why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF.
It's entirely possible to do all kinds of things. That's not the point - and has never been the point.
If someone finds it easier to travel one road than another road, there is nothing wrong (and a whole lot right!) with them taking the easier road.
WHY are you attributing to me an argument I've never made?
Again, I'm the one saying different diets work better for different people.
The poster you are defending is the one saying that there is One True Diet (although she seems not to actually understand that diet) and it's LCHF.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF.
It's entirely possible to do all kinds of things. That's not the point - and has never been the point.
If someone finds it easier to travel one road than another road, there is nothing wrong (and a whole lot right!) with them taking the easier road.
WHY are you attributing to me an argument I've never made?
Again, I'm the one saying different diets work better for different people.
The poster you are defending is the one saying that there is One True Diet (although she seems not to actual understand that diet) and it's LCHF.
eh, I would not worry about it. Ole mr knight likes to jump in and defend the posters that he fees are beingg unfairly criticized....
par for the course0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The poster you are defending is the one saying that there is One True Diet (although she seems not to actual understand that diet) and it's LCHF.
I'm not defending anybody.
Pretty much everybody in here - on all sides of the multiple debates ragin - is using a bunch of terms in sloppy, undefined ways.
Which is why this is a food fight!
:drinker:
0 -
Half of you are talking about CICO as a method and half of you are talking about CICO as a general philosophy. You're never going to hear each other until you start talking about the same thing.
Is CICO valid science? Yes.
Do you have to actually count the CI and CO parts for CICO to work? No.
Do you have to pay attention to C at all for CICO to work? No.
Can LC help some people "intuitively" reach their CI targets? Yes.
No one in this thread has been arguing against any of these.
The issue is that some LCHF people (mostly newbies, mostly not here, although some have started to turn up) claim that they can eat 2500 calories low carb and not gain while gaining on 1200 calories if they eat more than minimal carbs.
Clearly one does not have to count calories for CICO to work, and lots of methods of achieving a calorie deficit exist besides counting calories, of which low carb is one. I think that's the point on which the sensible low carbers and the non low carb posters here are all agreeing.0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »kamakazeekim wrote: »I have PCOS and when I tried just CICO I continued gaining weight. Once I was put on metformin and restricted carbs I lost weight like crazy even though my calorie intake actually went up. I realize the typical person without a hormone issue going on probably wouldn't have the same issues that I did.
you are still doing CICO ..you are just using medication to regulate the out side for you ..
I have PCOS and have been on Metformin for years. CICO did not work for me, while on the medication, and I gained weight while eating within my calorie range and working out. Even when varying the amount of exercise calories back or not eating them at all. I measure my food and don't eat junk either.
When I eat low carb I lose weight. My medication hasn't changed and my exercise hasn't changed either, the only thing that has changed is the restricting of carbohydrates. I still eat within my calorie range, still vary eating back my exercise calories, yet now I'm losing weight. For some of us, low carb eating is medically necessary and CICO will never work.
^^^ I have experienced this exact same thing. I think many PCOS'ers have which is why I am guessing the OP opted to say he wasn't talking about those with medical issues.
My experience was the exact same- I was doing calorie restriction- 1600 a day, let MFP set my macros for me, even researched TDEE and IIFYM calculators to see what my macros should be and set them by those. Was working out twice a week with a very good personal trainer and three times a week on my own- did not lose weight.
I also did CICO based on TDEE with a 500 cal cut (as recommended)- without working out while on metformin- did not lose weight.
Now- I am still sticking to my 1600 cals, on metformin and cut carbs as recommended by my doc and nutritionist and I am losing steadily- without exercise. The only difference is that now I am limiting my carbs to 30g a day. I am adding exercise now (just this week) because I want to build muscle. For some of us low carbers as @Babbs1977 says- CICO alone will never work
ARGH!... Just picking a nit!!!! CICO is working. I am picking a nit with your language. You're not the first poster to do this, so sorry for singling you out.
CICO is NOT a way of eating. It's an equation. Calories in, Calories Out. Colloquially, around here, it's used to mean mean putting that equation into practice so that it nets a deficit of energy.
The components of what make up those calories are NOT CICO.
CICO is working for you.... on a diet with its macros balanced to be low carb.
CICO is working for me... on a diet with its macros balanced to be moderate carb.
CICO works for other people on this thread with different macro balances.
Sorry, I just... there has to be a better way to to stop confusing IIFYM with CICO.
But she said "CICO alone ". Why do you *want* to go nitpicking? I know people post a lot of bulshit but don't let that make you see bulshit everywhere, even where it isn't.
Thank you for reading my post completely @Wiseandcurious , and I agree- people do post a lot of bull@#$%, and think people should read a post completely before responding calling it BS!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Half of you are talking about CICO as a method and half of you are talking about CICO as a general philosophy. You're never going to hear each other until you start talking about the same thing.
Is CICO valid science? Yes.
Do you have to actually count the CI and CO parts for CICO to work? No.
Do you have to pay attention to C at all for CICO to work? No.
Can LC help some people "intuitively" reach their CI targets? Yes.
No one in this thread has been arguing against any of these.
Woosh.
0 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF. In fact, amusingly enough, the majority of calories in both are probably from fat, so HCLF people probably aren't eating lots of either.
There's a lot less sugar in potatoes or oatmeal or whole wheat pasta, to pick three major sources of carbs I've had this week, than in fruit (which I've also had, also ice cream, for full disclosure, which I easily can eat a serving of). So not really sure why you are making the discussion about "sugar."
You also didn't answer the question Mel asked.
OK. How about the calories I am getting from fruit is a lot less than the calories I used to get from cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream and other junk (which I still eat by the way, but at a reduction of about 90% from my previous levels).
I'm sure that's true, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion or with your claim that LCHF works better than other ways to diet (lots of books on amazon, no books on HCLF, people in general just eat less on LCHF, etc.).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The poster you are defending is the one saying that there is One True Diet (although she seems not to actual understand that diet) and it's LCHF.
I'm not defending anybody.
Pretty much everybody in here - on all sides of the multiple debates ragin - is using a bunch of terms in sloppy, undefined ways.
Which is why this is a food fight!
:drinker:
putting in a bunch of emojis does not change the fact that you are just picking some to defend, and arguing for the sake of arguing..
I can do it too ...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The poster you are defending is the one saying that there is One True Diet (although she seems not to actual understand that diet) and it's LCHF.
I'm not defending anybody.
Pretty much everybody in here - on all sides of the multiple debates ragin - is using a bunch of terms in sloppy, undefined ways.
Which is why this is a food fight!
:drinker:
putting in a bunch of emojis does not change the fact that you are just picking some to defend, and arguing for the sake of arguing..
I can do it too ...
Oh, that's fully evident.
0 -
I am going to throw this one out there, because I got into a debate with someone in another thread and it left me pretty mind blown. The persons basic assumptions where the following:
1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
Before all my low carb friends come flying in here to say that I am knocking low carb, let me be clear that is not what I am doing. The way that I see it is that low carb, IIFYM, keto, IF, etc are just tools to get one into a calorie deficit, and one is not superior to the other. I just get mind blown when people say "I calorie restricted and lost nothing, but when I went low carb I lost" or "fat loss only happens when one is low carb" or "CICO does not apply to me and only low carb works for me" and on and on….
I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.
It would be nice if some low carbers came in here and acutely refuted this…
OR
if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
ETA - I am not referring to people that have to low carb due to a medical condition. However, CICO would still apply in that instance….
You do love your generalized and blanket statements.
0 -
What are you arguing here?Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF. In fact, amusingly enough, the majority of calories in both are probably from fat, so HCLF people probably aren't eating lots of either.
There's a lot less sugar in potatoes or oatmeal or whole wheat pasta, to pick three major sources of carbs I've had this week, than in fruit (which I've also had, also ice cream, for full disclosure, which I easily can eat a serving of). So not really sure why you are making the discussion about "sugar."
You also didn't answer the question Mel asked.
OK. How about the calories I am getting from fruit is a lot less than the calories I used to get from cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream and other junk (which I still eat by the way, but at a reduction of about 90% from my previous levels).
What is the point of your post in reference to this thread?
0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »...seriously? my low carb diet is for the massive amounts of insulin my pancreas produces in response to carbs. not sure my emotional dysfunction has anything to do with it.
I gave myself wiggle room on my first post then threw it out the window on the second. Apologies. Yes, there are medical reasons some need to unbalance. Sorry for throwing you into the psych ward without cause.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I am going to throw this one out there, because I got into a debate with someone in another thread and it left me pretty mind blown. The persons basic assumptions where the following:
1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
Before all my low carb friends come flying in here to say that I am knocking low carb, let me be clear that is not what I am doing. The way that I see it is that low carb, IIFYM, keto, IF, etc are just tools to get one into a calorie deficit, and one is not superior to the other. I just get mind blown when people say "I calorie restricted and lost nothing, but when I went low carb I lost" or "fat loss only happens when one is low carb" or "CICO does not apply to me and only low carb works for me" and on and on….
I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.
It would be nice if some low carbers came in here and acutely refuted this…
OR
if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
ETA - I am not referring to people that have to low carb due to a medical condition. However, CICO would still apply in that instance….
You do love your generalized and blanket statements.
Go back and read this one - the first half of it stayed pretty sane 0 -
May I make a distinction between carb sources? I divide them into three groups:
Starches - potatoes, grains and the like
Vegetables - green beans, broccoli, greens, etc.
Fruits - apples, grapes, oranges...
I find that controlling starches is an easy way to keep my calories in check. I also think I have a correlation between plateaus and starches but, I haven't proven it yet. For me, it's anecdotal but, no starches at all may be a way to break through a plateau.
OP, this is a good thread and you've definitely stirred the pot!0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I am going to throw this one out there, because I got into a debate with someone in another thread and it left me pretty mind blown. The persons basic assumptions where the following:
1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
Before all my low carb friends come flying in here to say that I am knocking low carb, let me be clear that is not what I am doing. The way that I see it is that low carb, IIFYM, keto, IF, etc are just tools to get one into a calorie deficit, and one is not superior to the other. I just get mind blown when people say "I calorie restricted and lost nothing, but when I went low carb I lost" or "fat loss only happens when one is low carb" or "CICO does not apply to me and only low carb works for me" and on and on….
I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.
It would be nice if some low carbers came in here and acutely refuted this…
OR
if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
ETA - I am not referring to people that have to low carb due to a medical condition. However, CICO would still apply in that instance….
You do love your generalized and blanket statements.
passively aggressively trolling again I see..
go back and read the whole thread and try to comprehend it, and maybe we can talk.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »kamakazeekim wrote: »I have PCOS and when I tried just CICO I continued gaining weight. Once I was put on metformin and restricted carbs I lost weight like crazy even though my calorie intake actually went up. I realize the typical person without a hormone issue going on probably wouldn't have the same issues that I did.
you are still doing CICO ..you are just using medication to regulate the out side for you ..
I have PCOS and have been on Metformin for years. CICO did not work for me, while on the medication, and I gained weight while eating within my calorie range and working out. Even when varying the amount of exercise calories back or not eating them at all. I measure my food and don't eat junk either.
When I eat low carb I lose weight. My medication hasn't changed and my exercise hasn't changed either, the only thing that has changed is the restricting of carbohydrates. I still eat within my calorie range, still vary eating back my exercise calories, yet now I'm losing weight. For some of us, low carb eating is medically necessary and CICO will never work.
^^^ I have experienced this exact same thing. I think many PCOS'ers have which is why I am guessing the OP opted to say he wasn't talking about those with medical issues.
My experience was the exact same- I was doing calorie restriction- 1600 a day, let MFP set my macros for me, even researched TDEE and IIFYM calculators to see what my macros should be and set them by those. Was working out twice a week with a very good personal trainer and three times a week on my own- did not lose weight.
I also did CICO based on TDEE with a 500 cal cut (as recommended)- without working out while on metformin- did not lose weight.
Now- I am still sticking to my 1600 cals, on metformin and cut carbs as recommended by my doc and nutritionist and I am losing steadily- without exercise. The only difference is that now I am limiting my carbs to 30g a day. I am adding exercise now (just this week) because I want to build muscle. For some of us low carbers as @Babbs1977 says- CICO alone will never work
ARGH!... Just picking a nit!!!! CICO is working. I am picking a nit with your language. You're not the first poster to do this, so sorry for singling you out.
CICO is NOT a way of eating. It's an equation. Calories in, Calories Out. Colloquially, around here, it's used to mean mean putting that equation into practice so that it nets a deficit of energy.
The components of what make up those calories are NOT CICO.
CICO is working for you.... on a diet with its macros balanced to be low carb.
CICO is working for me... on a diet with its macros balanced to be moderate carb.
CICO works for other people on this thread with different macro balances.
Sorry, I just... there has to be a better way to to stop confusing IIFYM with CICO.
And not to be rude or demeaning to you but if you actually read my post instead of quickly scanning through it (an assumption on my part here) - you will find that I NEVER said CICO is NOT working for me. What I said was that CICO ALONE will never work for me- meaning I cannot simply just stick to counting the amount of CALORIES I take in- which I have tried. I HAVE to count carbs AND calories- like I said in other posts- because insulin and my body not using it properly.
I also NEVER said CICO is a way of eating (another assumption on your part) I am fully aware of what it means and the equation it represents.
You are correct I am doing CICO (also stated on another post) but with the macros (which several others have posted as part of CICO) balanced with a lower carb count
Here is where I think the confusion is. My understanding is that CICO without reducing carbs works poorly for people with IR because of compliance problems. Basically, that the insulin resistance means that when you eat carbs you tend to get hungry, triggered to eat more, are not satiated, etc. So the calories consumed end up being hard to control and are actually more.
You seem to be saying that even if you really truly ate 1200 calories of 50% carbs, 50% fat and protein combined that you could not lose (or would gain?). I'm not saying that can't be true--I don't know all that much about insulin resistance or the various other relevant medical conditions here--but I don't understand how it would or could work.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »
This is a semantical question and not very charitable towards what I posted. Low-carb or low-fat diets are engineered towards behaviors, usually for people who a have a logical disconnect between how many calories they eat and their weight. I suspect it's usually an emotional dysfunction, but I'm not a psychologist and I don't know everyone. Of course people lose weight because they take in fewer calories than they consume, but for whatever reason, they need to count something else or believe in something else that produces those results.
I'm clearly in your camp -- the bottomline/CICO camp. But I'm perfectly fine with a certain amount of delusion if it means a mother or father gets 20 more years with their children/grandchildren (or insert your favorite emotional ploy here). I'm not going to try and correct them (although I am clearly advocating patronizing them here ... whatever works for you).
i didn't read that until your gif.
...seriously? my low carb diet is for the massive amounts of insulin my pancreas produces in response to carbs. not sure my emotional dysfunction has anything to do with it.
Does your pancreas have feewings? Because it does seem a bit dysfunctional. Literally. As in, it's not functioning as it optimally would. I never thought of it as being an emotional issue. Do you think if you did some nice affirmations and self-esteem building talk to your pancreas, it might cool it on the insulin?
MAYBE YOUR PANCREAS JUST WANTS TO BE LOVED.0 -
I Like youtennisdude2004 wrote: »I am going to throw this one out there, because I got into a debate with someone in another thread and it left me pretty mind blown. The persons basic assumptions where the following:
1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
Before all my low carb friends come flying in here to say that I am knocking low carb, let me be clear that is not what I am doing. The way that I see it is that low carb, IIFYM, keto, IF, etc are just tools to get one into a calorie deficit, and one is not superior to the other. I just get mind blown when people say "I calorie restricted and lost nothing, but when I went low carb I lost" or "fat loss only happens when one is low carb" or "CICO does not apply to me and only low carb works for me" and on and on….
I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.
It would be nice if some low carbers came in here and acutely refuted this…
OR
if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
ETA - I am not referring to people that have to low carb due to a medical condition. However, CICO would still apply in that instance….
You do love your generalized and blanket statements.
passively aggressively trolling again I see..
go back and read the whole thread and try to comprehend it, and maybe we can talk.
0 -
Who knew? My lymph nodes aren't broken, they just need a hug!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions