It is NOT that simple.
Replies
-
People were asking you for EIGHT pages whether or not you had a medical condition that affects the CI/CO equation.I made it four pages into this thread before I rage quit.
I'll ruin the ending for you: on page EIGHT, we finally get the missing vital information that resolves the mystery for everyone. Sure, many foreshadowed the twist very early on in the thread, but even after dozens of posts from OP, it was PAGE EIGHT when she revealed a medical condition.
And that's exactly my point. All the oversimplification of CICO doesn't account for those things, and they automatically assumed I was "doing it wrong". Rather than looking at outside factors, or considering the possibility that there is a "complication" to the weight loss, the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that someone is either lying or not doing something right, or that they "don't understand". The automatic reaction is to accuse and be condescending, rather than look to other possibilities.
And it took you EIGHT pages to respond.
Wow, just...wow. :grumble:0 -
I made it four pages into this thread before I rage quit.
I'll ruin the ending for you: on page EIGHT, we finally get the missing vital information that resolves the mystery for everyone. Sure, many foreshadowed the twist very early on in the thread, but even after dozens of posts from OP, it was PAGE EIGHT when she revealed a medical condition.
And that's exactly my point. All the oversimplification of CICO doesn't account for those things, and they automatically assumed I was "doing it wrong". Rather than looking at outside factors, or considering the possibility that there is a "complication" to the weight loss, the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that someone is either lying or not doing something right, or that they "don't understand". The automatic reaction is to accuse and be condescending, rather than look to other possibilities.
No one and no post I've ever seen belittles someone for having a condition or states that they are lying about their issues with a "program" based on their condition. But the people that have issues normally let others know their medical condition upfront. I am very confident that there has not been a post in which someone said this doesn't work and they have a medical condition and people belittled them for it. If so, would love to have that link because that will definitely be a first.
If someone doesn't let others know about their condition, though, *coughs*..then others will question and try to figure out what's going on.
But even in one thread I read where someone was just posting an article about why weight loss might be stalled, people started mocking and belittling. There was no need for that. I used an example of myself, yes, but that wasn't the main point. The point was 1) how people jump the gun and make generalizations, assuming everyone's metabolism is the same, 2) the broad advice of some, without boundaries or caveats/warnings can lead to a skewed vision of nutrition/health, 3) the overall condescending tone that many CICO pushers take on when anyone suggests "eat more organic" or "cut down on grains" or "take out dairy".
My story was an example, but it wasn't the whole of what I was trying to point out. I was not asking for help or seeking advice. I know what's going on with me, and I didn't feel the need to explain everything, when that wasn't my point to begin with. I wasn't looking for people to explain my situation--I know all about my situation. I was looking more at how people react to anyone who says anything other than CICO. It had nothing to do with my actual story (except using it as an example of how that thinking can go the wrong way, and isn't always cut-and-dry), and everything to do with how people treat others on this forum. It has to do with people giving blanket statements about nutrition, without considering that there may be something else going on, or that there may be another way of losing weight. Sure, in most cases, CICO works in general terms... but that doesn't exclude any other method of losing weight, and it doesn't mean that if someone isn't losing while doing it, that they are doing it wrong or lying about their intake. It usually means there needs to be a change, and sometimes that change is the QUALITY of food, rather than the quantity. But no, the "only answer" is CICO, and nothing else can work outside of it... according to some...0 -
Wow....TRAIN-WRECK :laugh:0
-
People were asking you for EIGHT pages whether or not you had a medical condition that affects the CI/CO equation.I made it four pages into this thread before I rage quit.
I'll ruin the ending for you: on page EIGHT, we finally get the missing vital information that resolves the mystery for everyone. Sure, many foreshadowed the twist very early on in the thread, but even after dozens of posts from OP, it was PAGE EIGHT when she revealed a medical condition.
And that's exactly my point. All the oversimplification of CICO doesn't account for those things, and they automatically assumed I was "doing it wrong". Rather than looking at outside factors, or considering the possibility that there is a "complication" to the weight loss, the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that someone is either lying or not doing something right, or that they "don't understand". The automatic reaction is to accuse and be condescending, rather than look to other possibilities.
And it took you EIGHT pages to respond.
I didn't see anyone ask that until page 7 or so... which again proves my point that a large number of people who responded didn't even consider any outside factors. The first 3-4 pages were mostly "You did it wrong" and "You were lying". Then there was that part about "skinny fat" and people explaining that 1100 was too little (yeah, that's kinda the point...). But I didn't see anyone actually ASK about other conditions until page 7ish.0 -
I made it four pages into this thread before I rage quit.
I'll ruin the ending for you: on page EIGHT, we finally get the missing vital information that resolves the mystery for everyone. Sure, many foreshadowed the twist very early on in the thread, but even after dozens of posts from OP, it was PAGE EIGHT when she revealed a medical condition.
And that's exactly my point. All the oversimplification of CICO doesn't account for those things, and they automatically assumed I was "doing it wrong". Rather than looking at outside factors, or considering the possibility that there is a "complication" to the weight loss, the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that someone is either lying or not doing something right, or that they "don't understand". The automatic reaction is to accuse and be condescending, rather than look to other possibilities.
AHH!! NOW I find out there's a medical condition?! Honey, you could have saved yourself A LOT of trouble if you would have stated that before! lol I have PCOS as well....And its a B*TCH! Luckily you have figured out how to get it under control.
As far as why everyone is jumping down your throat.....You clearly stated in the beginning that CICO was a lie and that people should stop spreading that lie. Right there, in that last statement you made in the OP, you told EVERYONE on here that CICO doesn't work. Well it does work, and its proven that it works, UNLESS A MEDICAL CONDITION IS PRESENT, which would have been helpful to know much earlier in the discussion.
If you weren't so abrasive in your original post (and told everyone that believes in CICO that they're lying) your post may have been received a lot better. Just a tip for any future posts.
0 -
As my Endo has stated.........Physics (thermodynamics) has no place in human biochemistry. They aren't the same science and should not be treated as such.
I would have walked out on your endo. It IS the same science, it's that the way calories are calculated in foods is not how the body metabolises them. Your endo should have known that.
How much weight have you lost using this method, by the way?
My Endo is a very well respected Metabolic Endocrinologist at Washington University in St Louis, MO. They are very well known for their research and he is a research Dr.
He has helped me when no other Dr's have been able to do so. For the record, I have lost over a 100 pounds since being under his care.
By the way............physics is not the same as human biochemistry, which makes the Calories In / Calories out theory incorrect and irrelevant.0 -
0
-
Well, it doesn't work that way for everyone,
Yes, it does (with the exclusion of medical issues)Otherwise anorexic people would be the epitome of health, no?
No they wouldn't, because they don't eat and therefore are not getting their bodies the nutrients it needs.It does make me angry that when someone posts something that might be useful to someone pursing health, and when they post something that is different from the mainstream view of health/weight loss, then they get jumped on and called idiots
disagreement =/= getting jumped on and called an idiot.because of course the answer is fewer cals...
I'm not sure where you're looking but most people on here are trying to tell people they don't need to starve themselves and that they need to eat more. I think you are confusing a healthy calorie deficit with an extreme calorie deficit.
Page 20 -
You are saying it is that simple that everyone is in perfect hormonal balance and such that weight loss should be that easy.
Well, I have news for you. It is not.
I'm not in perfect hormonal balance either. Hypothyroid and PCOS, middle aged perimenopausal female, which are the prime years to gain weight due to change of life transitions.
Yet I'm over 47 lbs lighter than I was in the end of July, counting those useless calories, doing some senseless exercise, and watching my food portions needlessly. Can't even blame it on gluten free, because I gained most of my weight after going gluten free in 2002!0 -
How long did you consume 1100 cals per day for and do you still have those tracking records?
Roughly a year, possibly more. But it was mostly processed foods--just smaller quantities.Weightloss is magic
what makes you think you were overweight at 1100 calories a day?
Ummm... Being 235 lb. Am I understanding this question correctly? I was clinically obese and was only consuming 1100 cals a day. I increased my intake, but changed the quality of food, and lost 60 lb.
I think it is more likely you did not track properly
We need an eyeroll smiley.
Yes, because it is so impossible for me to have only consumed 1100 cals and be nearly 100lb oveweight. It MUST be that I just didn't track properly. And the part about losing 60 lbs when adding cals... that was a fluke, right??
Unless you have some medical issue, yes.
Page 30 -
I made it four pages into this thread before I rage quit.
I'll ruin the ending for you: on page EIGHT, we finally get the missing vital information that resolves the mystery for everyone. Sure, many foreshadowed the twist very early on in the thread, but even after dozens of posts from OP, it was PAGE EIGHT when she revealed a medical condition.
And that's exactly my point. All the oversimplification of CICO doesn't account for those things, and they automatically assumed I was "doing it wrong". Rather than looking at outside factors, or considering the possibility that there is a "complication" to the weight loss, the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that someone is either lying or not doing something right, or that they "don't understand". The automatic reaction is to accuse and be condescending, rather than look to other possibilities.
No one and no post I've ever seen belittles someone for having a condition or states that they are lying about their issues with a "program" based on their condition. But the people that have issues normally let others know their medical condition upfront. I am very confident that there has not been a post in which someone said this doesn't work and they have a medical condition and people belittled them for it. If so, would love to have that link because that will definitely be a first.
If someone doesn't let others know about their condition, though, *coughs*..then others will question and try to figure out what's going on.
But even in one thread I read where someone was just posting an article about why weight loss might be stalled, people started mocking and belittling. There was no need for that. I used an example of myself, yes, but that wasn't the main point. The point was 1) how people jump the gun and make generalizations, assuming everyone's metabolism is the same, 2) the broad advice of some, without boundaries or caveats/warnings can lead to a skewed vision of nutrition/health, 3) the overall condescending tone that many CICO pushers take on when anyone suggests "eat more organic" or "cut down on grains" or "take out dairy".
My story was an example, but it wasn't the whole of what I was trying to point out. I was not asking for help or seeking advice. I know what's going on with me, and I didn't feel the need to explain everything, when that wasn't my point to begin with. I wasn't looking for people to explain my situation--I know all about my situation. I was looking more at how people react to anyone who says anything other than CICO. It had nothing to do with my actual story (except using it as an example of how that thinking can go the wrong way, and isn't always cut-and-dry), and everything to do with how people treat others on this forum. It has to do with people giving blanket statements about nutrition, without considering that there may be something else going on, or that there may be another way of losing weight. Sure, in most cases, CICO works in general terms... but that doesn't exclude any other method of losing weight, and it doesn't mean that if someone isn't losing while doing it, that they are doing it wrong or lying about their intake. It usually means there needs to be a change, and sometimes that change is the QUALITY of food, rather than the quantity. But no, the "only answer" is CICO, and nothing else can work outside of it... according to some...
Once again..as I said before - This is something you should have included in the OP. Period.0 -
My stomach hurts you people made my eyes hurt with all that reading. I'm tired now and crabby. I hate who ever invented 1200!0
-
Obviously, people plateau all the time doing JUST that: calories in vs. calories out. However, that does not undermine the very basic science that, yes, outside of extenuating medical conditions, that is still how one loses weight. So it IS that simple, that the basic formula for how a body loses weight, is "burning more than you take in"; the complexity is the rate of how this happens, the steadiness, etc. etc.
Page 50 -
As far as why everyone is jumping down your throat.....You clearly stated in the beginning that CICO was a lie and that people should stop spreading that lie. Right there, in that last statement you made in the OP, you told EVERYONE on here that CICO doesn't work. Well it does work, and its proven that it works, UNLESS A MEDICAL CONDITION IS PRESENT, which would have been helpful to know much earlier in the discussion.
No, the lie is that it was SIMPLE. Isn't that the title of this thread? And wasn't that the opening line of my OP? That it's not always that SIMPLE?? I didn't say it doesn't work at all, only that it's not cut-and-dry, because if taken too literally, it leads to starvation/malnutrition. I said that it is not as straightforward as some people make it out to be. It's complicated, and the falsehood is not CICO itself, but the notion that it is simple and works for everyone, when it clearly does not.0 -
I have seen so many people here quote the "calories in, calories out" mantra it's ridiculous.
If that is true, please explain how I could be my heaviest while consuming only 1100 cals a day, and "suddenly" lost 60 lbs when I changed my diet to 1600-1800 cals of whole foods.
It's possible that you were simply underestimating your intake. It's very easy to underestimate processed foods as they often have an underestimated value on the package
0 -
I have seen so many people here quote the "calories in, calories out" mantra it's ridiculous.
If that is true, please explain how I could be my heaviest while consuming only 1100 cals a day, and "suddenly" lost 60 lbs when I changed my diet to 1600-1800 cals of whole foods.
It's possible that you were simply underestimating your intake. It's very easy to underestimate processed foods as they often have an underestimated value on the package
No, she has a medical condition. Which we literally just found out on Page 80 -
You just don't understand the concept fully of calories in and out. Any medical condition are accounted for on the outside of the equation, but it's these dysfunctions PCOS, MetS, IR etc that can make it difficult to navigate the how and why's to a particular course of action that may work better than another.As far as why everyone is jumping down your throat.....You clearly stated in the beginning that CICO was a lie and that people should stop spreading that lie. Right there, in that last statement you made in the OP, you told EVERYONE on here that CICO doesn't work. Well it does work, and its proven that it works, UNLESS A MEDICAL CONDITION IS PRESENT, which would have been helpful to know much earlier in the discussion.
No, the lie is that it was SIMPLE. Isn't that the title of this thread? And wasn't that the opening line of my OP? That it's not always that SIMPLE?? I didn't say it doesn't work at all, only that it's not cut-and-dry, because if taken too literally, it leads to starvation/malnutrition. I said that it is not as straightforward as some people make it out to be. It's complicated, and the falsehood is not CICO itself, but the notion that it is simple and works for everyone, when it clearly does not.0 -
It really is that simple. Under eating lowers metabolic rate. If you equal your metabolic rate in caloric values (IE you eat 1100, but only burn 1100) you aren't going to lose weight. The math didn't change. That's why it's important not to under eat, which is what you were doing.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
By the way............physics is not the same as human biochemistry, which makes the Calories In / Calories out theory incorrect and irrelevant.
It is the same thing, and I suspect you are misquoting your endocrinologist.
The way calories are counted in foods is by literally burning them and measuring the energy, which is not how your body gains the energy from foods. I am certain your endocrinologist knows this, and it is you who does not. Until now.
This page is full of the physics of energy metabolism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate0 -
As far as why everyone is jumping down your throat.....You clearly stated in the beginning that CICO was a lie and that people should stop spreading that lie. Right there, in that last statement you made in the OP, you told EVERYONE on here that CICO doesn't work. Well it does work, and its proven that it works, UNLESS A MEDICAL CONDITION IS PRESENT, which would have been helpful to know much earlier in the discussion.
No, the lie is that it was SIMPLE. Isn't that the title of this thread? And wasn't that the opening line of my OP? That it's not always that SIMPLE?? I didn't say it doesn't work at all, only that it's not cut-and-dry, because if taken too literally, it leads to starvation/malnutrition. I said that it is not as straightforward as some people make it out to be. It's complicated, and the falsehood is not CICO itself, but the notion that it is simple and works for everyone, when it clearly does not.
There are a lot of people on here that have been very successful by following CICO....So for some, it IS that simple. Therefore you can't tell them to stop spreading a lie that isn't actually a lie.
You have to understand that just because it isn't YOUR truth, that doesn't automatically make it a lie.0 -
Yes, as I said, it's not everyone--just some who are rather vehement about it, and tend to be condescending to anyone who offers a differing viewpoint.
After nearly 20 years of various symptoms, half a dozen doctors, and nothing more than "Eat less to lose the weight", I did finally receive a diagnosis of PCOS (including the accompanying hypoglycemia), and later, of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, which is a form of hypothyroidism that is primarily triggered by gluten. So by following the doc's advice of simply eating less, and by following mainstream dieting (counting calories, but keeping "whole grains" as a major part of my diet), I did myself no favors. By oversimplifying and assuming that I simply needed to cut calories, it pushed me into a dangerous mode of malnutrition. By altering my diet to whole foods, my hormones became level again, my neurological health was improved (suffered from depression and was able to defeat that with increased natural fat intake), my digestion was much improved--even better once I cut out gluten, which I did not initially do when I lost the first 60 lbs--and I even had better skin, hair, nails, and teeth. Overall, I'm healthier, despite still having a few more pounds I'd like to shave off. The "final fifteen", if you will. But that process taught me that not only is it just plain incorrect to oversimplify weight loss with such broad statements, but it can also be dangerous if taken too strictly/literally.
I really wish you had stated this in your OP. Of course calories in/calories out didn't work for you because you had medical issues. This thread never would have gotten so bloated.0 -
It isn't that simple...1500 calories derived from clean, non-processed foods, are going to have an entirely different impact on your body than 1500 calories from junk, particularly if you take your body fat composition into account. I agree with you entirely 0
-
Someone seems a little angry.0
-
I wasn't looking for advice! Yes, people mentioned "medical conditions" but no one asked me directly, and I didn't care to share because I wasn't trying to make it about my story--just using it as an EXAMPLE!!! One... little... example. Good grief. Are you all lawyers in here?? Seriously, this is getting old explaining this for the umpteenth time. This isn't about ME. It's not about my ONE example. It's about people's reactions, tones, and lack of support towards others. It's about making broad generalizations and insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or who might be the exception, whether they know it or not. It's about being mean-spirited and looking for reasons to talk down to other people. It's about perpetuating this notion of simplicity, and the implication behind it, which is that if you don't succeed by it, you must be ignorant or a liar. It's about the fact that right off the bat, when I shared my ONE example, I was told, without anyone asking anything, that I must have done it wrong and I was lying. Is that not a problem??
I mean, I thought we were here to support each other and to give positive advice; not to drill into people's heads that CICO is the end of the story and you can't succeed by any other means. I thought this would be more well-balanced and open-minded; not people who berate and insult anyone who suggests that--heaven forbid!--someone eat quinoa instead of white rice, or stop drinking diet soda, or maybe not have ramen anymore, or--worst of all--actually have full-fat yogurt (gasp!). I've seen people truly trying to help others to achieve better help, and offering great advice, only to be cut down and smothered in "No, it's just CICO, that's all you need to know." No, that's not all there is to it, and every single person here is an individual, has a different body, and should be considered--and should be spoken to kindly and with respect, and not with the assumption that they are lying or too ignorant to figure out "basic math". Be realistic. Not everyone can be put into that neat little CICO pile, and not everyone will be successful with the same nutritional changes. So why push it so hard that you wind up discouraging others who are just trying to get healthy?0 -
It isn't that simple...1500 calories derived from clean, non-processed foods, are going to have an entirely different impact on your body than 1500 calories from junk, particularly if you take your body fat composition into account. I agree with you entirely
The argument wasn't about body composition. Nobody is claiming that whole foods are bad. And I doubt anyone will argue with you about whole, clean foods have a better impact on your body than all processed junk.
The argument is whether or not CICO is key to weight loss.0 -
It isn't that simple...1500 calories derived from clean, non-processed foods, are going to have an entirely different impact on your body than 1500 calories from junk, particularly if you take your body fat composition into account. I agree with you entirely
If I made the rules, this would be true. I mean, seriously, I *want* this to be true...
...and yet, except for some possible nutritional differences, science just doesn't support your conclusion. I wish it did, but it just doesn't.0 -
I wasn't looking for advice! Yes, people mentioned "medical conditions" but no one asked me directly, and I didn't care to share because I wasn't trying to make it about my story--just using it as an EXAMPLE!!! One... little... example. Good grief. Are you all lawyers in here?? Seriously, this is getting old explaining this for the umpteenth time. This isn't about ME. It's not about my ONE example. It's about people's reactions, tones, and lack of support towards others. It's about making broad generalizations and insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or who might be the exception, whether they know it or not. It's about being mean-spirited and looking for reasons to talk down to other people. It's about perpetuating this notion of simplicity, and the implication behind it, which is that if you don't succeed by it, you must be ignorant or a liar. It's about the fact that right off the bat, when I shared my ONE example, I was told, without anyone asking anything, that I must have done it wrong and I was lying. Is that not a problem??
I mean, I thought we were here to support each other and to give positive advice; not to drill into people's heads that CICO is the end of the story and you can't succeed by any other means. I thought this would be more well-balanced and open-minded; not people who berate and insult anyone who suggests that--heaven forbid!--someone eat quinoa instead of white rice, or stop drinking diet soda, or maybe not have ramen anymore, or--worst of all--actually have full-fat yogurt (gasp!). I've seen people truly trying to help others to achieve better help, and offering great advice, only to be cut down and smothered in "No, it's just CICO, that's all you need to know." No, that's not all there is to it, and every single person here is an individual, has a different body, and should be considered--and should be spoken to kindly and with respect, and not with the assumption that they are lying or too ignorant to figure out "basic math". Be realistic. Not everyone can be put into that neat little CICO pile, and not everyone will be successful with the same nutritional changes. So why push it so hard that you wind up discouraging others who are just trying to get healthy?
Playing devil's advocate here....But you are pushing just as hard as they are. Don't you understand that we are debating TWO SIDES. If someone believes what you're saying is wrong, they are going to try their best to prove you wrong. Which is exactly what you're doing as well. There is no need to be discouraged. Why let a bunch of STRANGERS on the internet have that much power over you? Agree to disagree and move on. You're beating a dead horse.0 -
I made it four pages into this thread before I rage quit.
I'll ruin the ending for you: on page EIGHT, we finally get the missing vital information that resolves the mystery for everyone. Sure, many foreshadowed the twist very early on in the thread, but even after dozens of posts from OP, it was PAGE EIGHT when she revealed a medical condition.
And that's exactly my point. All the oversimplification of CICO doesn't account for those things, and they automatically assumed I was "doing it wrong". Rather than looking at outside factors, or considering the possibility that there is a "complication" to the weight loss, the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that someone is either lying or not doing something right, or that they "don't understand". The automatic reaction is to accuse and be condescending, rather than look to other possibilities.
It can be oversimplified because it accounts for the vast majority of humans. No one ever said that it was a panacea. Anyone that you've complained about saying "CO/CI end of story", and then you asked them if it applied to medical special cases, they would have said no.0 -
By the way............physics is not the same as human biochemistry, which makes the Calories In / Calories out theory incorrect and irrelevant.
It is the same thing, and I suspect you are misquoting your endocrinologist.
The way calories are counted in foods is by literally burning them and measuring the energy, which is not how your body gains the energy from foods. I am certain your endocrinologist knows this, and it is you who does not. Until now.
I haven't misunderstood him at all. He is saying that we should not apply thermodynamics to the human body.
Calories weren't even intended to be a reference to food. It is merely a measurement and not something your body uses for fuel. What your body does use is what it finds in the foods and liquids it digests. If you put crap in your body, you're not going to be better off just because of a low-calorie rating.
It's not that hard to understand.0 -
By the way............physics is not the same as human biochemistry, which makes the Calories In / Calories out theory incorrect and irrelevant.
It is the same thing, and I suspect you are misquoting your endocrinologist.
The way calories are counted in foods is by literally burning them and measuring the energy, which is not how your body gains the energy from foods. I am certain your endocrinologist knows this, and it is you who does not. Until now.
[/quote
I haven't misunderstood him at all. He is saying that we should not apply thermodynamics to the human body.
Calories weren't even intended to be a reference to food. It is merely a measurement and not something your body uses for fuel. What your body does use is what it finds in the foods and liquids it digests. If you put crap in your body, you're not going to be better off just because of a low-calorie rating.
It's not that hard to understand.
Well-said!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions