The Smarter Science of Slim
Options
Replies
-
"Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working"
I gave up after reading the logical fallacy of this premise which sets up the argument. Those who are obese are simply not eating less and exercising more, and they are not, as the statement implies, a result of people failing in an endeavour to exercise more and eat less. This statement is trying to portray diet and exercise as pointless exercises by means of a totally absurd argument. How can you take the intelligence of such an article seriously?
^Stopped reading there, too, and only lightly skimmed the replies.
As it is, the OP read more like an advertisement than anything, which I thought was not allowed on the forums.0 -
Good info. Bumping to read later0
-
Of course. Just don't criticise me or any others who are legitimately trying the advice. It's rude and demotivating and the whole point of MFP is to support and motivate each other. Not get feisty over message boards and put other people and their opinions down.0
-
Of course. Just don't criticise me or any others who are legitimately trying the advice. It's rude and demotivating and the whole point of MFP is to support and motivate each other. Not get feisty over message boards and put other people and their opinions down.
It really is as simple as CICO, WHEN you actually track the amoung of calories and such. Reading your first comment you posted your problem was the fact that you didn't count macros or calories.
You said that you basically eye ball portions. I bet if you were to switch over to consistently hitting 1400 calories (now that you've rehabbed your metabolism) you would maintain your current weight eating what you want, provided you have balanced macros.0 -
Diets result in weight gain 2 years after the diet is given up. Scientific statistical fact. Almost certainly because the will power to restrict calories can't be sustained. The only sustainable way is a lifestyle change.
So while restricted food intake can be sustained in the short term, pretty much everyone says a lifestyle change is needed. Even people who have stomach operations wind up putting on the weight 5 years after. There are some that say sugar (fructose) is to blame (David Gillespie Sweet Poison book).
But its pretty clear that the calories in calories out simple model is not valid. Otherwise with all the education in the world, every nation in the world is chasing to the most overweight!
I so agree. The extraordinary rise in the consumption of sugar is almost certainly a big part of the problem. There's a book, written for the public by an obesity researcher by the name of Richard J. Johnson, M.D. (he's head of the renal division at the medical center at the University of Colorado). It is called, "The Fat Switch". In it, he provides some pretty compelling evidence that sugar consumption is a major causative agent behind the epidemic of obesity, Type II diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and ultimately results in renal disease and failure. Here's a link to the conference proceedings from a recent scientific conference on food addiction where he was one of an impressive list of presenters: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm0 -
I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.
I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.
Agreed (although I do have certain reservations about the fairly fit part but I think it is generally true.)
Yes, the ultimate determinant of body weight is calorie balance. No question.
But biochemistry and the individual's metabolic profile is important is well. The fate of all calories are not the same and the biochemical pathways adopted depending on the individual can change what use is made of them.
We are in the main concerned with body fatness. Body fatness is based in part on a number of various hormones within the body working as they are intended to regulate body weight. In a normally functioning metabolism the body, when faced with a calorie deficit, many different uses are employed appropriately (cellular integrity, respiratory function etc.) with some to fat storage and burning and so forth (yes, I know this is a radical simplification but bear with me
In a metabolism that isn't working on par then yes, negative energy will result in fat loss. It must do. However, the amount of fat lost maybe so little that an individual simply cannot bear to maintain the deficit for long enough. Who wants to be running a calorie deficit for years? It is hugely inefficient for them so simply saying "eat less, move more" isn't particularly helpful.
For some people food choices really do matter a lot initially in my personal opinion and can make or break their fat loss attempts until their hormonal status (or psychological status or both!) has been returned to normal (that may not be possible for people with medical conditions however.)
I think the majority of people certainly can and do well with a flexible approach straight off the bat however. I think some people, the minority, do not. However, the minority can make up tens of millions of people. Sometimes a diet which is structured with minimisation or even avoidance of certain foods at the beginning before being slowly re introduced can work well for them.
Not everyone responds to the same solution.
Thank you for this sound and reasoned response. There are millions upon millions of us who must use a much more radical approach to fat loss. I wish I were a calorie-burning machine, but alas, I am not. The only approach that has ever worked for me long-term is the one I am on (lower carb, no-sugar). Thanks again.0 -
No actually that wasn't me. I counted properly, was hungry all the time and didn't lose weight.0
-
There are millions upon millions of us who must use a much more radical approach to fat loss.
I don't think this is true, at all. The fact that you're an aging woman doesn't make you a super special snowflake that can't eat sugar without becoming obese within the confines of a given calorie intake. It just doesn't make any sense.0 -
mfern123:
I'd quite agree that different people will find different ways work more or less for them for various reasons.
Generally I suspect because what they're eating may vary the 'CO' part of the equation.
If I posted something and other people thought it was wrong, I'd want to hear about it. To get other people's opinions is one of the reasons I post on the internet. Similarly, I'm interested to hear well thought out criticisms of my criticisms - ideally with decent 'science' to back them up.Some of you are psychotic. If your not interested in the diet or don't like it don't bother commenting. Have your arguments somewhere else so that those of us who are interested can support each other and talk about our progress. Obviously CICO hasn't worked for us, get over it not everyone is the same.
I'd take asking question of possible issues with an approach or methodology that is being advocated to other people as 'supporting' the community in general.
Why is it obvious that CICO hasn't worked for 'us'?
The OP said that CICO 'obviously' hadn't worked because it was known about and a lot of people were fat, which is why I initially questioned this is exact assertion.
I will still stand by the statement that CICO absolutely WILL work. The problem comes because you may have one side or the other wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
A good example of how 'CO' is affected is that when on a restricted calorie diet I notice that I tend to be colder at night and that I more need some caffeine to 'keep me going' - presumably in both cases my body has reduced the 'CO' side.
Incidentally, a new lewleaf MBR test showed me to be just under 2400!
This was a day after doing a half decent compound-moves weights workout.
That would explain how I've been eating loads of 'bad' stuff for the last three months and my weight has stayed constant.0 -
"...I'd be happy to elaborate. Most have not gotten morbidly obese by overindulging in all foods..."
Actually, for the last 25 years, I have NOT been "overindulging in all foods" if that was meant as a personal insult to me.
"...For some, they will need to repair the damage they did through years of willful ignorance and/or neglect of basic health concepts
"...You have been working at improving the damage you did for 62 years by taking drastic measures over the last 3 years..."
Well if this is not the case, why would a 56 pound weight loss since you've been on MFP be necessary. It's pretty obvious that you've had some challenges with the energy balance equation in the past, no? And don't I remember something in your backstory about overindulgence in sugary carbs? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?
As a child, I ate a lot of sugar, but I was pretty active and wasn't terribly obese--weighed about 180 when I graduated from high school. But I was already hypertensive. Went down to an athletic 140 during university by cutting excess carbs and being active. Then life happened. I got married and went on the birth control pill and found that my weight had suddenly become uncontrollable. Some women experience this, by the way---especially those who have genetic tendencies to blood sugar problems. Too tired to go into the bio-chemistry right now.
I nearly bled out during childbirth and because the pituitary was damaged as a result (you can Google this if you care to learn something) I was left with hypothroidism. I could go on but, as I said, I'm tired and need to go to bed.
Fixed it for you. My wife didn't experience that. Neither did my sister. Nor anyone in my extended family (50 first cousins plus spouses) nor any of their children of childbearing age with the exception of one woman. That's over 70 women in my family study. Guess it's not many. It's some. Again, stop making excuses. Great on you that you lost the weight but take responsibility for gaining it and stop blaming factors over which you had control for the most part.
And how would you know? Are none of those women you mention plagued by excess body fat? Women don't tend to broadcast all the troubles that they are experiencing and they tend to blame themselves for things that aren't even their fault. There have been a LOT of threads here about weight gain and the pill. Even though the propaganda machines at Big Pharma have said that the pill is "weight neutral", millions of women KNOW, from their own experiences, that it is not. I have investigated it a bit and now I know that, because of the synthetic progestins (even though the pharmaceutical houses COULD have used natural progesterone, they cannot patent natural substances), the pill stops the enhancement of the thyroid function of a woman's own natural progesterone. It allows estrogen to run unopposed and that provokes blood sugar problems, weight gain, bloating, migraine headaches, and a host of other problems. SOME naturally thin or very athletic women actually feel better on the pill, but they are few and far between. Being a man, you wouldn't know this, but in any group of women, when the subject comes up, in my own informal survey, at least half the women will say that they could not take the birth control pill or that it caused a lot of weight gain (and fertility issues when they stopped).
"...You are not a victim..." I didn't say that I was. But knowledge is power and I have discovered that CICO simply DOES NOT WORK for me and I have discovered what does. Good day to you, sir.0 -
When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.
I think this is spot on.
Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.
The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.
While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?
It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)
^^^^THIS TOTALLY^^^^^ I am never bothered by not eating the foods that formerly made me fat and sick. I rarely, if ever, miss them now.
did foods make you fat, or did eating too much of them make you fat?
I can eat a pizza and not gain a pound...if I eat pizza three times a dayI will gain weight...so what made me gain weight pizza in general, or eating too much pizza?
The research is clear that many individuals simply cannot afford empty calories. Women have much more efficient metabolisms than do men. Recent research (it was done at Harvard Med I believe) has shown that most women must cut 3,500 calories to lose a pound of body fat but most men must only cut 2,500 calories to lose a pound of body fat. The research has also shown that MANY obese women do NOT eat excessively.
if a person is losing a pound on 2500 calori cut, they are more than likely losing more lean mass
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
"There is a built in assumption in the above that turns out to not be necessarily correct but also throws a wrench into expectations about the energy balance equation. That assumption is that 100% fat is being lost when a deficit is created. Now, if you diet correctly (e.g. the way I describe in my books), this is a pretty good assumption but it’s not universally true. Often people also lose muscle and connective tissue on a diet.
And the issue is that muscle and connective tissue doesn’t provide as much energy to the body as a pound of fat. Rather than 3,500 calories to break down a pound of fat, a pound of muscle provides about 600 calories to the body when it’s broken down for energy.
Let me put this in mathematical terms, to show you how the identical 3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.
Condition
Energy Yield
Total Weight Lost
100% Fat
3500 cal/lb
1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle
2050 cal/lb
1.7 pounds
100% Muscle
600 cal/lb
5.8 pounds
See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."
"
Yes.0 -
There are millions upon millions of us who must use a much more radical approach to fat loss.
I don't think this is true, at all. The fact that you're an aging woman doesn't make you a super special snowflake that can't eat sugar without becoming obese within the confines of a given calorie intake. It just doesn't make any sense.
Well, I think if you investigate it further, it will. People use calories in different ways. Because of her estrogen supply, a woman's body will run higher blood sugar on fewer calories than a man, contributing to her fat stores and her body will also pretty resistant to burning fat---that's just the way it is. There are things that she can do to mitigate the effects, but she must know about them to do them.0 -
I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.
I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.
Agreed (although I do have certain reservations about the fairly fit part but I think it is generally true.)
Yes, the ultimate determinant of body weight is calorie balance. No question.
But biochemistry and the individual's metabolic profile is important is well. The fate of all calories are not the same and the biochemical pathways adopted depending on the individual can change what use is made of them.
We are in the main concerned with body fatness. Body fatness is based in part on a number of various hormones within the body working as they are intended to regulate body weight. In a normally functioning metabolism the body, when faced with a calorie deficit, many different uses are employed appropriately (cellular integrity, respiratory function etc.) with some to fat storage and burning and so forth (yes, I know this is a radical simplification but bear with me
In a metabolism that isn't working on par then yes, negative energy will result in fat loss. It must do. However, the amount of fat lost maybe so little that an individual simply cannot bear to maintain the deficit for long enough. Who wants to be running a calorie deficit for years? It is hugely inefficient for them so simply saying "eat less, move more" isn't particularly helpful.
For some people food choices really do matter a lot initially in my personal opinion and can make or break their fat loss attempts until their hormonal status (or psychological status or both!) has been returned to normal (that may not be possible for people with medical conditions however.)
I think the majority of people certainly can and do well with a flexible approach straight off the bat however. I think some people, the minority, do not. However, the minority can make up tens of millions of people. Sometimes a diet which is structured with minimisation or even avoidance of certain foods at the beginning before being slowly re introduced can work well for them.
Not everyone responds to the same solution.
Totally agree with all of this. Where I have a real issue is when the few start prescribing their solution on the many. For most, the energy balance equation and well set macros are all they need. In the end, for all, as Kreiger said, nothing trumps the energy balance equation.0 -
I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.
I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.
Agreed (although I do have certain reservations about the fairly fit part but I think it is generally true.)
Yes, the ultimate determinant of body weight is calorie balance. No question.
But biochemistry and the individual's metabolic profile is important is well. The fate of all calories are not the same and the biochemical pathways adopted depending on the individual can change what use is made of them.
We are in the main concerned with body fatness. Body fatness is based in part on a number of various hormones within the body working as they are intended to regulate body weight. In a normally functioning metabolism the body, when faced with a calorie deficit, many different uses are employed appropriately (cellular integrity, respiratory function etc.) with some to fat storage and burning and so forth (yes, I know this is a radical simplification but bear with me
In a metabolism that isn't working on par then yes, negative energy will result in fat loss. It must do. However, the amount of fat lost maybe so little that an individual simply cannot bear to maintain the deficit for long enough. Who wants to be running a calorie deficit for years? It is hugely inefficient for them so simply saying "eat less, move more" isn't particularly helpful.
For some people food choices really do matter a lot initially in my personal opinion and can make or break their fat loss attempts until their hormonal status (or psychological status or both!) has been returned to normal (that may not be possible for people with medical conditions however.)
I think the majority of people certainly can and do well with a flexible approach straight off the bat however. I think some people, the minority, do not. However, the minority can make up tens of millions of people. Sometimes a diet which is structured with minimisation or even avoidance of certain foods at the beginning before being slowly re introduced can work well for them.
Not everyone responds to the same solution.
Totally agree with all of this. Where I have a real issue is when the few start prescribing their solution on the many. For most, the energy balance equation and well set macros are all they need. In the end, for all, as Kreiger said, nothing trumps the energy balance equation.
The problem that many have is determining what that is. I eat more calories now (and yes, I weighed and counted faithfully) than I did before but they are different calories. When I counted calories, I gained slightly or stayed the same. I adopted this program and I am able to lose body fat.0 -
When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.
I think this is spot on.
Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.
The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.
While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?
It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)
^ totally agree0 -
Still looking for the thread that cites the study on man/woman differences but here is an interesting tidbit that I came upon so far:
Formula
The Journal of Sports Sciences provides a calorie expenditure formula for each gender. Men use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) -- (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184. Women use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.074) -- (Weight x 0.05741) + (Heart Rate x 0.4472) -- 20.4022] x Time / 4.184.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/221621-formula-for-calories-burned-during-exercise/#ixzz2QYu1uT6Y0 -
Thanks for posting this - just tagging for future reference.
Anyone know the best ways of doing HIIT without a gym? Also, how hard is it to actually do HIIT - I always worry it's not going to be intensive enough and then I'm just going a lesser amount of normal cardio
0 -
I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.
I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.
Agreed (although I do have certain reservations about the fairly fit part but I think it is generally true.)
Yes, the ultimate determinant of body weight is calorie balance. No question.
But biochemistry and the individual's metabolic profile is important is well. The fate of all calories are not the same and the biochemical pathways adopted depending on the individual can change what use is made of them.
We are in the main concerned with body fatness. Body fatness is based in part on a number of various hormones within the body working as they are intended to regulate body weight. In a normally functioning metabolism the body, when faced with a calorie deficit, many different uses are employed appropriately (cellular integrity, respiratory function etc.) with some to fat storage and burning and so forth (yes, I know this is a radical simplification but bear with me
In a metabolism that isn't working on par then yes, negative energy will result in fat loss. It must do. However, the amount of fat lost maybe so little that an individual simply cannot bear to maintain the deficit for long enough. Who wants to be running a calorie deficit for years? It is hugely inefficient for them so simply saying "eat less, move more" isn't particularly helpful.
For some people food choices really do matter a lot initially in my personal opinion and can make or break their fat loss attempts until their hormonal status (or psychological status or both!) has been returned to normal (that may not be possible for people with medical conditions however.)
I think the majority of people certainly can and do well with a flexible approach straight off the bat however. I think some people, the minority, do not. However, the minority can make up tens of millions of people. Sometimes a diet which is structured with minimisation or even avoidance of certain foods at the beginning before being slowly re introduced can work well for them.
Not everyone responds to the same solution.
Totally agree with all of this. Where I have a real issue is when the few start prescribing their solution on the many. For most, the energy balance equation and well set macros are all they need. In the end, for all, as Kreiger said, nothing trumps the energy balance equation.
The problem that some have is determining what that is. I eat more calories now (and yes, I weighed and counted faithfully) than I did before but they are different calories. When I counted calories, I gained slightly or stayed the same. I adopted this program and I am able to lose body fat.
Fixed0 -
The problem that many have is determining what that is. I eat more calories now (and yes, I weighed and counted faithfully) than I did before but they are different calories. When I counted calories, I gained slightly or stayed the same. I adopted this program and I am able to lose body fat.
I think you probably do eat many more calories yet still are able to maintain your weight but as alluded to by one of the previous posters it is because the Cals out side changed as well. (Incidentally this is principal reason that "Eat More To Weigh Less" can work...)
You before: less calories, hormonally "clogged", lethargic, less unconscious NEPA (non exercise physical activity), higher efficiency of movement = low deficit and greater amount of calorie / nutrient intake partioned to fat storage than other body functions.
You after: more calories, hormonally "unclogged" higher NEPA, lower efficiency of movement = higher deficit and lower amount of calories / nutrients partioned to fat storage and other body systems preferred.
The quality of your food intake, given your particular metabolic profile, absolutely could have made a difference in changing this.
I don't have any issue with the energy balance equation. However, in a real world scenario it can be next to useless for some people to apply. We need practical solutions for a practical problem sometimes
I think it's terrific you have found what works for you. More power to your arm...0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions