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
-
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.
Hormone changes have minimal influence on metabolism. Even in extreme situations clinical evidence shows ~5% variance.
Nicotine has minimal influence on metabolism.
Stop spreading misinformation.16 -
Claimed that people who find it difficult to lose weight are "lazy, stupid, undisciplined"? Where, in this thread?
Yes, in this very thread. Here are a few comments just from the first few pages...
"Because they want to believe it's not that simple."
"People often want a quick fix, are impatient and lazy, and don't want to put in the work in."
"Because work (exercise) and reducing calories ("denying" oneself) are foreign/unpopular concepts to many."
"People deny CICO because they want to believe there is a magic pill and secret conspiracy that's keeping them overweight, not their lack of consistent effort."
"Why do people do anything stupid?"
"They just feel it's too much work"
21 -
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
I know others have pointed this out, but read through the 48 pages. There is good information in there and you may learn something. You points have all been clearly addressed.
11 -
Hermesonly wrote: »Claimed that people who find it difficult to lose weight are "lazy, stupid, undisciplined"? Where, in this thread?
Yes, in this very thread. Here are a few comments just from the first few pages...
"Because they want to believe it's not that simple."
"People often want a quick fix, are impatient and lazy, and don't want to put in the work in."
"Because work (exercise) and reducing calories ("denying" oneself) are foreign/unpopular concepts to many."
"People deny CICO because they want to believe there is a magic pill and secret conspiracy that's keeping them overweight, not their lack of consistent effort."
"Why do people do anything stupid?"
"They just feel it's too much work"
Those were not quotes about people who found it difficult to lose weight. Those were quotes about people who deny CICO.
There are lots of people who find it difficult to lose weight and they still understand how weight loss happens. Even though the process itself is simple, *I* found it difficult to lose weight (because food is delicious).
You're conflating two different groups (people who deny CICO and people who find it difficult to lose weight). I hope this conflation is due to poor reading comprehension and not a deliberate twisting of what has been said previously in the thread.24 -
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.
So is it your position, then, that people can successfully lose weight even if they're eating at a caloric surplus? That logically follows what you wrote above, if that's really your belief.
Or is it that energy balance is actually what governs weight loss, but there are a number of physiological/psychological/behavioral factors which can complicate the process of weight loss (which is not the same as CICO) independent of energy balance itself?13 -
Hermesonly wrote: »Claimed that people who find it difficult to lose weight are "lazy, stupid, undisciplined"? Where, in this thread?
Yes, in this very thread. Here are a few comments just from the first few pages...
"Because they want to believe it's not that simple."
"People often want a quick fix, are impatient and lazy, and don't want to put in the work in."
"Because work (exercise) and reducing calories ("denying" oneself) are foreign/unpopular concepts to many."
"People deny CICO because they want to believe there is a magic pill and secret conspiracy that's keeping them overweight, not their lack of consistent effort."
"Why do people do anything stupid?"
"They just feel it's too much work"
Attributing those statements out of context (and misunderstood, as janejellyroll points out) is not really good forum behavior, IMO. If you disagree with something specific a specific person said, the most productive response is to quote it and rebut it. Then you are not attributing views to a number of people in a general way (and inaccurately), but taking issue with a particular statement. Also, the person who said it can clarify if he or she thinks it was misunderstood (as appears to be the case here).
For the record, I think there are lots of reasons CICO is of course accurate AND people sometimes find it difficult to lose without them being lazy, stupid, or undisciplined. I don't believe I was fat because I was lazy, stupid, or undisciplined. I do believe I was fat because I ate more calories than I burned.15 -
Hermesonly wrote: »If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous.
People fail to maintain weight loss because they start eating more calories than they burn again, and that's easy to do.However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
Lots of things aren't easy. That's not an argument against the idea that calorie balance determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain. There may be ADDITIONAL things one can do to make keeping the desired calorie balance easier, but that's not contrary to CICO, it's something sensible to be aware of once you understand CICO.It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count.
