Science of What Works For Me Works For You
Replies
-
Really? I'm pouncing on people?...they lie in wait to pounce when someone states anything not 100% true.0 -
No, I'm not.He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.
Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:
Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.
Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.
Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?
Define do better. Define wrong.0 -
As my father used to say, "If we were all the same we'd all marry the same woman and your mother couldn't take it."
We are not all exactly the same in terms of our proportions and how efficiently or wastefully our bodies do different things. We are all very much the same as well. So, this whole argument comes down to one of interpretation. Your "very different" and my "very similar" may very well be the same thing.
So, stop arguing, y'all and look at the prevalence of all the possible fudge factors that could affect things. Life is ambiguous. Get over it.0 -
No, I'm not.He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.
Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:
Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.
Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.
Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?
Usually person A is advising somebody, probably somebody new, that they should do <inset fad diet or lifestyle here> to be successful. They aren't presenting it as their experience until person B says scientifically, there isn't evidence to support that.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm pretty sure there are no variations in gut fauna. Unless maybe you're Richard Gere. :laugh:... there are variations in everything else. Including metabolic efficiency, gut flora and fauna, satiety, and pleasure triggers in the brain. ...0 -
No, I'm not.He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.
Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:
Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.
Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.
Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?
Ok, I'm gonna try...
Person B is correct, but here is the difference in the communication between the two.
Person A believes they lost weight because carbs are bad, or fat is bad, or whatever. The truth is they are more likely to find success because X diet fits with their own personal preferences. But to them it's cut out X = Weight loss. Person B is stating that the real reason they lost weight is a caloric deficit, which is correct.
Eliminating ANY food does not change the fact that a calorie deficit leads to weight loss, and a calorie surplus leads to weight gain. That's how the body works, every body.
The main problem is bad science. People use anecdotal evidence, they trust the way they feel as opposed to cold statistics. They "know what works for them" and nothing you can say is going to change their mind.
Have I answered your question?
Quoting for truth.
ALL THE TRUTHS.0 -
Along these lines I've always been bugged by the fact that people recognize, or at least seem to, that there are "hard gainers." That is, someone is skinny and has trouble gaining mass. However when someone says they have trouble losing or seems to gain very easily it's dismissed.
I suspect it's the same problem, just in a different direction: inaccurate tracking...
...and I say this as a former "hard-gainer" myself. My biggest problem was that I simply wasn't eating enough.0 -
No. No they don't. That answer your question?0
-
I'm pretty sure there are no variations in gut fauna. Unless maybe you're Richard Gere. :laugh:... there are variations in everything else. Including metabolic efficiency, gut flora and fauna, satiety, and pleasure triggers in the brain. ...
True, but I'm not really clear why they call it gut flora either? Because I'm pretty sure none of it is multi-cellular and photosynthetic....0 -
my favorite "sciencing" is when somebody uses a book on an online post as a reference and says "go read this".
Yeah, like I just stop what I'm doing at work to read a book. Because everyone online knows that will shut someone up in a "science" argument because if you haven't read it, they have "gotcha"...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm not confused about it but I do wonder about the variance within our parameters.i'm failing to understand what you find confusing about human = human = human. please be specific.
It would be similar to if I was looking into engines for a specific model car (and I know very little about cars so I apologize in advance for the analogy). All the engines are built to be within certain tolerances and, because of that, they will all perform within a certain range (assuming there are no major defects). But there will be variances within that range. If the engine is rated to 45 MPG, it doesn't mean every individual engine will get exactly 45 MPG. Some might get a little more, some might get a little less but the average of all the engines will be around 45.
It seems like, if the question were posed on a forum for that model: hey, my engine only gets 41 MPG, that the response is, if the engine isn't broke, you're doing it wrong that you're not getting 45. Now, with an engine, you could take it apart, have some engineers go over everything and probably figure out where the engine efficiency is being lost.
Not quite so easy with a human body. Now, I totally get that everybody is the same at a certain level and the Fight Club, "you are not a unique snowflake." I get it. And I have no doubt that 99.9% of the folks who want to defer their own responsibility for diet/exercise/whatever failing look to throw it to special circumstances. However, even eliminating all of those, maybe there's a number of people who really do have different efficiencies. Or maybe there isn't.
I've been reading up a bit on epigenetics (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/) after hearing about it on a podcast, and it made me think about how much variability there might be going on. Or maybe not.0 -
No, I'm not.He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.
Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:
Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.
Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.
Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?
Ok, I'm gonna try...
Person B is correct, but here is the difference in the communication between the two.
Person A believes they lost weight because carbs are bad, or fat is bad, or whatever. The truth is they are more likely to find success because X diet fits with their own personal preferences. But to them it's cut out X = Weight loss. Person B is stating that the real reason they lost weight is a caloric deficit, which is correct.
Eliminating ANY food does not change the fact that a calorie deficit leads to weight loss, and a calorie surplus leads to weight gain. That's how the body works, every body.
The main problem is bad science. People use anecdotal evidence, they trust the way they feel as opposed to cold statistics. They "know what works for them" and nothing you can say is going to change their mind.
Have I answered your question?
Exactly this.0 -
Fair enough. Of course, I'm not questioning "CICO".When it's a case of someone who claims 'CICO' isn't appropriate for them, I'd suggest that they likely misunderstand some of the basic tenants of 'science' and need to go back to first year high school, to start from the basics again. Definitely a bit of 'hurr durr' in those cases.
Oh. Well then what are you questioning? I believe CICO is the "what works for me" that "will work for you" unless I misunderstood. Which is possible.
If I'm remembering the source of this, the statement that what works for you might not work for everyone was made following someone's claim that a paleo diet would lead to weight loss.0 -
I guess 'flora' has a secondary meaning: microorganisms living in the body.
I'm pretty sure there are no variations in gut fauna. Unless maybe you're Richard Gere. :laugh:... there are variations in everything else. Including metabolic efficiency, gut flora and fauna, satiety, and pleasure triggers in the brain. ...
True, but I'm not really clear why they call it gut flora either? Because I'm pretty sure none of it is multi-cellular and photosynthetic....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/flora
English is weird.0 -
Studies to prove what? That the laws of physics aren't specific to each individual? I don't understand.
Thanks, I couldn't figure out how to word it.
There aren't going to be studies on a basic and fundamental concept like this.
Here's how you know though, when you see a doctor he's going off what he knows ABOUT OTHER HUMAN BODIES to diagnose/treat yours. Because that works. Never once has someone gone into surgery, been sliced open, only to hear, "Good god! This person is made entirely of jam! We should have considered that."
We all have the same BASIC bodies (yes there are minor differences, but they're just that, minor)
Plus there's no point in providing evidence in this thread. There are already 9 different, "Ah whatever science says they say the opposite too! Hurr durr!"
We are all using the interenet. Try and have a little respect for science and a little less reliance on your own dumb, poorly thought out, "feelings."
(please note I'm using the royal "you" and not talking to the OP)
PREACH!0 -
I guess 'flora' has a secondary meaning: microorganisms living in the body.
I'm pretty sure there are no variations in gut fauna. Unless maybe you're Richard Gere. :laugh:... there are variations in everything else. Including metabolic efficiency, gut flora and fauna, satiety, and pleasure triggers in the brain. ...
True, but I'm not really clear why they call it gut flora either? Because I'm pretty sure none of it is multi-cellular and photosynthetic....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/flora
English is weird.
Yes it does, but you're right, it's weird. You really want to make your brain explode try to figure out the difference between an algae and a seaweed.0 -
Fair enough. Of course, I'm not questioning "CICO".When it's a case of someone who claims 'CICO' isn't appropriate for them, I'd suggest that they likely misunderstand some of the basic tenants of 'science' and need to go back to first year high school, to start from the basics again. Definitely a bit of 'hurr durr' in those cases.
Oh. Well then what are you questioning? I believe CICO is the "what works for me" that "will work for you" unless I misunderstood. Which is possible.
If I'm remembering the source of this, the statement that what works for you might not work for everyone was made following someone's claim that a paleo diet would lead to weight loss.
In other words "context is important, yo."0 -
I'm so confused on how people can be so convinced weight loss is simply CICO, like nothing else matters. My bf and I BOTH ate ate a huge deficit yesterday, worked out, and I gained 1 lb, and he 5! The reason? Because we went through a highly stressful event together and likely had cortisol raging through our blood! Hormones actually do matter, and in this case, they beat the hell out the CICO theory for us both. Other things matter like sodium and water intake. Even more than that matters, but it's not a simple formula, if it was that would greaaaaaaaaaaat. But it's not.0
-
I'm not confused about it but I do wonder about the variance within our parameters.i'm failing to understand what you find confusing about human = human = human. please be specific.
It would be similar to if I was looking into engines for a specific model car (and I know very little about cars so I apologize in advance for the analogy). All the engines are built to be within certain tolerances and, because of that, they will all perform within a certain range (assuming there are no major defects). But there will be variances within that range. If the engine is rated to 45 MPG, it doesn't mean every individual engine will get exactly 45 MPG. Some might get a little more, some might get a little less but the average of all the engines will be around 45.
It seems like, if the question were posed on a forum for that model: hey, my engine only gets 41 MPG, that the response is, if the engine isn't broke, you're doing it wrong that you're not getting 45. Now, with an engine, you could take it apart, have some engineers go over everything and probably figure out where the engine efficiency is being lost.
Not quite so easy with a human body. Now, I totally get that everybody is the same at a certain level and the Fight Club, "you are not a unique snowflake." I get it. And I have no doubt that 99.9% of the folks who want to defer their own responsibility for diet/exercise/whatever failing look to throw it to special circumstances. However, even eliminating all of those, maybe there's a number of people who really do have different efficiencies. Or maybe there isn't.
I've been reading up a bit on epigenetics (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/) after hearing about it on a podcast, and it made me think about how much variability there might be going on. Or maybe not.
ok. i think i get what you're saying. and the car analogy was a good one. b/c just like with diets - petrol heads will argue the issue for DAYS. but unlike with cars, we're not built by machines on an assembly line.
our DNA is set to human. the basic thermodynamics of that don't change. even a Situs twin (a mirror twin born w/ organs in mirror to where they should be - and that's about as different as it can get for us) will follow the same rules of energy.
the parameters within the human DNA are more - male and female and tall and short and large framed and small framed and allergic to peanuts and more prone to problems with a certain system and better immune system and...and...and... but within every one of those million and a half teeny tiny DNA changes - each person has to work at a surplus of calories to gain weight and a shortage of calories to lose weight.
going back to the car - changing the oil and the air filter are not going to change the end result wherein fuel is brought into the cylinder and ignited.
does that help?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm so confused on how people can be so convinced weight loss is simply CICO, like nothing else matters. My bf and I BOTH ate ate a huge deficit yesterday, worked out, and I gained 1 lb, and he 5! The reason? Because we went through a highly stressful event together and likely had cortisol raging through our blood! Hormones actually do matter, and in this case, they beat the hell out the CICO theory for us both. Other things matter like sodium and water intake. Even more than that matters, but it's not a simple formula, if it was that would greaaaaaaaaaaat. But it's not.
But that doesn't disprove CICO, it just proves that CICO can be complex and we don't always have all the variables. Other things, like hormones, can change the calories out side of the equation. But that doesn't mean CICO isn't true. Just that you may not understand the equation completely.0 -
I'm so confused on how people can be so convinced weight loss is simply CICO, like nothing else matters. My bf and I BOTH ate ate a huge deficit yesterday, worked out, and I gained 1 lb, and he 5! The reason? Because we went through a highly stressful event together and likely had cortisol raging through our blood! Hormones actually do matter, and in this case, they beat the hell out the CICO theory for us both. Other things matter like sodium and water intake. Even more than that matters, but it's not a simple formula, if it was that would greaaaaaaaaaaat. But it's not.
So you're using one day, one whole day to argue the law of thermodynamics?
It's just as easily water from one whole day as it is not having a movement since it was a whole day.0 -
Pretty much, though I wonder (purely academically), if what some of these people feel is the symptom of a condition that just hasn't been described yet? In other words, is someone going to publish a study next year saying that certain populations react differently to X, Y, and Z? (Thereafter to be alternately refuted and proved year after year into infinity.)Ok, I'm gonna try...
Person B is correct, but here is the difference in the communication between the two.
Person A believes they lost weight because carbs are bad, or fat is bad, or whatever. The truth is they are more likely to find success because X diet fits with their own personal preferences. But to them it's cut out X = Weight loss. Person B is stating that the real reason they lost weight is a caloric deficit, which is correct.
Eliminating ANY food does not change the fact that a calorie deficit leads to weight loss, and a calorie surplus leads to weight gain. That's how the body works, every body.
The main problem is bad science. People use anecdotal evidence, they trust the way they feel as opposed to cold statistics. They "know what works for them" and nothing you can say is going to change their mind.
Have I answered your question?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Very much though, to reiterate, I wasn't doubting or looking for evidence of CICO. More like: is it possible some engines like a higher mix of ethanol than others or, maybe better: do all the engines of a certain make and model react exactly the same to different fuel mixes or could there be some perceptible differences in performance? Or is the feelings of the car driver really just feelings or could they sense the vehicle handling differently?...going back to the car - changing the oil and the air filter are not going to change the end result wherein fuel is brought into the cylinder and ignited.
does that help?
(I think I surpassed my quota of automotive references.)0 -
No, I'm not.He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.
Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:
Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.
Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.
Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?
It depends on if Person A is stating something as a fact or opinion and what science says about their statement.
You can't generalize everything. You get people who say they are losing weight because they drink a specific shake at lunch who could lose weight eating the same number of calories with the same macros. You get people with actual hormonal issues that cut back on specific things that cause the energy equation to go out of balance (store more energy) and they lose weight. How do you determine if you need a special diet due to hormones? See a doctor and have them run tests.
The problem with people and studying fat loss in general is that people are absolutely horrible at being accurate. A lot of studies are done with people self reporting what they ate. If a study required my to eat 1000 calories below my TDEE there's a good chance I would under report calories to stay included in the study while not trying to chew my hand off and make money.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7869932
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8315169
http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/8/611.full0 -
No, I'm not.He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.
Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:
Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.
Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.
Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?
The quote in the OP comes from a thread where people are claiming that paleo leads to weight loss and that they can eat as much as they want, even eating over their calorie goals, and not gain weight, correct? So it is hardly a case of someone's personal preference for macros being called into question, it's calling someone out when they claim it's not CICO but not eating <insert whatever food> that has caused them to lose weight and that if everyone else cut it out of their diets, they'd lose weight as well.
So yes, the science should be called into question, but you're directing your ire at the wrong half of the conversation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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