why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
because they typically make a drastic change to eating 100% clean and viewing whole food groups as "bad' and then post a thread saying they can't eat over 1200 calories….a 250 pound male has no business eating less than 1200 calories when they could lose comfortable at say 2000 calories a day or more …..
but if it's all about CICO why not lose faster at 1200 ?
Speaking just for myself and why I don't, even though I'd like to lose faster (who wouldn't?).
(1) Not everyone is primarily interested in weight loss alone. I want to minimize losing muscle and end up with a fat percentage of around 20-22%. I've found that now that I'm close to goal there seems to be a risk of losing more muscle than I'd like if I go faster, so I'm trying to force myself to go slow. (It was much easier going faster in some ways.)
(2) I'm trying to get stronger (weights) and train for triathlons. Those are already hard enough to do at the same time, I can't imagine it would help to start eating 1200 calories. I care more about running faster and biking uphill with energy and improving my back squat than dropping 5-10 lbs more quickly.
These are also reasons why I'm picky about my own diet, but that's not because I couldn't lose weight or would lose less if I were less picky.0 -
Here's a link to the 2011 study
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/NEJMoa1014296.pdf&ei=zCACVb7_C4SOyATo5YCgDg&usg=AFQjCNFhmq_QoE7dnAgOLI0iz90n23yBEg (link goes directly to a pdf download)
citation if that doesn't work: Mozaffarian, D., et al., Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med, 2011. 364(25): p. 2392-404.
Potatoes in that study:
The dietary
factors with the largest positive associations with
weight changes, per serving per day, were increases
in the consumption of potato chips (1.69 lb), potatoes
(1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb),
unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed
meats (0.93 lb). A secondary analysis of potato subtypes
showed that weight changes were positively
associated with increases in the consumption of
french fries (3.35 lb) and of boiled, baked, or
mashed potatoes (0.57 lb). Weight gain associated
with increased consumption of refined grains
(0.39 lb per serving per day) was similar to that for
sweets and desserts (0.41 lb per serving per day).
Inverse associations with weight gain, per serving
per day, were seen for increased consumption of
vegetables (−0.22 lb), whole grains (−0.37 lb), fruits
(−0.49 lb), nuts (−0.57 lb), and yogurt (−0.82 lb).0 -
So, yup, mostly fries, lol. Fat must play a role, or fat + potatoes. I think your roast potatoes are safe
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Probably because you can't get over the fact that most of the time that people say CICO they are not saying ignore proper nutrition.
it is frequently said that "the only thing that matters is calories" which is what I take CICO to mean. Otherwise we would be talking about food, or macronutrients, rather than units of energy which we don't measure.
So in terms of the thread title the reason I am not enthusiastic about CICO dogma is that the biological effect of foods is variable and not purely a function of their energy value.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 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.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."
You obviously failed to read the rest of the posts. You are seeing what you want to see and can't look past some "math" you did and are ignoring the point of the whole thing. It's cute because even the other ladies that were in the thread pretty much saw it.
And by the way, the "math" you made up wasn't to hit a calorie goal, it was to make sure you hit some wonderful 5% number. You fail to see logic but I forgive you.
Whew, I was really gonna lose sleep over that! Thanks!
I know NDJ finds it humorous that you were attempting to stick to your guns so hard. With all you could. But unfortunately there comes a point where faulty arguments unravel and the person backs out. It's like a game of chess. Some just play it better than others.
It must be strange going through life viewing how other people eat as a competition. That almost sounds disordered.
Nope, I don't view eating as a competition. I use being able to display the ability to debate overall knowledge in weight loss, health and fitness as a competition. It's a game you can't win.
Even when nobody cares what you know? Your knowledge is irrelevant to me. I have a doctor, a surgeon and a registered dietitian for that. I don't need your input. Basically you've been engaging in a game of solitaire.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Probably because you can't get over the fact that most of the time that people say CICO they are not saying ignore proper nutrition.
it is frequently said that "the only thing that matters is calories" which is what I take CICO to mean. Otherwise we would be talking about food, or macronutrients, rather than units of energy which we don't measure.
So in terms of the thread title the reason I am not enthusiastic about CICO dogma is that the biological effect of foods is variable and not purely a function of their energy value.
I take it as a formula as how one can gain/maintain/lose ..get the numbers right and you should not have an issue with weight….
0 -
Yep and once dialed in it is quite easy. The only effort required is patienceProbably because you can't get over the fact that most of the time that people say CICO they are not saying ignore proper nutrition.
it is frequently said that "the only thing that matters is calories" which is what I take CICO to mean. Otherwise we would be talking about food, or macronutrients, rather than units of energy which we don't measure.
So in terms of the thread title the reason I am not enthusiastic about CICO dogma is that the biological effect of foods is variable and not purely a function of their energy value.
I take it as a formula as how one can gain/maintain/lose ..get the numbers right and you should not have an issue with weight….
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
While "the only thing that matters is calories" may be true in some narrowly-defined theoretical sense, for people dealing with nutrition and weight loss out in the real world, it is one of the useless-to-outright-harmful bits of "wisdom" posted on these boards.
And it happens all. the. time.
0 -
While "the only thing that matters is calories" may be true in some narrowly-defined theoretical sense, for people dealing with nutrition and weight loss out in the real world, it is one of the useless-to-outright-harmful bits of "wisdom" posted on these boards.
And it happens all. the. time.
Agree. Forest lost for the trees0 -
Probably because you can't get over the fact that most of the time that people say CICO they are not saying ignore proper nutrition.
it is frequently said that "the only thing that matters is calories" which is what I take CICO to mean. Otherwise we would be talking about food, or macronutrients, rather than units of energy which we don't measure.
So in terms of the thread title the reason I am not enthusiastic about CICO dogma is that the biological effect of foods is variable and not purely a function of their energy value.
most of the time when I am talking calories macros/micro goals always seem to come up ….0 -
I don't agree (with Mr. Knight), and would seriously enjoy a truly sensible discussion on this point.
The way I think of it is that correct information is necessary, because it helps people make sensible decisions. Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two. The reason step one is step one is (a) myths do not help--fear that you can't lose if you eat a chocolate or piece of pizza is not useful in any way; and (b) what is actually satiating is going to vary, as this discussion demonstrates. For example, on average it seems possible to argue that many benefit from eating every 2 hours, not eating after 7 pm, and eating no potatoes. None of those things would help me, and in fact all would make me less likely to succeed (the first two would have caused me to give up).
Thus, I think it makes more sense to tell people what has worked for you in terms of being satiated (if they are struggling), but to let them figure it out. IME, it's quite common for people to incrementally move toward higher quality diets while doing this.
What I don't think helps is to tell people who eat lots of fast food or the like that they must cut out processed foods and cook everything from scratch. I happen to prefer to cook from scratch and dislike fast food (and never eat it), but it's obvious that someone just starting out might do better trying some better quality ready made meals or semi homemade stuff or better menu items at McD's and the like. Why overwhelm them, especially when it does not actually matter for weight loss?
Similarly, if I think I must eat skinless boneless chicken breast, steamed broccoli, and brown rice for every meal but breakfast (for which I have a smoothie), I'd quit now. People who are just starting out and have their heads filled with ideas from women's mags or who knows what on the internet may have all sorts of depressing ideas about what diet food is. I think it's best to stress that weight loss is just about calories--experiment and see where your diet can be cut (yes, it probably is sweets or fast food for many). And also to stress that you don't have to give up everything pleasurable about food. I was lucky because I like vegetables and like cooking and so find it easy to create low calorie healthy meals I like, but I think lots of people don't get to that point because they can't get over the "I must deprive myself and never have anything fun" when dieting.0 -
Because I am a special snowflake and I like how I feel when I'm not eating all those carbs. I also crave less sweets when I'm low carbing it. Whatever to each his own and why you worried about what someone else does on "THEIR" lifestyle change it works for them and that's all that matters.0
-
I was going to write a blog post on this, but two somewhat recent approaches that strike me as just common sense and also likely to be very helpful to the right people are Josh Hillis in Fat Loss Happens on Mondays and Matt Fitzgerald in (most recently) Diet Cults. I'm more of a Michael Pollan person in terms of what inspired me, but what I liked about both of these books is that both of them clearly think that some ways of eating are healthier than others (but that the question is whether your overall diet is good, not a specific food item), both do think that on average some kinds of food contribute more than others to nutrition (while others might be psychologically beneficial), and--important!--that making food choice a moral issue is probably counterproductive for many or at least irrational and unnecessary.
Saying that the strategy part of it should acknowledge both that nutrition matters and that overall diet matters AND that for weight loss it's ultimately about calories are NOT contradictory at all. They encourage people to be logical about matters where we are often not logical and that lack of logic usually is harmful.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't agree, and would seriously enjoy a truly sensible discussion on this point.
The way I think of it is that correct information is necessary, because it helps people make sensible decisions. Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two. The reason step one is step one is (a) myths do not help--fear that you can't lose if you eat a chocolate or piece of pizza is not useful in any way; and (b) what is actually satiating is going to vary, as this discussion demonstrates. For example, on average it seems possible to argue that many benefit from eating every 2 hours, not eating after 7 pm, and eating no potatoes. None of those things would help me, and in fact all would make me less likely to succeed (the first two would have caused me to give up).
Thus, I think it makes more sense to tell people what has worked for you in terms of being satiated (if they are struggling), but to let them figure it out. IME, it's quite common for people to incrementally move toward higher quality diets while doing this.
What I don't think helps is to tell people who eat lots of fast food or the like that they must cut out processed foods and cook everything from scratch. I happen to prefer to cook from scratch and dislike fast food (and never eat it), but it's obvious that someone just starting out might do better trying some better quality ready made meals or semi homemade stuff or better menu items at McD's and the like. Why overwhelm them, especially when it does not actually matter for weight loss?
Similarly, if I think I must eat skinless boneless chicken breast, steamed broccoli, and brown rice for every meal but breakfast (for which I have a smoothie), I'd quit now. People who are just starting out and have their heads filled with ideas from women's mags or who knows what on the internet may have all sorts of depressing ideas about what diet food is. I think it's best to stress that weight loss is just about calories--experiment and see where your diet can be cut (yes, it probably is sweets or fast food for many). And also to stress that you don't have to give up everything pleasurable about food. I was lucky because I like vegetables and like cooking and so find it easy to create low calorie healthy meals I like, but I think lots of people don't get to that point because they can't get over the "I must deprive myself and never have anything fun" when dieting.
I would agree with this..
My advice to people is usually that they need to set MFP to x amount per week loss, eat to that number, get afoot scale, weigh all solids, and then find some kind of exercise they like.
As far as eating/nutrition goes. I like to stress the point that there are no "bad" foods and that as long as one hits calorie/micro/macro goals they can meet their individual goals. However, that does not mean 100% ice cream, cookies, bagels etc; what it does mean is have your eggs, whole grains, vegetables, fish, chicken, etc but also have some things that you like, like pizza, steak, bagels, pasta, ice cream, etc….
0 -
tmauck4472 wrote: »Because I am a special snowflake and I like how I feel when I'm not eating all those carbs. I also crave less sweets when I'm low carbing it. Whatever to each his own and why you worried about what someone else does on "THEIR" lifestyle change it works for them and that's all that matters.
bless your heart, aren't you a peach…
I could care less what people do, but don't come on the threads and say that low carb is not low calorie.
I started the thread to have an honest and open debate, which if you take the time to read this thread you will see that we had.
you can believe what you want but at the end of the day you are putting yourself into a calorie deficit.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't agree (with Mr. Knight), and would seriously enjoy a truly sensible discussion on this point.
The way I think of it is that correct information is necessary, because it helps people make sensible decisions. Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two. The reason step one is step one is (a) myths do not help--fear that you can't lose if you eat a chocolate or piece of pizza is not useful in any way; and (b) what is actually satiating is going to vary, as this discussion demonstrates. For example, on average it seems possible to argue that many benefit from eating every 2 hours, not eating after 7 pm, and eating no potatoes. None of those things would help me, and in fact all would make me less likely to succeed (the first two would have caused me to give up).
Thus, I think it makes more sense to tell people what has worked for you in terms of being satiated (if they are struggling), but to let them figure it out. IME, it's quite common for people to incrementally move toward higher quality diets while doing this.
What I don't think helps is to tell people who eat lots of fast food or the like that they must cut out processed foods and cook everything from scratch. I happen to prefer to cook from scratch and dislike fast food (and never eat it), but it's obvious that someone just starting out might do better trying some better quality ready made meals or semi homemade stuff or better menu items at McD's and the like. Why overwhelm them, especially when it does not actually matter for weight loss?
Similarly, if I think I must eat skinless boneless chicken breast, steamed broccoli, and brown rice for every meal but breakfast (for which I have a smoothie), I'd quit now. People who are just starting out and have their heads filled with ideas from women's mags or who knows what on the internet may have all sorts of depressing ideas about what diet food is. I think it's best to stress that weight loss is just about calories--experiment and see where your diet can be cut (yes, it probably is sweets or fast food for many). And also to stress that you don't have to give up everything pleasurable about food. I was lucky because I like vegetables and like cooking and so find it easy to create low calorie healthy meals I like, but I think lots of people don't get to that point because they can't get over the "I must deprive myself and never have anything fun" when dieting.
I hear you, and no, no one should feel forced to churn butter at home (and I too would die on skinless chicken breast & broccoli, awful). People have busy lives, and no one needs to be made to feel horrible about just trying to get by in a way that makes life feel tolerable.
However, it would be a disservice, in my view, not to share information that may help people achieve their goals (as well as support their health). There are some people trying to make CICO work on low-value foods, and finding compliance very hard; I feel like if there's knowledge that can help them, they should hear it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I was going to write a blog post on this, but two somewhat recent approaches that strike me as just common sense and also likely to be very helpful to the right people are Josh Hillis in Fat Loss Happens on Mondays and Matt Fitzgerald in (most recently) Diet Cults. I'm more of a Michael Pollan person in terms of what inspired me, but what I liked about both of these books is that both of them clearly think that some ways of eating are healthier than others (but that the question is whether your overall diet is good, not a specific food item), both do think that on average some kinds of food contribute more than others to nutrition (while others might be psychologically beneficial), and--important!--that making food choice a moral issue is probably counterproductive for many or at least irrational and unnecessary.
Saying that the strategy part of it should acknowledge both that nutrition matters and that overall diet matters AND that for weight loss it's ultimately about calories are NOT contradictory at all. They encourage people to be logical about matters where we are often not logical and that lack of logic usually is harmful.
agree, agree0 -
the thing is, people may be prone to take a bit of information (e.g. you can have cake, just fit it in) and distort it. or they may lack the experience to budget wisely, find themselves going over or binging, or just not feeling great, and interpret that as a personal failing (or, they may just fail)0
-
tmauck4472 wrote: »Because I am a special snowflake and I like how I feel when I'm not eating all those carbs. I also crave less sweets when I'm low carbing it. Whatever to each his own and why you worried about what someone else does on "THEIR" lifestyle change it works for them and that's all that matters.
do legumes make you crave sweets?0 -
I've been using MFP for awhile. This is my 3rd attempt to lose weight. I finally feel like this time it's going to happen. What OP said in the original post he's said before. The turning point for me was not feeling bad for what I had eaten. I logged it, I noticed how I felt the next day and decided for myself if I could have made a better choice. If I have to option to choose for myself, with no guilt, I don't feel like a failure. Like the time I had peanut M&M's and 4 beers for dinner. I didn't fail. Calories fit. Did I learn from it, yes. But I'm not a failure, I just learned I don't want peanut M&M's for dinner anymore. Saying you can eat what you want so long as the calories fit empowers us Noobs. I'm not failing I'm learning about my needs. Does anybody really like to be told what to do? Or is it maybe more empowering to figure it out for ourselves?0
-
Weight loss and optimal health/proper nutrition are in on the surface able to be 2 separate things. In reality they should be, need to be intertwined.
Absolutely this - I think this sums up the issue perfectly. I think that research and empirical evidence support that input quality/type and calories consumed both play a role in overall weight.
There's a ton of evidence that CICO is a good measure. There's also a ton of evidence that CI has a lot to do with how much your body can physically absorb and process, and CO has a lot to do with to what extent your body processes input and excretes the rest. So the evidence shows that CICO is also very nuanced and can be hard to use - especially in specialized diets.
It worries me that so many people treat the discussion as an argument to be won or lost - they pick apart nuances in the evidence while ignoring anything that does not support their view. The major arguments for and against CICO's effectiveness both have merit, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. Not because they're special snowflakes that violate the laws of physics, but because that's not how they go about things.
As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories or (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, send a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
I'm *sure* your intentions are awesomely positive, but knowingly or not, you are in effect trying to put people in your particular box. The advice may be consistent with the theory of CICO - but people don't live inside theoretical constructs.
0 -
lol.lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as advice for the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, lead a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
lol.lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as advice for the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, lead a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
Mr_Knight, I'm sorry but we are talking to people on MyFitnessPal. A calorie counting site right? I'm still learning, so are you saying I shouldn't log because I haven't cut out certain foods?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
neanderthin wrote: »
lol.lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as advice for the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, lead a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
That's what I was thinking.
I'll third that0 -
See now I'm confused again, could someone please explain?lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. Not because they're special snowflakes that violate the laws of physics, but because that's not how they go about things.
As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories or (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, send a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
I'm *sure* your intentions are awesomely positive, but knowingly or not, you are in effect trying to put people in your particular box. The advice may be consistent with the theory of CICO - but people don't live inside theoretical constructs.
To me what Lemurcat made sense. And I don't understand the * around *before* and *sure* in Mr_knight's post meant. I'm not kidding, I really don't get it. This may have nothing to do with losing weight but more to do with understanding forums. It's tough getting old.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions