total entropy of isolated system which isn't really related to the change in energy in an open system. Mock it if you want, but at least get your terms right....that is sort of what this whole "debate" has really been about after all.
19 -
Strictly speaking (at a biochemical level) there is truth to the comment that "all calories are not equal". Some combinations of fat, carb, protein (I can't remember the combination) have slight reduction in "effective" calories to their theoretical value.
That said for most of us.... including me... CICO is close enough and will allow weight loss.10 -
Taubes is a laughingstock. He started NuSI and funded three studies in an effort to prove his ridiculous keto theories. All three of the studies did just the opposite, yet he refuses to acknowledge that his woo is woo. In fact, after being soundly thrashed in a public debate by Alan Aragon, Taubes flat-out said that even if the science proved him completely wrong, he would not change his stance. The co-founder and President of NuSI, Peter Attia (another ketovangelist), quietly deserted the organization as their studies fell flat on their faces.
Here's an accounting of the whole sordid Taubes/Attia mess over at NuSI, all from public record: https://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-manhattan-project-of-nutrition-that.html17 -
Strictly speaking (at a biochemical level) there is truth to the comment that "all calories are not equal". Some combinations of fat, carb, protein (I can't remember the combination) have slight reduction in "effective" calories to their theoretical value.
That said for most of us.... including me... CICO is close enough and will allow weight loss.
Yes, Thermic Effect of Feeding has already been addressed several times. Welcome to the discussion.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions