Is it this simple?

1235

Replies

  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    IMO people in general do NOT like things to be simple. They might be lazy, they might not want to expend much effort but that is not the same thing as wanting things to be simple. I think psychologically people tend to want things they wish to attain to have a complex path to success. They want to feel that that thing they want is hard to get and so often they make it hard, much harder than it needs to be.

    That is one reason why things like P90X ior Insanity or other popular fad-ish exercise programs that have you exercising every day in intense routines are so popular when honestly just going for regular walks would probably be just as effective for most of the people doing them. It can't be as simple as just going for a walk, I mean look at all these people jumping around like crazy lifting dumbells all over the place...it must REQUIRE that to lose weight so I will do that as well.

    Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people wanting very simple explanations -- you see it in the news, on facebook, politics, etc. 2-3 sentence explanations max.

    It's so much easier to chalk up people's lack of success to lack of willpower, self-discipline, etc. than to look deeper into the underlying issues -- whether nutritional or psychological. Just try harder! Man up! Put your big girl panties on! Stop whining!

    That's where you're wrong. People DO want something complex or new or mysterious...that way it's a "secret" that they didn't know about.

    You see it all the time. "What's your secret?" "Tell me your secret!" "How did you do it?"

    You tell them diet and exercise and they just stare at you. Like you answered in a foreign language.

    Because it can't be that simple. It has to be harder than that. Otherwise what's their excuse?? And they desperately need an excuse. You see plenty of it in this thread alone. It's age or insulin resistance or gluten sensitivity or SOME reason why eating less simply won't work for them. They're special snowflakes, magical creatures who manage to gain weight even though they're barely eating. And calorie counting can't possibly work for them. No.

    I disagree with this. I think most people know that diet and exercise will work, they just don't see that as "simple". Finding time to exercise regularly can be very hard for some people. Eating at a deficit, regardless of what they eat, can be very hard for some people. Knowing when you are in a deficit can be very hard for some people.

    They want a simpler solution. Some want that raspberry ketone or green coffee bean than will cause them to lose without having to diet and exercise. Some want to be able to eat for comfort and still lose.

    "diet and exercise" may be easy to say, and easy in concept. But changing your lifestyle is not always simple. Change can be very hard and may involve people other than just the person wanting to lose weight.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Okay I see two camps here talking past one another. As arrogant as I am for even attempting this I will try to bridge the gap.


    Camp 1: It is CICO and thats it.

    Calories in minus calories out equals deficit equals weight loss and that is final.

    Camp 2: CICO works for some but not all

    Although calories in minus calories out may work for some there are complicating factors which means its not that simple for everyone.

    Okay and here is the bridge I think.

    Calories in minus calories out IS true for everyone BUT your options for determining your calories in and calories out are based on calculators or nutritional information that represents a value for the population average...a bell curve.

    bell-curve.png

    Joe Average is smack in the middle and when he eats something that says it has 100 calories his body processes it in such a way that he gets about 65 calories out of it.

    Jane Outlier is at the edge of the curve at the 1% level and due to differences in her gut flora (probiotic bacteria) her digestive process yields 85 calories when she eats that thing that is labeled 100 calories.

    Joe and Jane eat the same thing but get a different amount of actual calories out of it.

    Joe Average goes to scooby's workshop and calculates his TDEE as 2500 and this is spot on accurate. When Joe completes his daily activities he averages 2500 calories burned.

    Jane Outlier goes to scooby's workshop and calcuates her TDEE as 2200 but in actuality due to again that bell curve and her personal body she is actually burning about 2000 after completing her daily activities.

    Joe and Jane go on a diet and log meticulously and use their TDEE calculations. Joe is right on the mark while Jane struggles to lose the amount she was expecting.


    Here is the thing though. Calories in calories out is absolutely TRUE for both Jane and Joe, it is just that Joe's body is closer to the average so the provided calculators and nutrition levels match him while Jane is more of an outlier. It is then Jane's responsibility to determine what her specific maintenance level is and how much she needs to eat to hit it and then adjust accordingly.

    Just because Jane doesn't match the average and the TDEE calculator is off or the nutrition label isn't matching her digestive ability that doesn't mean calories in calories out doesn't work for her. When Jane knows she gets 125% of the calories relative from the general population from her food and she knows her TDEE is different by 25% from the calculators then she too can accurately track record and predict her weight loss through CICO.

    The reason Jane is an outlier doesn't matter. She could be an outlier because her body is just genetically different, she has a different probiotic bacterial makeup, she has diabetes, she has PCOS, she has a thyroid condition...all of these things just adjust what her calories in and out are they don't make CICO false.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 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?
  • 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.
  • 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/

    You won't like my answer, hell I'm not happy giving it, but the truth is those numbers are exaggerated for purposes of pushing an agenda.

    I'll go with the 8.3% of Americans with diabetes, no problem there. But the 107 million of Americans with "pre-diabetes"...c'mon. First off that's a third of the country. Second what is pre-diabetes? What's the level at which that is measured and what was the size of the group was tested? You could theoretically say anyone is pre-diabetic.

    What I don't see is 40% of the country being unable to lose weight through calorie counting. Sorry, I just don't buy it. And again, I go to my standard answer. This is a calorie counting website. If you don't believe it works, you're in the wrong place. It's worked wonders for me and everyone else I see actually embracing it as opposed to making excuses.

    Well, if you read the article, it said prediabetes was based on fasting glucose levels or hemoglobin A1C levels. For the latter, I believe it's 5.6 or 5.7 to have prediabetes adn 6.5 to have full-blown diabetes.

    What is the agenda that they'd be pushing? Perhaps there are flaws in the methodology -- I can't say, but it looked pretty legit to me at first blush.

    You can believe what you want to believe. But your belief does not negate the reality of the testing. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 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.
  • Guinness80
    Guinness80 Posts: 39 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?

    That was what I was wondering. My mother was diagnosed with diabetes a couple years back, but really put her mind to weight loss this year. Started watching what she ate closely and being more active. She has had a consistent weight loss the last couple months. The diabetes may adjust what she can safely eat due to the medical issues, but did not obliterate the basic CICO concept.

    Now I do have one family member that was diagnosed with a hormonal issue that caused her to put on crazy weight despite being active and eating a decent diet. But the change was rapid and she knew something was wrong. Thanks to medical help her system is getting back to normal and she is starting to lose weight. But this isn't that common and the change was so apparent that she knew something was wrong and went to the doctors to get checked out. I don't know many people that gain that much weight in that short of time.
  • PinkyFett
    PinkyFett Posts: 842 Member
    It is that simple for most people. Some people have a harder time and need to watch what they eat more than others. I know I do because of my Hashimoto's, but basically, yes it's that simple.
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,841 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!
  • 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: 2,650 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.