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
-
Thanks, I look forward to reading that.0
-
nettiklive wrote: »Also I just stumbled on this post in the 'refeeds and diet breaks' thread, which everyone conveniently ignored. While I become absolutely terrified reading things like that, because the body screwing up in this way is one of my worst fears. Where does this fit in with the forum's "you're not a special unicorn" mantra?So. Thanks to a new GP who actually listened, we figured out what the problem was with Me and My Thyroid. It was similar to what I was suspecting, but more complex, in that apparently after years of calorie restriction, my body got *pissed*. The suspicion is that it started making reverse T3 instead of T3, and everything got screwed up from there. This is typically seen in individuals who are *actually* anorexic, instead of my atypical diagnosis, but is not unheard of. (Cue my being pissed, because my stupid body gained weight when it put into place a safety net that typically doesn't activate until you're actually starving, as opposed to my "I'm gonna just burn everything off" slimmer-side-of-normal weight status.)
In response, for a while, I'd been dropping to <1000 calories a day, with <900 the past few weeks. Because to my little head, still, the response to "I can't lose weight" is still "I can't trust calories and you can't make me eat. But I'm going to go run 5 miles anyway."
But today, after my GP was all "I think we need to evaluate whether it's time to go inpatient, and that's my preference" I ran some trendline and r-squared analyses ... and saw that much to my surprise, I actually lost more weight when my deficit was smaller.
Do you have female athletic triad syndrome and do you run half marathons on top of heavily restricting your calories and also have a diseased thyroid?
Unless you do, I wouldn't pick this post and put yourself in the same category as the poster you're talking about.21 -
nettiklive wrote: »Also I just stumbled on this post in the 'refeeds and diet breaks' thread, which everyone conveniently ignored. While I become absolutely terrified reading things like that, because the body screwing up in this way is one of my worst fears. Where does this fit in with the forum's "you're not a special unicorn" mantra?..
Nobody "conveniently ignored" it. If you bothered to read instead of just posting, you'd see that metabolic adaptation has been addressed over and over, in response to many of your posts. Metabolic adaptation exists. "Starvation mode", in the sense that you'll downregulate so far as to completely stop weight loss, doesn't.
Since you probably didn't read the original source regarding diet breaks, which explains it further, here it is:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
And once again, linked for the third time in this thread: https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
If you'd take the time to read and digest the information provided in these links rather than wasting time blindly arguing why you're right and everybody else is wrong, you'd have a better understanding of the subject and maybe wouldn't be so terrified.
But Lyle makes me read so much and ain't nobody got time for that! How's his Twitter work?
Also having followed this thread from page one, I reiterate my first post,
MAN WE REALLY LOVE THOSE GORDIAN KNOTS!
Yall should see what my boy Occam does with a razor.
5 -
Why do people deny CICO?
Because food is necessary, delicious, and one of life’s grandest pleasures... so it can’t possibly be to blame, it simply MUST be something else, ANYTHING else, but NOT food!!!
7 -
.......Sometimes - way too often, IMO - a chorus of "you're not a special snowflake" from people who don't understand #1 or #2 drives a sensitive OP into retreat before anyone sensible can help them figure out what's going on, or an over-confident OP gets huffy because they just know they're doing everything perfectly and decamps prematurely. I find these cases - especially the "sensitive OP" one - very sad. Some people have come to obesity through emotional fragility. Negative group behavior worsens the wounds.
IMO, it's important to keep in mind that a very few people will have lower than expected calorie needs, so not rush too soon to "you're doing it wrong", even though other explanations are much more common and likely than statistical outlier-hood.
That said, as others have documented, there is zero evidence that there are medically normal or even close to normal people who cannot lose weight by truly lowering CI to some level that will allow them to lose weight but still sustain nutrition. (There may be no psychologically sustainable level, or satiating level, but that's a different question.)......Many of the CICO proponents on this thread are knowledgeable, experienced frequent posters who patiently help despairing "can't lose" people sort out what's going on, and eventually succeed. Some are a little more touchy-feely about it, some are more about tough love: Different approaches work with different OPs......
I loved everything you said in that post, but the part about the sensitive OP's really resonated with me because whether I like it or not, I have to admit I tend to have a thin skin and a very poor self image-I'm hard enough on myself as it is; I don't need that negative view reinforced by thoughtless words from other people who don't know me or my situation. Some people do work well with "tough love" and that can be the motivator they need to drive them to success, but some of us are fragile and need compassion and understanding along with a guiding hand toward the right tools and correct understanding of what is going on. Some horses respond to a firm hand at the bit; others need coaxing with the carrot
....Note that the majority of weight management professionals do not believe that calorie counting is an effective means of weight loss. Not because it won't work, but because the majority of people don't have the discipline to go through the practice of calorie budgeting long term. I disagree with this view and see this as bigotry of low expectations. Any successful management requires knowing debits, credits, and knowledge of the system. Understanding the metabolic rate is primarily driven by height and weight - not driven by hormones, toxins, macros, etc. Once you understand this you realize that you are in control of the process....GottaBurnEmAll wrote: ».....There are many success stories on these boards from people who have dealt with what other people perceive to be impediments - chronic disease, age, hormones, disability. The main difference between those who succeed and those who don't is attitude, and that and my personal experience has led me to conclude that the impediments aren't really as big a deal as people would have you believe they are because it really is a head game.
This is not to say that I don't have empathy for outliers. I do. I fit into some of the categories I listed, and I don't feel particularly special for putting my head down and just doing what I need to do to improve the quality of my life. I just wish there was a way to inspire other people to feel that they were worth being stubborn and determined on their own behalf.
This is precisely what I've found in my own experience and in observation of those around me. Most people either don't want to put the effort in that it takes to lose weight (though I personally have thought that calorie counting is the easiest method to achieving proper CICO for weight loss than a lot of the fads out there), or they confuse the psychological battle and war of the will with the actual physical process. And that will versus physical need, or mental satiation versus physical satiation can be very difficult to distinguish, especially if you don't realize there is a difference, which was my problem for a very long time, and even now, knowing what I know! Its only been recently that I've noticed that there are times I have a drive to eat something or feel like I'm starving and I realize that the signal isn't coming from my stomach; its coming from my head and that my stomach is actually telling me its content - or even in some times, its telling me it's full and doesn't want more even while my brain is craving more food!
I really do believe that most of the time for most of the people, they fail because they can't find a way to win that mental battle, and the mental part is the extremely hard part.amusedmonkey wrote: ».....Psychological sustainability is a whole other can of worms and I believe I'll break a woo record if it ever gets discussed because I believe people who find a normal weight unsustainable are better off if they stick to the lowest sustainable weight for them even if it falls in the overweight (or even obese) range, but keep working on acquiring skills and strategies that can potentially lower the threshold for what is sustainable.
This I totally agree with! The psychological battle for me is hands down the hardest part of this whole weight loss effort, and what what is psychologically sustainable is a worlds difference away from what is physically sustainable. It's nothing at all to do with adequate nutrition because I know my body could run quite fine on way fewer calories than what I want to consume; its everything to do with the fact that my MIND wants more than what my body needs. That battle is exhausting and constant, and often sends me spiraling deeper into that mire of depression I fight on a daily basis.
that's why a post a few months back that stated that if you didn't get to your BMI range, you couldn't possibly call yourself healthy really hit me hard because I don't know if I'll every actually make it to the upper range of "healthy" because of the mental battle that I'm fighting to continue losing weight period. It takes a significant amount of effort and steeling my will to get through one day at a time, and the slower the loss rate (which naturally will happen as I lose weight) the harder it is to win that battle as my mind has less success to correlate to the effort expended-meaning the reward feels less compared to the stricture required for it. However, I started at a BMI of 57; even if I never get down to 25 or less, just getting to under 40 means my health is way better than it was, and getting to under 30 is even better for me! I've been hearing a lot from my doctor and from health organizations that even losing 5% of your weight can have health benefits.
anyway, that post really played in with my poor self esteem and the part of my head that I'm battling basically said "see? what's the point of all this if all this effort doesn't result in you being healthy because you can't get to that magic 160 lbs weight or 25 BMI?"
But even if I can't get to the 25 BMI, as you pointed out, getting to my lowest sustainable weight, even if it puts me at a 30 BMI, is still way, way better than being at 57!16 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »But even if I can't get to the 25 BMI, as you pointed out, getting to my lowest sustainable weight, even if it puts me at a 30 BMI, is still way, way better than being at 57!
100% agreed. I'm stalled at around 27.5 and am staying put for a bit. It's way better than the ~45 I started at and if I never break through the magic 25, so be it. I'm fitter, run a lot more and look better at 53 than I did at 33 (except for the gray hair).11 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »But even if I can't get to the 25 BMI, as you pointed out, getting to my lowest sustainable weight, even if it puts me at a 30 BMI, is still way, way better than being at 57!
100% agreed. I'm stalled at around 27.5 and am staying put for a bit. It's way better than the ~45 I started at and if I never break through the magic 25, so be it. I'm fitter, run a lot more and look better at 53 than I did at 33 (except for the gray hair).
*laughs* and you can hide that with Clarol! lol
I'm 38, and I'm set now to enter my 40's in much shape than I did when I hit 30, even if I don't get to that 25 number. I will be absolutely estatic to get below 250; below 200 would be a dream come true. Getting below 160? I have a hard time picturing that.0 -
I read stuff all the time about how reducing calories will cause you body to not burn calories - your body will go into 'starvation' mode, blah blah blah.0
-
fionawilliamson wrote: »I read stuff all the time about how reducing calories will cause you body to not burn calories - your body will go into 'starvation' mode, blah blah blah.
Wherever you are reading that you need to stop visiting that website. As has been discussed in this thread with good reputable links posted (so clearly you aren’t those), starvation mode doesn’t exist the way you describe otherwise, how would anyone die of starvation, how would anorexics restrict to such low calorie levels that they waste away, damaging healthy organisms in the process? How would the images of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment posted upthread ever be obtained?8 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »But even if I can't get to the 25 BMI, as you pointed out, getting to my lowest sustainable weight, even if it puts me at a 30 BMI, is still way, way better than being at 57!
100% agreed. I'm stalled at around 27.5 and am staying put for a bit. It's way better than the ~45 I started at and if I never break through the magic 25, so be it. I'm fitter, run a lot more and look better at 53 than I did at 33 (except for the gray hair).
*laughs* and you can hide that with Clarol! lol
I'm 38, and I'm set now to enter my 40's in much shape than I did when I hit 30, even if I don't get to that 25 number. I will be absolutely estatic to get below 250; below 200 would be a dream come true. Getting below 160? I have a hard time picturing that.
To the bolded: Don't. Pleeeeaase don't.
The world needs more thinner, fitter bad-*baby-feline* old-people role models.
Apologies for the digression. Kinda.7 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »I read stuff all the time about how reducing calories will cause you body to not burn calories - your body will go into 'starvation' mode, blah blah blah.
Well, severely reducing calories for a long time will cause your body to not burn calories anymore, eventually. Forever.11 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »I read stuff all the time about how reducing calories will cause you body to not burn calories - your body will go into 'starvation' mode, blah blah blah.
The only time the body stops burning calories is when you are dead.5 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »But even if I can't get to the 25 BMI, as you pointed out, getting to my lowest sustainable weight, even if it puts me at a 30 BMI, is still way, way better than being at 57!
100% agreed. I'm stalled at around 27.5 and am staying put for a bit. It's way better than the ~45 I started at and if I never break through the magic 25, so be it. I'm fitter, run a lot more and look better at 53 than I did at 33 (except for the gray hair).
*laughs* and you can hide that with Clarol! lol
I'm 38, and I'm set now to enter my 40's in much shape than I did when I hit 30, even if I don't get to that 25 number. I will be absolutely estatic to get below 250; below 200 would be a dream come true. Getting below 160? I have a hard time picturing that.
The decision to stop dying my hair was one of the most liberating decisions of my life.
I love my salt and pepper hair AND not spending the time every month fearing for the safety of my furniture and making a mess of the bathroom.6 -
I have a good friend(who is in the same shape I am) and a sister-in-law that despite what they see works for me(IIFYM) they simply believe I am special. That it works for me but they will gain fat immediately if they have a slice of pizza. Some people will stick to old weight loss info because to them it will always be true. I even know a personal trainer that is the same way, but it makes sense with him because I'm pretty sure he is a tinfoil hat Alex Jones fan.
Edit: The reason I mentioned that my friend was also in shape is that even the people who at this point(10 years of dieting and lifting) should know better have no interest in updating their knowledge. They stick to their guns and just say "I'm happy that works for you."7 -
Also OP, along with your blog you can show them this thread. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1 *wink wink*7
-
stevencloser wrote: »fionawilliamson wrote: »I read stuff all the time about how reducing calories will cause you body to not burn calories - your body will go into 'starvation' mode, blah blah blah.
Well, severely reducing calories for a long time will cause your body to not burn calories anymore, eventually. Forever.
Yeah, but now we're talking "body decomposition" vs. "body recomposition".
23 -
And even then, you'll still lose weightstevencloser wrote: »fionawilliamson wrote: »I read stuff all the time about how reducing calories will cause you body to not burn calories - your body will go into 'starvation' mode, blah blah blah.
Well, severely reducing calories for a long time will cause your body to not burn calories anymore, eventually. Forever.
Yeah, but now we're talking "body decomposition" vs. "body recomposition".
8 -
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/69/6/1189/4714941
In response to those who lose weight have screwed up metabolisms:
RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35).
CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
I’m not sure this study says what you think it says. This is a National Weight Control Registry study. To be enrolled in the study you have to have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least one year. Among THOSE specific individuals there is not a significant RMR difference. That’s why they’re in the study, and why they haven’t regained the weight. Unfortunately, the majority of individuals don’t keep it off for a year. They regain the weight and experience sustained reductions in RMR. But those individuals are not in this study. I think if you read the study abstract you’ll see that they are clear that this finding is not generalizable.13 -
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/69/6/1189/4714941
In response to those who lose weight have screwed up metabolisms:
RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35).
CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
I’m not sure this study says what you think it says. This is a National Weight Control Registry study. To be enrolled in the study you have to have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least one year. Among THOSE specific individuals there is not a significant RMR difference. That’s why they’re in the study, and why they haven’t regained the weight. Unfortunately, the majority of individuals don’t keep it off for a year. They regain the weight and experience sustained reductions in RMR. But those individuals are not in this study. I think if you read the study abstract you’ll see that they are clear that this finding is not generalizable.
This pretty much says it all:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/8 -
Unfortunately, the majority of individuals don’t keep it off for a year. They regain the weight and experience sustained reductions in RMR. But those individuals are not in this study.
Source for the claim that the majority of individual and those who regain weight did so BECAUSE OF substantial and sustained reductions in RMR?
In fact, if someone doesn't keep a loss off for even a year, there's no way to tell if that person had a sustained decline in RMR.6 -
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/69/6/1189/4714941
In response to those who lose weight have screwed up metabolisms:
RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35).
CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
I’m not sure this study says what you think it says. This is a National Weight Control Registry study. To be enrolled in the study you have to have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least one year. Among THOSE specific individuals there is not a significant RMR difference. That’s why they’re in the study, and why they haven’t regained the weight. Unfortunately, the majority of individuals don’t keep it off for a year. They regain the weight and experience sustained reductions in RMR. But those individuals are not in this study. I think if you read the study abstract you’ll see that they are clear that this finding is not generalizable.
This pretty much says it all:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/
Need that Awesome button back.7 -
People hear and believe only what they are interested in hearing and believing5
-
Everyone agrees (or should) that you can only lose weight if you achieve an energy deficit. Anything else is literally impossible. No argument there. My objection is to those who reflexively respond with comments like “you’re eating more than you think you are” in response to requests for help from individuals who are having difficulty losing weight. This quote from the post quoted above captures what I’ve been trying to say:
“The research, however, is very clear: not everybody has it as easy as some folks do. Some people’s bodies are, in fact, demonstrably more resistant to weight loss (or gain) than others. Not that they can’t lose (or gain) weight but it comes off or on more slowly. More accurately, their bodies fight back harder.
Researchers call these folks Diet Resistant and the reasons behind this resistance is just starting to be determined. It probably has to do with how these individuals brains perceive changes in caloric intake which determines how their brains react to those changes. Some people’s bodies simply increase metabolic rate more quickly (or drop it more quickly) in response to increased or decreased calories. You can see similar variations in terms of what’s lost during dieting; given the same diet and exercise program, some people will lose a lot more muscle than another.”
So given that individuals respond differently to identical levels of energy deficit, suggestions to cut calories further, or increase exercise significantly, can be unhelpful. The research is pretty clear that the metabolic adaptation to weight loss is proportional to the energy deficit. In other words, the greater the caloric restriction or energy deficit, the harder the body will fight back to maintain weight. And some individual’s bodies will simply fight back harder than others. Even if they manage to lose weight, those metabolic adaptations will make it extremely difficult to maintain the weight loss. For those individuals a slower weight loss at less of an energy deficit will be more effective, more likely to be tolerated, and hopefully result in sustained weight loss. So suggestions to 230 pound men with a BMR of 1800 and TDEE of 2500 to cut calories to 1500/day are not only dangerous, they are also likely unhelpful. And unfortunately I’ve seen this advice on this forum more than once, with CICO as the justification. It might be more helpful to suggest that they measure and weigh carefully for a week and ensure that they’re eating what they think they are, and if they actually are eating consistently below their BMR, try increasing calories to 500 below TDEE for a month and see how it goes.15 -
Everyone agrees (or should) that you can only lose weight if you achieve an energy deficit. Anything else is literally impossible. No argument there. My objection is to those who reflexively respond with comments like “you’re eating more than you think you are” in response to requests for help from individuals who are having difficulty losing weight. This quote from the post quoted above captures what I’ve been trying to say:
“The research, however, is very clear: not everybody has it as easy as some folks do. Some people’s bodies are, in fact, demonstrably more resistant to weight loss (or gain) than others. Not that they can’t lose (or gain) weight but it comes off or on more slowly. More accurately, their bodies fight back harder.
Researchers call these folks Diet Resistant and the reasons behind this resistance is just starting to be determined. It probably has to do with how these individuals brains perceive changes in caloric intake which determines how their brains react to those changes. Some people’s bodies simply increase metabolic rate more quickly (or drop it more quickly) in response to increased or decreased calories. You can see similar variations in terms of what’s lost during dieting; given the same diet and exercise program, some people will lose a lot more muscle than another.”
So given that individuals respond differently to identical levels of energy deficit, suggestions to cut calories further, or increase exercise significantly, can be unhelpful. The research is pretty clear that the metabolic adaptation to weight loss is proportional to the energy deficit. In other words, the greater the caloric restriction or energy deficit, the harder the body will fight back to maintain weight. And some individual’s bodies will simply fight back harder than others. Even if they manage to lose weight, those metabolic adaptations will make it extremely difficult to maintain the weight loss. For those individuals a slower weight loss at less of an energy deficit will be more effective, more likely to be tolerated, and hopefully result in sustained weight loss. So suggestions to 230 pound men with a BMR of 1800 and TDEE of 2500 to cut calories to 1500/day are not only dangerous, they are also likely unhelpful. And unfortunately I’ve seen this advice on this forum more than once, with CICO as the justification. It might be more helpful to suggest that they measure and weigh carefully for a week and ensure that they’re eating what they think they are, and if they actually are eating consistently below their BMR, try increasing calories to 500 below TDEE for a month and see how it goes.
Are you suggesting that posters here are told to lower their calories if they aren't losing weight, without anyone suggesting they tighten up their logging to ensure they are really eating what they think they are? Are you suggesting that no one here routinely recommends diet breaks to posters who seem to be logging well but not losing?
You made this assertion back on page 6 of this thread, and the two threads you held up as examples were refuted.
Look, I'm sure there are unfortunately threads that only get one ore two newbie replies and then sink down the recent posts list with no good advice, especially in the Introductions and Getting Started threads. But the overall stance of this community is that the key is to tighten up your logging, reconsider your exercise burns, open your diary for help, and consider diet breaks. Mis-characterizing what goes on here doesn't seem like a great choice, considering this thread in particular is full of posters who give the very advice you're claiming is lacking.25 -
Everyone agrees (or should) that you can only lose weight if you achieve an energy deficit. Anything else is literally impossible. No argument there. My objection is to those who reflexively respond with comments like “you’re eating more than you think you are” in response to requests for help from individuals who are having difficulty losing weight. This quote from the post quoted above captures what I’ve been trying to say:
“The research, however, is very clear: not everybody has it as easy as some folks do. Some people’s bodies are, in fact, demonstrably more resistant to weight loss (or gain) than others. Not that they can’t lose (or gain) weight but it comes off or on more slowly. More accurately, their bodies fight back harder.
Researchers call these folks Diet Resistant and the reasons behind this resistance is just starting to be determined. It probably has to do with how these individuals brains perceive changes in caloric intake which determines how their brains react to those changes. Some people’s bodies simply increase metabolic rate more quickly (or drop it more quickly) in response to increased or decreased calories. You can see similar variations in terms of what’s lost during dieting; given the same diet and exercise program, some people will lose a lot more muscle than another.”
So given that individuals respond differently to identical levels of energy deficit, suggestions to cut calories further, or increase exercise significantly, can be unhelpful. The research is pretty clear that the metabolic adaptation to weight loss is proportional to the energy deficit. In other words, the greater the caloric restriction or energy deficit, the harder the body will fight back to maintain weight. And some individual’s bodies will simply fight back harder than others. Even if they manage to lose weight, those metabolic adaptations will make it extremely difficult to maintain the weight loss. For those individuals a slower weight loss at less of an energy deficit will be more effective, more likely to be tolerated, and hopefully result in sustained weight loss. So suggestions to 230 pound men with a BMR of 1800 and TDEE of 2500 to cut calories to 1500/day are not only dangerous, they are also likely unhelpful. And unfortunately I’ve seen this advice on this forum more than once, with CICO as the justification. It might be more helpful to suggest that they measure and weigh carefully for a week and ensure that they’re eating what they think they are, and if they actually are eating consistently below their BMR, try increasing calories to 500 below TDEE for a month and see how it goes.
Are you suggesting that posters here are told to lower their calories if they aren't losing weight, without anyone suggesting they tighten up their logging to ensure they are really eating what they think they are? Are you suggesting that no one here routinely recommends diet breaks to posters who seem to be logging well but not losing?
You made this assertion back on page 6 of this thread, and the two threads you held up as examples were refuted.
Look, I'm sure there are unfortunately threads that only get one ore two newbie replies and then sink down the recent posts list with no good advice, especially in the Introductions and Getting Started threads. But the overall stance of this community is that the key is to tighten up your logging, reconsider your exercise burns, open your diary for help, and consider diet breaks. Mis-characterizing what goes on here doesn't seem like a great choice, considering this thread in particular is full of posters who give the very advice you're claiming is lacking.
20 -
terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.36 -
mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I have never seen anyone here claim that our bodies don't have specific nutritional needs, needs that go beyond just calories.
Are you sure you aren't simply misunderstanding some people who are arguing that our weight (which is just one part of our physical state) is determined by the balance of calories in versus calories out?16 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I have never seen anyone here claim that our bodies don't have specific nutritional needs, needs that go beyond just calories.
Are you sure you aren't simply misunderstanding some people who are arguing that our weight (which is just one part of our physical state) is determined by the balance of calories in versus calories out?
I really do think the problem is people skimming through threads and seeing what they want to see.
I mean if an OP just posts that they can't lose weight even though they're eating clean, sure they might just get told that it doesn't matter what they eat, calories determine weight loss. Because we can only respond to the info we're given, and deal with the immediate problem at hand. And even then, I'd guess some posters will ask them to open their food log and suggest a food scale.
And if someone ASKS about nutrition, they'll get more nuanced answers about nutrition. But if they ask about weight loss, we're not going to dissect every aspect of their health and well being, we're going to talk about weight loss and calories.
This is a public Internet forum, not a consult with a doctor, RD, and therapist
23 -
mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.17 -
mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
health != weight management
performance != weight management
health != performance16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions