Is it this simple?

124»

Replies

  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    Is losing weight really as simple as a calorie deficit?

    Hello. T
    he answer is yes.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    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.

    I don't disagree with you there. But, if you're a person that's not falling into the general range, there are probably other issues at foot that need to be addressed. For example, someone with an undiagnosed hypothyroid condition, the answer isn't to just keep cutting more and more calories. The answer is figuring out what's wrong and having it properly treated.

    And, once again, with the insulin resistance issue, you see greatly different results for diets of the same deficit -- the only thing that's different is the amount of carbs. Whether that translates into the CO part of the equation or something else is going on, I'm not totally sure. But, I do know that the food you eat is directly related to that event. So, restricting carbs in that scenario will get you far great results than a pure calorie deficit alone.

    So for these people doesn't it make more sense to say, hey, if you restrict carbs, you'll see greater results for your calorie restriction efforts?

    It's not an either-or situation but a both-and.
  • tycho_mx
    tycho_mx Posts: 426 Member
    Never confuse "simple" with "easy".

    I can describe flying in very simple terms: provide lift that counteracts the gravitational force attracting a body to the earth.

    Treating an addiction is also simple: remove or control the factors that compel the individual to be dependent on a substance, activity or behaviour.

    Neither those nor weight loss are easy!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member

    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.

    I'm in denial? I'm not the one on a calorie counting website arguing that calorie counting doesn't work for people.

    Ugh, no I'm not. I think calorie counting is helpful and important. I just don't think it's the ONLY thing that's helpful or important.

    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,654 Member
    No one has claimed that counting calories doesn't work.

    What many are saying here is that counting calories ALONE may not work for everyone.

    Say I eat 1200 calories a day on a high carb low fat diet. I should be losing weight, as that should be a moderate calorie deficit for me.
    But since I am insulin resistant, my body doesn't process the carbs as well as a healthy person, so I may not be able to lose at that level. I would also be much hungrier eating at a high level of carbs, so lowering my calories below 1200 may be difficult to do. (trust me, it IS)

    Now if I eat 1200 calories of a lower carb diet, with higher healthy fats and proteins, then not only will I be able to stay at that calorie level without intense hunger, but I will also process the calories better, and be able to burn them, creating a true deficit that results in weight loss.

    After almost 2 years on this site, thru education, and trial and error, I have found that this scenario is indeed true for me.

    Yes, I must count calories. But I also must count carb grams, and strictly limit processed grains and sugars, or else I will not lose weight.

    I know this goes against every basic scienc-y thing some of you think you know, but the human body is a complicated machine. It doesn't always follow the same rules as the next person.
  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    I know this goes against every basic scienc-y thing some of you think you know, but the human body is a complicated machine. It doesn't always follow the same rules as the next person.

    We can find rather unconscionable instances in history where in fact starvation was used, and it superseded all the "complications" of thyroid, psychological issues, diabetes as well as any issue where every human body responded in similar kind with no regard for it being a complicated machine.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    I know this goes against every basic scienc-y thing some of you think you know, but the human body is a complicated machine. It doesn't always follow the same rules as the next person.

    We can find rather unconscionable instances in history where in fact starvation was used, and it superseded all the "complications" of thyroid, psychological issues, diabetes as well as any issue where every human body responded in similar kind with no regard for it being a complicated machine.

    This doesn't even make sense. Yes EVERYONE will eventually starve if they don't eat. How is this helpful at all?
  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    I know this goes against every basic scienc-y thing some of you think you know, but the human body is a complicated machine. It doesn't always follow the same rules as the next person.

    We can find rather unconscionable instances in history where in fact starvation was used, and it superseded all the "complications" of thyroid, psychological issues, diabetes as well as any issue where every human body responded in similar kind with no regard for it being a complicated machine.


    This doesn't even make sense. Yes EVERYONE will eventually starve if they don't eat. How is this helpful at all?

    The Minnesota Starvation Experiment is available in a two-volume, 1,385 page text entitled The Biology of Human Starvation (University of Minnesota Press)

    Todd Tucker, The Great Starvation Experiment: The Heroic Men Who Starved so That Millions Could Live, Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, New York, ISBN 978-0-7432-7030-4, 2006.

    J. A. Palesty and S. J. Dudrick, “The Goldilocks Paradigm of Starvation and Refeeding,” Nutrition in Clinical Practice, April 1, 2006; 21(2): 147 - 154.
    Handbook for the Treatment of Eating Disorders, D.M. Gardner and P.E. Garfinkel (editors), Gilford Press, New York, N.Y., 1997.

    The Good War and Those That Refused to Fight It, an ITVS film presentation, produced by Paradigm Productions, a non-profit media organization based in Berkeley, California. Directed by Rick Tejada-Flores and Judith Ehrlich. Copyright 2000.


    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/761810-the-starvation-mode-myth-again
  • wampahoofus
    wampahoofus Posts: 38 Member
    This is the second time in my life that I had a significant amount of weight to lose and then lost it. (The first time was about 20 years ago.) Both times I used simple calorie counting. It is the only thing that has ever worked for me.

    I tend to attempt to seek out more vegetables and protien. I need the vegetables to bulk up the meals so it feels like I still have a big plate of food to eat and nice cuts of meat are delicious for the calories.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    Yes it is, but I've noticed alot of posters on here that hate counting and can't wait to get to goal "so they won't have to count calories for the rest of their life". I'm always surprised by this because counting works so well, why not keep it up instead of risking gaining the weight back? Counting is so easy on MFP. I'm glad I found it. I always thought you had to suffer to lose weight, and it was a revelation to find out it wasn't so.
  • CMB1979
    CMB1979 Posts: 588 Member
    http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/

    Excellent article. Thank you for sharing.

    Nobody wants to hear that they are eating too much. It is easier to believe that you are eating the wrong foods at the wrong time or in the wrong combination. That way it isn't your fault. I know for sure that if I am not losing or even gaining and it is not water retention that it is totally my fault for eating too much. It is harsh but true.

    Indeed. I often re-read it when I stray. That and watching "Supersize vs Superskinny" episodes on youtube.
  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    Yes it is, but I've noticed alot of posters on here that hate counting and can't wait to get to goal "so they won't have to count calories for the rest of their life". I'm always surprised by this because counting works so well, why not keep it up instead of risking gaining the weight back? Counting is so easy on MFP. I'm glad I found it. I always thought you had to suffer to lose weight, and it was a revelation to find out it wasn't so.

    Counting is indeed an easy and excellent way to track things made so much easier/convenient with the phone App.
  • Yagisama
    Yagisama Posts: 595 Member
    http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/

    Excellent article. Thank you for sharing.

    Nobody wants to hear that they are eating too much. It is easier to believe that you are eating the wrong foods at the wrong time or in the wrong combination. That way it isn't your fault. I know for sure that if I am not losing or even gaining and it is not water retention that it is totally my fault for eating too much. It is harsh but true.

    Indeed. I often re-read it when I stray. That and watching "Supersize vs Superskinny" episodes on youtube.

    That is an awesome article!

Categories