Calorie counting isn't easy for everyone. Also, CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting (as others have pointed out). Calorie counting is just one of many ways to adjust CICO so that you have the desired calorie balance. And even that requires that you also pay attention to results and adjust.Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
It's really obvious that most people seem to want to believe there's more to weight loss than CICO. I don't mean hormones and so on, but magical thinking about specific foods making you fat or not and needing to follow some formula perfectly to be able to lose. I think if more people really understood how it works, and did not emotionalize it (if I am fat or overeat I am shameful and terrible), then they would be more successful. Being empowered in that way, vs. thinking of fat as something that just happened to me, was important to be (and I'm not stupid or lazy and wasn't when I was fat -- I was shockingly non fact based and ignorant in my thinking about dieting and weight loss for a time, however).
But sure, I'll bite. What's your solution for the obesity problem if CICO is too "antiquated" to work?
My guess from the rest of your post is it's going to be some keto thing, but maybe I'm wrong.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous.
People fail to maintain weight loss because they start eating more calories than they burn again, and that's easy to do.However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
Lots of things aren't easy. That's not an argument against the idea that calorie balance determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain. There may be ADDITIONAL things one can do to make keeping the desired calorie balance easier, but that's not contrary to CICO, it's something sensible to be aware of once you understand CICO.It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count.
Calorie counting isn't easy for everyone. Also, CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting (as others have pointed out). Calorie counting is just one of many ways to adjust CICO so that you have the desired calorie balance. And even that requires that you also pay attention to results and adjust.Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
It's really obvious that most people seem to want to believe there's more to weight loss than CICO. I don't mean hormones and so on, but magical thinking about specific foods making you fat or not and needing to follow some formula perfectly to be able to lose. I think if more people really understood how it works, and did not emotionalize it (if I am fat or overeat I am shameful and terrible), then they would be more successful. Being empowered in that way, vs. thinking of fat as something that just happened to me, was important to be (and I'm not stupid or lazy and wasn't when I was fat -- I was shockingly non fact based and ignorant in my thinking about dieting and weight loss for a time, however).
But sure, I'll bite. What's your solution for the obesity problem if CICO is too "antiquated" to work?
My guess from the rest of your post is it's going to be some keto thing, but maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you will be more successful than I was in getting this poster to share his or her recommendation of what the solution would be for all these overweight people for whom CICO is outdated and not applicable. Because I'm truly interested if there is an actionable plan, or if, as was suggested upthread, there is no solution and people should JSF.
10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous.
People fail to maintain weight loss because they start eating more calories than they burn again, and that's easy to do.However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
Lots of things aren't easy. That's not an argument against the idea that calorie balance determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain. There may be ADDITIONAL things one can do to make keeping the desired calorie balance easier, but that's not contrary to CICO, it's something sensible to be aware of once you understand CICO.It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count.
Calorie counting isn't easy for everyone. Also, CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting (as others have pointed out). Calorie counting is just one of many ways to adjust CICO so that you have the desired calorie balance. And even that requires that you also pay attention to results and adjust.Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
It's really obvious that most people seem to want to believe there's more to weight loss than CICO. I don't mean hormones and so on, but magical thinking about specific foods making you fat or not and needing to follow some formula perfectly to be able to lose. I think if more people really understood how it works, and did not emotionalize it (if I am fat or overeat I am shameful and terrible), then they would be more successful. Being empowered in that way, vs. thinking of fat as something that just happened to me, was important to be (and I'm not stupid or lazy and wasn't when I was fat -- I was shockingly non fact based and ignorant in my thinking about dieting and weight loss for a time, however).
But sure, I'll bite. What's your solution for the obesity problem if CICO is too "antiquated" to work?
My guess from the rest of your post is it's going to be some keto thing, but maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you will be more successful than I was in getting this poster to share his or her recommendation of what the solution would be for all these overweight people for whom CICO is outdated and not applicable. Because I'm truly interested if there is an actionable plan, or if, as was suggested upthread, there is no solution and people should JSF.
I'm very curious as to what the improved, modern program is. I've seen criticisms, but have yet to see a solution that would replace calorie counting.
So far we've heard mention of hormones, lack of application, and blaming things...this program sounds amazing!
I can't wait to manage my finances in the same manner.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous.
People fail to maintain weight loss because they start eating more calories than they burn again, and that's easy to do.However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
Lots of things aren't easy. That's not an argument against the idea that calorie balance determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain. There may be ADDITIONAL things one can do to make keeping the desired calorie balance easier, but that's not contrary to CICO, it's something sensible to be aware of once you understand CICO.It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count.
Calorie counting isn't easy for everyone. Also, CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting (as others have pointed out). Calorie counting is just one of many ways to adjust CICO so that you have the desired calorie balance. And even that requires that you also pay attention to results and adjust.Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
It's really obvious that most people seem to want to believe there's more to weight loss than CICO. I don't mean hormones and so on, but magical thinking about specific foods making you fat or not and needing to follow some formula perfectly to be able to lose. I think if more people really understood how it works, and did not emotionalize it (if I am fat or overeat I am shameful and terrible), then they would be more successful. Being empowered in that way, vs. thinking of fat as something that just happened to me, was important to be (and I'm not stupid or lazy and wasn't when I was fat -- I was shockingly non fact based and ignorant in my thinking about dieting and weight loss for a time, however).
But sure, I'll bite. What's your solution for the obesity problem if CICO is too "antiquated" to work?
My guess from the rest of your post is it's going to be some keto thing, but maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you will be more successful than I was in getting this poster to share his or her recommendation of what the solution would be for all these overweight people for whom CICO is outdated and not applicable. Because I'm truly interested if there is an actionable plan, or if, as was suggested upthread, there is no solution and people should JSF.
I'm very curious as to what the improved, modern program is. I've seen criticisms, but have yet to see a solution that would replace calorie counting.
So far we've heard mention of hormones, lack of application, and blaming things...this program sounds amazing!
I can't wait to manage my finances in the same manner.
Yes, those who have indicated that CICO is a simple, fundamental concept that governs energy balance are told we are rude and dismissive of people who think losing weight is hard, and that we should understand that it just doesn't work for some people.
Yet there is no alternative, no recommendation for those people who have tried and failed to lose weight and keep it off on what to actually do, how to be successful.
So I'm not really sure how those who have been successful at using CICO to manage their weight are the mean ones. Seems like the group that suggests that there is no hope, why bother trying, are the ones who are mean, or at least, quite the debbie downers in this process.
12 -
Hermesonly wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Cite some of this research, please. I'm going to assume it consists of the highest standard, which is the meta-analysis.
This should get you started:
Based on data from Cohen E, et al. Statistical review of US macronutrient consumption data, 1965– 2011: Americans have been following dietary guidelines, coincident with the rise in obesity. Nutrition. 2015 May; 31( 5): 727– 732.
Fildes A, et al. Probability of an obese person attaining normal body weight: cohort study using electronic health records. Am J Public Health. 2015; 105( 9): e54– e59.
Rosenbaum et al. Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Oct; 88 (4):906-12.
Pieri, J. Men Starve in Minnesota. Life. 1945 Jul 30; 19(5):43-6.
Howard BV et al. Low fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7 years: the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial. JAMA. 2006 Jan 4;295 (1):39-49.
Kennedy ET, Bowman SA, Spence JT, Freedman M, King J. Popular diets: correlation to health, nutrition, and obesity. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Apr; 101(4):411-20.
Rosenbaum M, Sy M, Pavlovich K, Leibel R, Hirsch J. Leptin reverses weight loss-induced changes in regional neural activity responses to visual food stimuli. J Clin Invest. 2008 Jul 1; 118(7):2583-91.
Byun W, Liu J, Pate RR. Association between objectively measured sedentary behavior and body mass index in preschool children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Jul;37 (7):961-5.
Sims EA. Experimental obesity in man. J Clin Invest. 1971 May;50(5):1005-11.
Sims EA et al. Endocrine and metabolic effects of experimental obesity in man. Recent Prog. Harm Res. 1973;29:457-96.
Levine JA, Eberhardt NL, Jensen MD. Role of non exercise activity thermogenesis in resistance to fat gain in humans. Science. 1999 Jan 8;283(5399):212-4.
Diaz EO. Metabolic response to experimental overfeeding in lean and overweight healthy volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Oct;56(4):641-55.
Kechagias S, Ernersson A, Dahlqvist O, Lundberg P, Lindstrom T, Nystrom FH. Fast-food-based hyper-alimentation can induce rapid and profound elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase in healthy subjects. Gut.2008 May;57(5):649-54.
Keesey, R, Corbett S. Metabolic defense of the body weight set-point. Res Publ Assoc Res Nerv Ment Dis. 1984;62:87-96.
Leibel RL et al. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar 9:332(10);621-8.
Ferrannini E, Natali A, Bell P, et al. Insulin resistance and hyper secretion in obesity. J Clin Invest. 1997 Sep1:100(5):1166-73.
Han TS, Williams K, Sattar N, Hunt KJ, Lean ME, Haffner SM. Analysis of obesity and hyperinsulinemia in the development of metabolic syndrome: San Antonio Heart Study. Ones. Res. 2002 Sep;10(9):923-31.
Russell-Jones D, Khan R. Insulin-associated weight gain in diabetes: causes, effects and coping strategies. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. 2007 Nov;9(6):799-812.
Lustig RH et al. Obesity, leptin resistance, and the effects of insulin suppression. Int J Obesity. 2004 Aug 17:28:1344-8.
Benoit SC, Clegg DJ, Seeley RJ, Woods SC. Insulin and leptin as adiposity signals. Recent Prog Horm Res. 2004; 59:267-85
Pagano G et al. An in vivo and in vitro study of the mechanism of prednisone-induced insulin resistance in healthy subjects. J Clin Invest. 1983 Nov; 72(5):1814-20.
Marin P et al. Cortisol secretion in relation to body fat distribution in obese premenopausal women. Metabolism. 1992 Aug;41(8):882-6.
Rizza RA et al. Production of insulin resistance by hyperinsulinemia in man. Diabetologia. 1985 Feb;28(2):70-5.
I can see, without necessarily reading all of these, that like a lot of other people, you are conflating a lot of separate issues.
Under the main category of weight management is the management of calories. That is CICO.
But yes, there are other factors to consider to make compliance with one's consumption of the proper amount of calories for one's goals easier. Satiety is very important. What satiates a person varies on an individual basis, and this can be managed by being selective about the foods one eats and their macro balance.
Nutrition is also important. This is also affected by food choice.
Body composition? Food choice can play a role in this to some extent in that getting adequate protein helps, and doing regular training will achieve certain goals as well.
For some people, meal timing is also an issue as it can help them achieve their goals. Adequate sleep is also important.
The important thing to note is that though all of these things are inter-related, they are still separate and distinct from each other, each their own concerns.
The thing is, unless you have your calories dialed in, you could be doing everything else "right", and it's all going to be for naught. Calories are the foundation of how weight loss works. Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight. All of the other things that you bring into play are part of making weight loss healthy and sustainable.
18 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?
From listening to some of these CICO deniers talk, one would think that weight loss isn't even a possible thing. Just can't be done.
It seems like people have read this and believe it
https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-it-is-impossible-to-lose-weight-no-one-181957510513 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?
From listening to some of these CICO deniers talk, one would think that weight loss isn't even a possible thing. Just can't be done.
It seems like people have read this and believe it
https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-it-is-impossible-to-lose-weight-no-one-1819575105
*snort* Unfortunately, you're probably right - just going by Snopes it's discouraging how many people don't recognize the Onion is a satire site and apparently are unable to distinguish humor from science.
6 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?
From listening to some of these CICO deniers talk, one would think that weight loss isn't even a possible thing. Just can't be done.
It seems like people have read this and believe it
https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-it-is-impossible-to-lose-weight-no-one-1819575105
*snort* Unfortunately, you're probably right - just going by Snopes it's discouraging how many people don't recognize the Onion is a satire site and apparently are unable to distinguish humor from science.
Obviously The Onion is a joke, but when you listen to people who claim CICO doesn't work, or people who say despite a strict diet and exercise they can't lose a pound and never have been able to, it always makes me think of this article. Makes me laugh ever damn time I read it. I just thought it was time it throw it in here and give a few others a chuckle also.8 -
Hermesonly wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You do not appear to understand what CICO means.
Lol, not only can I tell you what CICO means, I can tell you how the idea was developed and who first coined the phrase.
CICO refers to the concept of "Calories In Calories Out." Meaning that if Calories Out remains stable over time, then reducing Calories In should produce weight loss. The basis for this thinking is the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. This is the law invoked to support the Calories In/Calories Out model, and was most notably used by a prominent obesity researcher, Dr. Jules Hirsch in a 2012 New York Times article. He stated, "There is an inflexible law of physics— energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content— reduce obesity— one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras."
You do bring up an interesting point however, that perhaps not all posters on this thread actually know what CICO means.
OK, so you're willfully talking nonsense and misapplying the term. Got it.11 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?
From listening to some of these CICO deniers talk, one would think that weight loss isn't even a possible thing. Just can't be done.
It seems like people have read this and believe it
https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-it-is-impossible-to-lose-weight-no-one-1819575105
*snort* Unfortunately, you're probably right - just going by Snopes it's discouraging how many people don't recognize the Onion is a satire site and apparently are unable to distinguish humor from science.
Obviously The Onion is a joke, but when you listen to people who claim CICO doesn't work, or people who say despite a strict diet and exercise they can't lose a pound and never have been able to, it always makes me think of this article. Makes me laugh ever damn time I read it. I just thought it was time it throw it in here and give a few others a chuckle also.
The best comedy is rooted in truth. I think of the masters like George Carlin and Mel Brooks and their ability to tackle the most taboo elements of society and lampoon them.
Almost comical the amount of effort that people will put in to make excuses, when the solution is so simple.3 -
Way too many people deny the earth is round as well, doesn't make them right in either case.6
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »joeydahatt, all the more reason to utilize meta-analyses and the expertise of people like Alan Aragaon, Brad Shoenfeld, Eric Helms, James Krieger and Lyle McDonald (my person "go to" group. They are unbiased and well studied. They look at opposing points of view and demonstrate objectivity. They also list the studies their meta-analyses and article are based on. So, you can read them directly.
^This. For nutrition, I'd also add Stephan Guyenet.
I really enjoyed his book The Hungry Brain. I'm doing so much better now because of his insights.3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »RMR may slow down due to adaptive thermogenesis, but it won't stop entirely. And taking a 2-week maintenance break every 8 weeks or so generally helps to offset it.
That being said, a large person probably shouldn't be on 1200 cals to start with.
Exactly, I started at 265 and I lose weight on 2250 calories/day. Started at 264.5 on 14 Feb. Weighed 239 this AM. I'm certainly not on a 1200 calorie starvation diet.
I am carb limited due to being suspected T2 diabetic. But I certainly get enough to eat at 2250 calories/day. But even carb limited is a relative term as I'm allowed 60g carbs/meal and another 45g/day in snacks for a total of 225g/day.
As much as MFP offers to let me eat my workout calories back, I don't. Not saying I haven't busted out of 2250/day once or twice in the past 8-9 weeks. However, I don't feel guilty about it either.
I'm pretty sure even pretty sedentary days like the past Saturday/Sunday where I spent 5 hours in the car and had to work I was still burning (according to my Fitbit) 2700-2900 calories over the course of each day.
Days with gym visits or bike rides are 3600+ and can hit 5k if I've taken a long bike ride.
I don't think 1200 calories would cut it for me and many others who are larger. And I'm not even on the really large side of things relative to peers I see.
However, when I compare my 50 something body to the 18 year old version of me, I was 100# heavier. Even 60# heavier than the POST Army days after I'd filled out with some muscle.3 -
IzzyFlower2018 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
Lots of reasons ... because no weight loss show says here is your 1200 calorie diet of junk and highly processed foods, because no professional athlete says they eat meals of 85% sugar/saturated fats, because their favorite celebrities tell them its the way to lose weight ... so people get confused and think they HAVE to eat healthy to lose weight or they have to exercise
Don't get me wrong I prefer to eat healthy meaning foods that balance my hormones, build muscle to fight fat, and give nutritional benefits. Plus me personally I just feel better, way more energy when I choose veggies over cookies. Same with exercise, drag myself to the gym but love it once I start and sleep so much better at night.
But none of this is needed for weigh loss. And I have days I eat badly for sure but still under maintenance because always CICO.
SO you are right... a Joule is 0.239006 small calories and 1 kilocalorie (food calorie) is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1°C. therefore a calorie burned is a calorie burned.
Am not sure what you mean by "I eat basically anything I want" but if you do end up eating an unhealthy ratio consistently ... 2:1 or 4:3 or heck 3:0 ... basically anything 50% plus of processed saturated sugar foods and write a blog please post pics with the blog and a daily accounting of how you feel ... I would love to know effects health wise ... and any long term issues (if any) once you continue that kind of diet with weight maintenance as well. If what you meant was you have sugar/fat/fried when you want it but its not the majority of your diet then just ignore this entire paragraph.
You can refer to my 10-month experiment in this very debate forum. I ate 99% so-called junk and I felt and ended up looking pretty good. My avy is the end result.
14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions