Is it this simple?
Replies
-
Calorie deficit leads to weight loss. You can cut out whatever you want, if you eat at a calorie surplus you will gain weight, even if it's all broccoli, all the time.
It's important to clear these things up. The topic is "Is it this simple?" And it really is. It's people who go around saying the things you do that confuse the issue.
You are so right. What was I thinking. I'm definitely skipping all that healthy stuff, it tastes horrible anyways. I'm just gonna stick with a half dozen doughnuts a day. I mean, It's technically under my calorie goal, so I should go for it, right? Simple!
You can lose weight eating whatever, yes, but is it healthy or sustainable? No. Somebody can easily run away with the notion that they can eat pizza and burgers for most of their meals, be happy they lost weight eating at that deficit, and then wake up one day and wonder why they have cholesterol problems/high blood pressure/etc. Who is really giving the bad advice here? Its about healthy weight loss, not just end results.0 -
See? Diet myths everywhere.
Our bodies don't need an evolutionary change to eat processed foods. People do it on a daily basis and the body has no problem processing it. But you gotta sell Paleo books somehow...
People trolling my post about paleo; I mentioned it because its basically a natural food diet. I don't follow a paleo diet, I like the convenience of supplements too much and I would need to eat so much meat to meet my protein goals every day that it would turn into a part time job.
My point was to show me somebody gaining weight eating mostly veggies, you will have a hard time. The gist is just to stick to the produce isle. Not a bad concept. And I'm sorry, but we truly aren't evolved to deal with some of the crap they put in processed foods. I have pretty bad digestive issues, and if you ask any gastro, they will tell you the digestive system is the least evolved of our organs.
Paleo is a low carb diet disguised as a "natural food" diet. Our bodies retain more water when we eat carbs. People who follow low carb diets in a calorie deficit lose more weight faster than if they just ate at a deficit, but they gain the water weight back as soon as they reintroduce carbs.
Actually Paleo is carb-neutral. Some do both -- eat Paleo (or Primal) and restrict carbs. Others eat quite a bit of carbs, especially if they're very active. They just don't get them from bread, pasta, etc. -- they get them from vegetables and fruits. If they want more carbs, they tend to eat more starchy vegetables like sweet potatoes that are loaded with carbs.0 -
I think the answer is that it's not that simple, but can be for some people. I've found that Americans like simple things, and that includes things like eating philosophies. CICO is a great guideline and works really well for a lot of people, but for others, it's not that simple. Calories are important and creating a deficit is important, but how one chooses to create that deficit can be essential depending on the individual. I think touting oversimplications can be very dangerous, regardless of how intellectually comforting such simplicity may be.
I personally think CICO is a great place to start. But, if an individual is not noticing the expected results, then he/she needs to dig deeper and look at the greater complexity of the human body. And it's simply not true that CICO applies optimally to 97%+ of the population.
There are significant amounts of the population that have health/digestion issues for which CICO will not work optimally. Over 40% of the US adults have insulin resistance at pre-diabetic or diabetic levels -- not the mere 3% one of the earlier posters mentions. That's a HUGE number for just one issue! And, I imagine for the overweight population, it's even higher than that as insulin resistance makes it more difficult to lose weight and very easy to gain weight. For those people, restricting carbs is likely going to be quite important as their bodies metabolize glucose differently.
There is something like 8-12% of the US population that has a thyroid disorder, over half of which are undiagnosed. Once again, quite significant. There is quite a large part of the population that has issues with gluten, lactose or casein. And these (along with lectins) are the four most highly suspected culprits for those with digestive and auto-immune issues -- whether it be celiacs, IBS, joint pain, etc.
So, CICO is a great guideline. Just be aware of its limitations. Sadly, there are quite a few "special snowflakes" in the population.0 -
It is as simple as a calorie deficit. Everything else is just a means of keeping you entertained and engaged while you do it.
For many people simply telling themselves "oh I need to eat less" is not interesting enough to keep them focused and on track. They need hoops to jump through to keep their mind on the task. So there are diets that invent hoops. Only eat this number of grams of this, avoid these certain foods, only eat before 7pm or after 10am, and on and on and on.
Honestly I DO some of those things but I'm fully aware that it is just a means to keep myself in a routine that allows me to stay focused and stick to what is actually effective which is the calorie deficit.0 -
CICO. Simple, but not easy.
Discipline, delayed gratification, needs vs wants. All these are learned early in life. Those who completed their education had to employ these concepts. Likewise, people successfuly holding down a job use them every day. These same people go home and can't apply them to their food intake.
Simple calorie counting is working for me...slowly. I'm satisfied with that, but I had to experiment with various ways to achieve a deficit without it making me suffer too much. Eventually, I got it.
But someone else that I know, can't figure out any way to accomplish this consistently enough to lose even a small amount of weight. She has no health problems or metabolic issues that interfere with eating at a reasonable deficit. She simply is miserable restricting calories even a little. (Not surprisingly my comments about sucking it up and putting on her big girl panties were not well received.)
I wonder if those so called fad diets that cut out whole categories of food to acheive a calorie deficit have a place in the weight loss world for someone like her. If she could eat whatever she wanted as long as it wasn't, say carbs, for example, might she have greater success?0 -
CICO. Simple, but not easy.
Discipline, delayed gratification, needs vs wants. All these are learned early in life. Those who completed their education had to employ these concepts. Likewise, people successfuly holding down a job use them every day. These same people go home and can't apply them to their food intake.
Simple calorie counting is working for me...slowly. I'm satisfied with that, but I had to experiment with various ways to achieve a deficit without it making me suffer too much. Eventually, I got it.
But someone else that I know, can't figure out any way to accomplish this consistently enough to lose even a small amount of weight. She has no health problems or metabolic issues that interfere with eating at a reasonable deficit. She simply is miserable restricting calories even a little. (Not surprisingly my comments about sucking it up and putting on her big girl panties were not well received.)
I wonder if those so called fad diets that cut out whole categories of food to acheive a calorie deficit have a place in the weight loss world for someone like her. If she could eat whatever she wanted as long as it wasn't, say carbs, for example, might she have greater success?
It's posts like this that confuse me the most. He gives an example of someone that has shown consistency, discipline, personal responsibility, etc. in other areas of life but somehow isn't able to apply those same traits to food intake. Doesn't that seem to imply that it's about more than that? Whether nutritionally or psychologically?0 -
CICO. Simple, but not easy.
Discipline, delayed gratification, needs vs wants. All these are learned early in life. Those who completed their education had to employ these concepts. Likewise, people successfuly holding down a job use them every day. These same people go home and can't apply them to their food intake.
Simple calorie counting is working for me...slowly. I'm satisfied with that, but I had to experiment with various ways to achieve a deficit without it making me suffer too much. Eventually, I got it.
But someone else that I know, can't figure out any way to accomplish this consistently enough to lose even a small amount of weight. She has no health problems or metabolic issues that interfere with eating at a reasonable deficit. She simply is miserable restricting calories even a little. (Not surprisingly my comments about sucking it up and putting on her big girl panties were not well received.)
I wonder if those so called fad diets that cut out whole categories of food to acheive a calorie deficit have a place in the weight loss world for someone like her. If she could eat whatever she wanted as long as it wasn't, say carbs, for example, might she have greater success?
It's posts like this that confuse me the most. He gives an example of someone that has shown consistency, discipline, personal responsibility, etc. in other areas of life but somehow isn't able to apply those same traits to food intake. Doesn't that seem to imply that it's about more than that? Whether nutritionally or psychologically?
What you have to do is simple, but psychology complicates everything.0 -
CICO. Simple, but not easy.
Discipline, delayed gratification, needs vs wants. All these are learned early in life. Those who completed their education had to employ these concepts. Likewise, people successfuly holding down a job use them every day. These same people go home and can't apply them to their food intake.
Simple calorie counting is working for me...slowly. I'm satisfied with that, but I had to experiment with various ways to achieve a deficit without it making me suffer too much. Eventually, I got it.
But someone else that I know, can't figure out any way to accomplish this consistently enough to lose even a small amount of weight. She has no health problems or metabolic issues that interfere with eating at a reasonable deficit. She simply is miserable restricting calories even a little. (Not surprisingly my comments about sucking it up and putting on her big girl panties were not well received.)
I wonder if those so called fad diets that cut out whole categories of food to acheive a calorie deficit have a place in the weight loss world for someone like her. If she could eat whatever she wanted as long as it wasn't, say carbs, for example, might she have greater success?
It's posts like this that confuse me the most. He gives an example of someone that has shown consistency, discipline, personal responsibility, etc. in other areas of life but somehow isn't able to apply those same traits to food intake. Doesn't that seem to imply that it's about more than that? Whether nutritionally or psychologically?
What you have to do is simple, but psychology complicates everything.
Depending on the circumstances, I totally agree with you. But, then by definition, isn't it not so simple...0 -
So if the answer to losing weight is to eat within a deficit, why do so many people opt for such radical diets? Why limit yourself to only getting your carbs from leafy greens, or on another diet limit yourself to not fat all, or on another, eat 70% of your intake from protein? If all it takes is careful calorie watching?
Why, common sense isn't always so common and folks want to quick fixes without maintaining much self-control0 -
CICO. Simple, but not easy.
Discipline, delayed gratification, needs vs wants. All these are learned early in life. Those who completed their education had to employ these concepts. Likewise, people successfuly holding down a job use them every day. These same people go home and can't apply them to their food intake.
Simple calorie counting is working for me...slowly. I'm satisfied with that, but I had to experiment with various ways to achieve a deficit without it making me suffer too much. Eventually, I got it.
But someone else that I know, can't figure out any way to accomplish this consistently enough to lose even a small amount of weight. She has no health problems or metabolic issues that interfere with eating at a reasonable deficit. She simply is miserable restricting calories even a little. (Not surprisingly my comments about sucking it up and putting on her big girl panties were not well received.)
I wonder if those so called fad diets that cut out whole categories of food to acheive a calorie deficit have a place in the weight loss world for someone like her. If she could eat whatever she wanted as long as it wasn't, say carbs, for example, might she have greater success?
It's posts like this that confuse me the most. He gives an example of someone that has shown consistency, discipline, personal responsibility, etc. in other areas of life but somehow isn't able to apply those same traits to food intake. Doesn't that seem to imply that it's about more than that? Whether nutritionally or psychologically?
What you have to do is simple, but psychology complicates everything.
Depending on the circumstances, I totally agree with you. But, then by definition, isn't it not so simple...
We have different definitions of simple then. Simple to me is that the solution is easily determined not that people as a whole aren't likely to bungle it up.
1 + 1 = 2 is simple
Calories in - calories out is also simple.
Just because people might hem and haw over it and "doubt" it and try to complicate it further doesn't make it not simple it makes people difficult, not weight loss.0 -
IMO people in general do NOT like things to be simple. They might be lazy, they might not want to expend much effort but that is not the same thing as wanting things to be simple. I think psychologically people tend to want things they wish to attain to have a complex path to success. They want to feel that that thing they want is hard to get and so often they make it hard, much harder than it needs to be.
That is one reason why things like P90X ior Insanity or other popular fad-ish exercise programs that have you exercising every day in intense routines are so popular when honestly just going for regular walks would probably be just as effective for most of the people doing them. It can't be as simple as just going for a walk, I mean look at all these people jumping around like crazy lifting dumbells all over the place...it must REQUIRE that to lose weight so I will do that as well.0 -
IMO people in general do NOT like things to be simple. They might be lazy, they might not want to expend much effort but that is not the same thing as wanting things to be simple. I think psychologically people tend to want things they wish to attain to have a complex path to success. They want to feel that that thing they want is hard to get and so often they make it hard, much harder than it needs to be.
That is one reason why things like P90X ior Insanity or other popular fad-ish exercise programs that have you exercising every day in intense routines are so popular when honestly just going for regular walks would probably be just as effective for most of the people doing them. It can't be as simple as just going for a walk, I mean look at all these people jumping around like crazy lifting dumbells all over the place...it must REQUIRE that to lose weight so I will do that as well.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people wanting very simple explanations -- you see it in the news, on facebook, politics, etc. 2-3 sentence explanations max.
It's so much easier to chalk up people's lack of success to lack of willpower, self-discipline, etc. than to look deeper into the underlying issues -- whether nutritional or psychological. Just try harder! Man up! Put your big girl panties on! Stop whining!0 -
So if the answer to losing weight is to eat within a deficit, why do so many people opt for such radical diets? Why limit yourself to only getting your carbs from leafy greens, or on another diet limit yourself to not fat all, or on another, eat 70% of your intake from protein? If all it takes is careful calorie watching?
Why, common sense isn't always so common and folks want to quick fixes without maintaining much self-control
A structured or restrictive diet requires as much or more self control than simply eating less of what you normally eat. BOTH of these solutions, eating less of what you've always eaten and following a structured diet, fail most of the time. Regardless of the method used, MOST people regain weight after losing it.
Given the statistics on the failure of all diet types, common sense should tell us not to climb on our high horse re: dieting.0 -
So if the answer to losing weight is to eat within a deficit, why do so many people opt for such radical diets? Why limit yourself to only getting your carbs from leafy greens, or on another diet limit yourself to not fat all, or on another, eat 70% of your intake from protein? If all it takes is careful calorie watching?
Why, common sense isn't always so common and folks want to quick fixes without maintaining much self-control
A structured or restrictive diet requires as much or more self control than simply eating less of what you normally eat. BOTH of these solutions, eating less of what you've always eaten and following a structured diet, fail most of the time. Regardless of the method used, MOST people regain weight after losing it.
Given the statistics on the failure of all diet types, common sense should tell us not to climb on our high horse re: dieting.
Yeah I agree with that. Just because CICO is simple and in my opinion true does not mean that weight loss and subsequent maintenance is easily accomplished.0 -
Counting calories, even without apps like MFP, doesn't cost anything. It's hard to make money on that. So that's why we have all these crazy diet fads. Dieting is a big money making market and they sell you on all the BS so they can get you to buy thier product.0
-
IMO people in general do NOT like things to be simple. They might be lazy, they might not want to expend much effort but that is not the same thing as wanting things to be simple. I think psychologically people tend to want things they wish to attain to have a complex path to success. They want to feel that that thing they want is hard to get and so often they make it hard, much harder than it needs to be.
That is one reason why things like P90X ior Insanity or other popular fad-ish exercise programs that have you exercising every day in intense routines are so popular when honestly just going for regular walks would probably be just as effective for most of the people doing them. It can't be as simple as just going for a walk, I mean look at all these people jumping around like crazy lifting dumbells all over the place...it must REQUIRE that to lose weight so I will do that as well.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people wanting very simple explanations -- you see it in the news, on facebook, politics, etc. 2-3 sentence explanations max.
It's so much easier to chalk up people's lack of success to lack of willpower, self-discipline, etc. than to look deeper into the underlying issues -- whether nutritional or psychological. Just try harder! Man up! Put your big girl panties on! Stop whining!
I suspect underlying psychological issues are the biggest thing keeping otherwise responsible people from successful weight loss. In my own case I had several past failed attempts to lose weight. After I was treated for depression I found it easier (not easy, just easier) to resist the urge to eat the donuts in the breakroom. The woman I mentioned that can't tolerate calorie restricting has more stress in her life that I do. Maybe that's her big problem with sticking to a goal that she seems otherwise motivated to achieve.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
IMO people in general do NOT like things to be simple. They might be lazy, they might not want to expend much effort but that is not the same thing as wanting things to be simple. I think psychologically people tend to want things they wish to attain to have a complex path to success. They want to feel that that thing they want is hard to get and so often they make it hard, much harder than it needs to be.
That is one reason why things like P90X ior Insanity or other popular fad-ish exercise programs that have you exercising every day in intense routines are so popular when honestly just going for regular walks would probably be just as effective for most of the people doing them. It can't be as simple as just going for a walk, I mean look at all these people jumping around like crazy lifting dumbells all over the place...it must REQUIRE that to lose weight so I will do that as well.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people wanting very simple explanations -- you see it in the news, on facebook, politics, etc. 2-3 sentence explanations max.
It's so much easier to chalk up people's lack of success to lack of willpower, self-discipline, etc. than to look deeper into the underlying issues -- whether nutritional or psychological. Just try harder! Man up! Put your big girl panties on! Stop whining!
That's where you're wrong. People DO want something complex or new or mysterious...that way it's a "secret" that they didn't know about.
You see it all the time. "What's your secret?" "Tell me your secret!" "How did you do it?"
You tell them diet and exercise and they just stare at you. Like you answered in a foreign language.
Because it can't be that simple. It has to be harder than that. Otherwise what's their excuse?? And they desperately need an excuse. You see plenty of it in this thread alone. It's age or insulin resistance or gluten sensitivity or SOME reason why eating less simply won't work for them. They're special snowflakes, magical creatures who manage to gain weight even though they're barely eating. And calorie counting can't possibly work for them. No.
What about the 40%+ of the population that does have some sort of issue that pure calorie counting/restriction won't work for or won't optimize results?
Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't help those that actually have those issues. But, man, would it be a simpler world if that were true.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
What about the 40%+ of the population that does have some sort of issue that pure calorie counting/restriction won't work for or won't optimize results?
Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't help those that actually have those issues. But, man, would it be a simpler world if that were true.
Never heard that statistic in my life. Feel free to back it up.
Gladly. From the CDC: 8.3% of Americans have diabetes (27% are undiagnosed). 35% of US adults age 20+ have pre-diabetic levels of insulin resistance. That's over 104 million Americans.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf
And this is ONLY insulin resistance/diabetes issues. Thyroid is another 8%+ of the population according to the American Thyroid Association (though there may be some overlap between the groups, of course) and 12% of the population will have a thyroid condition at some point in their life.
http://www.thyroid.org/media-main/about-hypothyroidism/0 -
IMO people in general do NOT like things to be simple. They might be lazy, they might not want to expend much effort but that is not the same thing as wanting things to be simple. I think psychologically people tend to want things they wish to attain to have a complex path to success. They want to feel that that thing they want is hard to get and so often they make it hard, much harder than it needs to be.
That is one reason why things like P90X ior Insanity or other popular fad-ish exercise programs that have you exercising every day in intense routines are so popular when honestly just going for regular walks would probably be just as effective for most of the people doing them. It can't be as simple as just going for a walk, I mean look at all these people jumping around like crazy lifting dumbells all over the place...it must REQUIRE that to lose weight so I will do that as well.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people wanting very simple explanations -- you see it in the news, on facebook, politics, etc. 2-3 sentence explanations max.
It's so much easier to chalk up people's lack of success to lack of willpower, self-discipline, etc. than to look deeper into the underlying issues -- whether nutritional or psychological. Just try harder! Man up! Put your big girl panties on! Stop whining!
That's where you're wrong. People DO want something complex or new or mysterious...that way it's a "secret" that they didn't know about.
You see it all the time. "What's your secret?" "Tell me your secret!" "How did you do it?"
You tell them diet and exercise and they just stare at you. Like you answered in a foreign language.
Because it can't be that simple. It has to be harder than that. Otherwise what's their excuse?? And they desperately need an excuse. You see plenty of it in this thread alone. It's age or insulin resistance or gluten sensitivity or SOME reason why eating less simply won't work for them. They're special snowflakes, magical creatures who manage to gain weight even though they're barely eating. And calorie counting can't possibly work for them. No.
I disagree with this. I think most people know that diet and exercise will work, they just don't see that as "simple". Finding time to exercise regularly can be very hard for some people. Eating at a deficit, regardless of what they eat, can be very hard for some people. Knowing when you are in a deficit can be very hard for some people.
They want a simpler solution. Some want that raspberry ketone or green coffee bean than will cause them to lose without having to diet and exercise. Some want to be able to eat for comfort and still lose.
"diet and exercise" may be easy to say, and easy in concept. But changing your lifestyle is not always simple. Change can be very hard and may involve people other than just the person wanting to lose weight.0 -
Okay I see two camps here talking past one another. As arrogant as I am for even attempting this I will try to bridge the gap.
Camp 1: It is CICO and thats it.
Calories in minus calories out equals deficit equals weight loss and that is final.
Camp 2: CICO works for some but not all
Although calories in minus calories out may work for some there are complicating factors which means its not that simple for everyone.
Okay and here is the bridge I think.
Calories in minus calories out IS true for everyone BUT your options for determining your calories in and calories out are based on calculators or nutritional information that represents a value for the population average...a bell curve.
Joe Average is smack in the middle and when he eats something that says it has 100 calories his body processes it in such a way that he gets about 65 calories out of it.
Jane Outlier is at the edge of the curve at the 1% level and due to differences in her gut flora (probiotic bacteria) her digestive process yields 85 calories when she eats that thing that is labeled 100 calories.
Joe and Jane eat the same thing but get a different amount of actual calories out of it.
Joe Average goes to scooby's workshop and calculates his TDEE as 2500 and this is spot on accurate. When Joe completes his daily activities he averages 2500 calories burned.
Jane Outlier goes to scooby's workshop and calcuates her TDEE as 2200 but in actuality due to again that bell curve and her personal body she is actually burning about 2000 after completing her daily activities.
Joe and Jane go on a diet and log meticulously and use their TDEE calculations. Joe is right on the mark while Jane struggles to lose the amount she was expecting.
Here is the thing though. Calories in calories out is absolutely TRUE for both Jane and Joe, it is just that Joe's body is closer to the average so the provided calculators and nutrition levels match him while Jane is more of an outlier. It is then Jane's responsibility to determine what her specific maintenance level is and how much she needs to eat to hit it and then adjust accordingly.
Just because Jane doesn't match the average and the TDEE calculator is off or the nutrition label isn't matching her digestive ability that doesn't mean calories in calories out doesn't work for her. When Jane knows she gets 125% of the calories relative from the general population from her food and she knows her TDEE is different by 25% from the calculators then she too can accurately track record and predict her weight loss through CICO.
The reason Jane is an outlier doesn't matter. She could be an outlier because her body is just genetically different, she has a different probiotic bacterial makeup, she has diabetes, she has PCOS, she has a thyroid condition...all of these things just adjust what her calories in and out are they don't make CICO false.0 -
What about the 40%+ of the population that does have some sort of issue that pure calorie counting/restriction won't work for or won't optimize results?
Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't help those that actually have those issues. But, man, would it be a simpler world if that were true.
Never heard that statistic in my life. Feel free to back it up.
Gladly. From the CDC: 8.3% of Americans have diabetes (27% are undiagnosed). 35% of US adults age 20+ have pre-diabetic levels of insulin resistance. That's over 104 million Americans.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf
And this is ONLY insulin resistance/diabetes issues. Thyroid is another 8%+ of the population according to the American Thyroid Association (though there may be some overlap between the groups, of course) and 12% of the population will have a thyroid condition at some point in their life.
http://www.thyroid.org/media-main/about-hypothyroidism/
Which one of those groups does calories in calories out not apply to?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
What about the 40%+ of the population that does have some sort of issue that pure calorie counting/restriction won't work for or won't optimize results?
Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't help those that actually have those issues. But, man, would it be a simpler world if that were true.
Never heard that statistic in my life. Feel free to back it up.
Gladly. From the CDC: 8.3% of Americans have diabetes (27% are undiagnosed). 35% of US adults age 20+ have pre-diabetic levels of insulin resistance. That's over 104 million Americans.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf
And this is ONLY insulin resistance/diabetes issues. Thyroid is another 8%+ of the population according to the American Thyroid Association (though there may be some overlap between the groups, of course) and 12% of the population will have a thyroid condition at some point in their life.
http://www.thyroid.org/media-main/about-hypothyroidism/
Which one of those groups does calories in calories out not apply to?
For insulin resistance, if you take the exact same caloric deficit, groups that have a lower carb number in their macros will lose nearly twice as much weight as a high carb group (both having equal amounts of protein). If you read about how insulin resistance works, this helps make more sense of this though I'm not sure if it's fully explained yet (folks are still hypothesizing).
So, either our understanding of CICO isn't quite spot on, or figuring out the CO part of the equation is so difficult, that the information isn't that helpful for some people.
For thyroid, let's take an easy example of the most common hypothyroid disorder -- Hashimoto's. It's an autoimmune disorder and many believe that gluten triggers it. So for those with gluten in their diet (or other trigger foods), they'll go hypo more often, slowing metabolism and hindering weight loss (not to mention a bunch of other nasty symptoms).
Once again, CICO may be correct in the purist sense -- or our ability to calculate the CO part of the equation is so difficult that it has limited helpfulness. And, once again, how they create the deficit will greatly change their results. So, same calorie diet will have greatly differing results.
You can also look at eating sufficient protein. You get sufficient protein, you'll maintain more of your LBM when in a caloric deficit (though the amount of protein is still under debate -- though I prefer 0.7 g per lb bodyweight myself).
In the end, what we eat and how we create that deficit can makes a HUGE difference in our actual results.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
What about the 40%+ of the population that does have some sort of issue that pure calorie counting/restriction won't work for or won't optimize results?
Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't help those that actually have those issues. But, man, would it be a simpler world if that were true.
Never heard that statistic in my life. Feel free to back it up.
Gladly. From the CDC: 8.3% of Americans have diabetes (27% are undiagnosed). 35% of US adults age 20+ have pre-diabetic levels of insulin resistance. That's over 104 million Americans.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf
And this is ONLY insulin resistance/diabetes issues. Thyroid is another 8%+ of the population according to the American Thyroid Association (though there may be some overlap between the groups, of course) and 12% of the population will have a thyroid condition at some point in their life.
http://www.thyroid.org/media-main/about-hypothyroidism/
You won't like my answer, hell I'm not happy giving it, but the truth is those numbers are exaggerated for purposes of pushing an agenda.
I'll go with the 8.3% of Americans with diabetes, no problem there. But the 107 million of Americans with "pre-diabetes"...c'mon. First off that's a third of the country. Second what is pre-diabetes? What's the level at which that is measured and what was the size of the group was tested? You could theoretically say anyone is pre-diabetic.
What I don't see is 40% of the country being unable to lose weight through calorie counting. Sorry, I just don't buy it. And again, I go to my standard answer. This is a calorie counting website. If you don't believe it works, you're in the wrong place. It's worked wonders for me and everyone else I see actually embracing it as opposed to making excuses.
Well, if you read the article, it said prediabetes was based on fasting glucose levels or hemoglobin A1C levels. For the latter, I believe it's 5.6 or 5.7 to have prediabetes adn 6.5 to have full-blown diabetes.
What is the agenda that they'd be pushing? Perhaps there are flaws in the methodology -- I can't say, but it looked pretty legit to me at first blush.
You can believe what you want to believe. But your belief does not negate the reality of the testing. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.0 -
What about the 40%+ of the population that does have some sort of issue that pure calorie counting/restriction won't work for or won't optimize results?
Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't help those that actually have those issues. But, man, would it be a simpler world if that were true.
Never heard that statistic in my life. Feel free to back it up.
Gladly. From the CDC: 8.3% of Americans have diabetes (27% are undiagnosed). 35% of US adults age 20+ have pre-diabetic levels of insulin resistance. That's over 104 million Americans.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf
And this is ONLY insulin resistance/diabetes issues. Thyroid is another 8%+ of the population according to the American Thyroid Association (though there may be some overlap between the groups, of course) and 12% of the population will have a thyroid condition at some point in their life.
http://www.thyroid.org/media-main/about-hypothyroidism/
Which one of those groups does calories in calories out not apply to?
For insulin resistance, if you take the exact same caloric deficit, groups that have a lower carb number in their macros will lose nearly twice as much weight as a high carb group (both having equal amounts of protein). If you read about how insulin resistance works, this helps make more sense of this though I'm not sure if it's fully explained yet (folks are still hypothesizing).
So, either our understanding of CICO isn't quite spot on, or figuring out the CO part of the equation is so difficult, that the information isn't that helpful for some people.
For thyroid, let's take an easy example of the most common hypothyroid disorder -- Hashimoto's. It's an autoimmune disorder and many believe that gluten triggers it. So for those with gluten in their diet (or other trigger foods), they'll go hypo more often, slowing metabolism and hindering weight loss (not to mention a bunch of other nasty symptoms).
Once again, CICO may be correct in the purist sense -- or our ability to calculate the CO part of the equation is so difficult that it has limited helpfulness. And, once again, how they create the deficit will greatly change their results. So, same calorie diet will have greatly differing results.
You can also look at eating sufficient protein. You get sufficient protein, you'll maintain more of your LBM when in a caloric deficit (though the amount of protein is still under debate -- though I prefer 0.7 g per lb bodyweight myself).
In the end, what we eat and how we create that deficit can makes a HUGE difference in our actual results.
CICO doesn't mean absolutely everyone's intake and output are correctly estimated by an online TDEE calculator, CICO means that your weight loss is determined by YOUR bodies actual caloric intake and YOUR bodies actual caloric output. It is the responsibility of every individual to determine their caloric input and output through careful tracking and determination of what their maintenance level is.
Just because someone's caloric output doesn't exactly match what an online TDEE calculator says or the amount of calories they get from a food doesn't exactly match what the nutrition label says does not mean that CICO doesn't apply to them.
I didn't trust an online TDEE calculator to tell me what my TDEE was I tracked my weight religiously for 3 months while logging my calories as accurately as I could and then used those numbers to calculate my TDEE.0 -
What about the 40%+ of the population that does have some sort of issue that pure calorie counting/restriction won't work for or won't optimize results?
Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't help those that actually have those issues. But, man, would it be a simpler world if that were true.
Never heard that statistic in my life. Feel free to back it up.
Gladly. From the CDC: 8.3% of Americans have diabetes (27% are undiagnosed). 35% of US adults age 20+ have pre-diabetic levels of insulin resistance. That's over 104 million Americans.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf
And this is ONLY insulin resistance/diabetes issues. Thyroid is another 8%+ of the population according to the American Thyroid Association (though there may be some overlap between the groups, of course) and 12% of the population will have a thyroid condition at some point in their life.
http://www.thyroid.org/media-main/about-hypothyroidism/
Which one of those groups does calories in calories out not apply to?
That was what I was wondering. My mother was diagnosed with diabetes a couple years back, but really put her mind to weight loss this year. Started watching what she ate closely and being more active. She has had a consistent weight loss the last couple months. The diabetes may adjust what she can safely eat due to the medical issues, but did not obliterate the basic CICO concept.
Now I do have one family member that was diagnosed with a hormonal issue that caused her to put on crazy weight despite being active and eating a decent diet. But the change was rapid and she knew something was wrong. Thanks to medical help her system is getting back to normal and she is starting to lose weight. But this isn't that common and the change was so apparent that she knew something was wrong and went to the doctors to get checked out. I don't know many people that gain that much weight in that short of time.0 -
It is that simple for most people. Some people have a harder time and need to watch what they eat more than others. I know I do because of my Hashimoto's, but basically, yes it's that simple.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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