'calories in-calories out' model might be flawed?
Replies
-
I heard a GREAT session on Sirius XM yesterday. It was transcendental meditation show Success Without Stress. Host Bob Roth was interviewing Dr. Peter Attia. A lot of the conversation had to do with hormones and cortisol and insulin resistance. Having gone through over a year where to just maintain my weight I had to stay under 1300 calories I'm looking for better answers. It's my opinion that CICO failed and my weight crept up since 1300 calories as maintenance is just undoable. At the beginning of my weight loss, I got from 195 to 160 with CICO then things went wrong and I'm certain my body is screwed up. I'm more active than I've ever been, I'm used to weighing and measuring carefully but this is just nuts. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE FULL EFFECTS OF GUT FLORA AND INSULIN RESISTANCE AND CORTISOL PRODUCTION so some of us need extra help.
I looked at a couple of weeks of your diet in August and September. You were eating around 1460.0 -
I just glanced at the article for 30 secs. What I got from it was they were just trying to take the blame for weight gain from the individual and put it onto the environment and other external factors.
If the title of the article was "Why It's Harder to Lose Weight Now Than 130 Years Ago" it would have made more sense in my opinion.
Haven't the 3 reasons they give at the start being chemicals/pesticides, prescription drugs and antibiotics been around for a while? Its 2015, 30 years ago was 1985, the 80s weren't the stone age where people hunted and gathered for food.
0 -
I really don't see where the article does anything regarding the science behind CICO. It's more about blaming society for people gaining weight. It almost sounds like it should lead into some whack science claims about a Paleo Vegan diet or something curing it all.
As for the other debates, I for one feel there are influences which might affect the calories out part of the equation, and that is where eating certain things to excess might have some slight influence on metabolism and calorie burn. But if you burn more than you eat, you're still going to drop weight.0 -
I'd really like an explanation from somebody for this common chestnut that doesn't involve mass amounts of hand-waving and expecting it to just make sense because of toxins.People are exposed to pesticides, flame-retardants, preservatives, and other chemicals that mess with their hormones and cause them to put on fat.
Being poisoned requires the liver to clear it. The liver is the most energetic part of the body by weight (the human brain, though not that of other animals, is on par in calorie use). Giving it more work to do seems that it could only increase calorie burn, not reduce it.
The problem, I see it as, is a naturalistic fallacy. People think the natural state of the body is to make people normal weight, and that it happens by some mechanism beyond simple appetite. But gaining weight with more calories is actually the sign that a body is working properly. If you can eat excessive calories and not gain weight, you have some kind of illness.0 -
My explanation is that was a whole lot of BS.
Unless you have another situation apart from being overweight, your liver is doing its job. Your other organs are doing their jobs, too. YOU DON'T NEED A DETOX.
You say 'naturalistic fallacy' and I don't think you know what that means.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
5 miles is oddly specific.
And don't eat too much is oddly vague.
I do a lot more than 5 miles of walking every day.
And I have to watch calories.0 -
My explanation is that was a whole lot of BS.
Unless you have another situation apart from being overweight, your liver is doing its job. Your other organs are doing their jobs, too. YOU DON'T NEED A DETOX.
You say 'naturalistic fallacy' and I don't think you know what that means.
Have you been drinking?
0 -
My explanation is that was a whole lot of BS.
Unless you have another situation apart from being overweight, your liver is doing its job. Your other organs are doing their jobs, too. YOU DON'T NEED A DETOX.
You say 'naturalistic fallacy' and I don't think you know what that means.
Assuming you're addressing me, I think you telling me I don't know what naturalistic fallacy means says that you don't follow what I said. It looks like you looked at me mention liver and toxins and didn't catch what I was saying about them.
I'm saying that it does not make sense to claim pesticides / chemicals / toxins increase weight. I'm not saying anything at all about detox. I'm saying if you are being poisoned, the expected effect would be weight loss, not weight gain - your body would be using extra energy to have the liver remove the chemicals.
I called it a naturalistic fallacy to believe the body has a tendency to go to a normal weight and that "polluting it" causes the body to gain weight.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
5 miles is oddly specific.
Exercise is unneeded for weight loss.
I said 5 miles because its approximately 10,000 steps (at my stride).0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.
Why did you cross out the most important one?0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.
Why did you cross out the most important one?
Because it's not important at all. If you wanted to, you could lose weight never leaving your home ever (though that's not advised).0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.
Why did you cross out the most important one?
I can't speak for that poster, but CICO doesn't rely on any one mechanism as more important than the other.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.
Why did you cross out the most important one?
I can't speak for that poster, but CICO doesn't rely on any one mechanism as more important than the other.
True, even if the calories out come from a sedentary lifestyle because you can't or don't want to exercise. In other words, your body burns calories no matter what you do or do not do.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'd really like an explanation from somebody for this common chestnut that doesn't involve mass amounts of hand-waving and expecting it to just make sense because of toxins.People are exposed to pesticides, flame-retardants, preservatives, and other chemicals that mess with their hormones and cause them to put on fat.
Being poisoned requires the liver to clear it. The liver is the most energetic part of the body by weight (the human brain, though not that of other animals, is on par in calorie use). Giving it more work to do seems that it could only increase calorie burn, not reduce it.
The problem, I see it as, is a naturalistic fallacy. People think the natural state of the body is to make people normal weight, and that it happens by some mechanism beyond simple appetite. But gaining weight with more calories is actually the sign that a body is working properly. If you can eat excessive calories and not gain weight, you have some kind of illness.
The most probable biological mechanism would be epigenetic modification of some of the cells of the hypothalamus. Possibly the presence of environmental leptin receptor antagonists, but there you're talking about finding a chemical that is not only absorbed into the bloodstream from the environment, but also crosses the blood-brain barrier.
Even an obese person's body is attempting to downregulate their eating in response to a sufficiently high fat supply. Obese people have a high amount of leptin, one of the two hormones that regulates appetite, which in non-obese people causes them to feel less hungry. The major biochemical problem with obesity seems to be leptin resistance - the fat cells of the body produce elevated levels of leptin, but the hypothalamus doesn't reduce hunger and increase satiety in response to the leptin anymore. There are a few pathways known that influence the leptin response.
Part of this may be some signal (possibly in utero or as a very young infant) that primes the body to weather starvation - if your body expects future starvation to occur, reducing the effect of leptin is a good evolutionary trait, since it promotes a higher body fat % during times of surplus, to weather the times of scarcity. If your body, however, predicts a famine that never happens, obesity is the result of a weakened leptin response.
As to toxins - it would be possible for a toxin to damage a very specific set of cells in the brain. That's known to be a cause of some cases of Parkinsonian symptoms and hypothesized to be the root cause of all cases of Parkinson's disease - which is an unusual disease in that it has very obvious and stereotypical symptoms, and yet not one medical text predating the industrial revolution discusses it at all. I don't believe anyone has identified any damage to the hypothalamus (specifically, the arcuate nucleus), though, that is commonly seen in obesity.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.
Why did you cross out the most important one?
How about you NOT turn this thread into your ever present debate that exercise is essential for weight loss, mkay??? This is not what this thread is about.
How about you NOT attack people for making a simple comment in a forum, mkay???-2 -
stevencloser wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.
Why did you cross out the most important one?
Because it's not important at all. If you wanted to, you could lose weight never leaving your home ever (though that's not advised).
That's true. If you want to lose weight by diet alone, you certainly could do that, but if you burn calories through exercise, you increase your fitness level, decrease your risks of many health issues, and its extremely easy to stay within your calories.
In the past 10 months, I have lost 53 pounds, 80% of that is just from walking at least 5 miles every day. The other 20% is from bike riding, kayaking, and ball parking my calories. I basically eat the same as I always have, but I do try to eat healthier.
I recently had a checkup with my doctor. He was AWED by my improvement, and not just the weight. The way my heart and lungs sounded, and how all my cholesterol (and other blood levels) levels are fine now.
Just because I rank exercise higher, doesn't mean other people have to.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »In the past 10 months, I have lost 53 pounds, 80% of that is just from walking at least 5 miles every day. The other 20% is from bike riding, kayaking, and ball parking my calories. I basically eat the same as I always have, but I do try to eat healthier. 100% of which is from maintaining a calorie deficit.
FTFY0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »In the past 10 months, I have lost 53 pounds, 80% of that is just from walking at least 5 miles every day. The other 20% is from bike riding, kayaking, and ball parking my calories. I basically eat the same as I always have, but I do try to eat healthier. 100% of which is from maintaining a calorie deficit.
FTFY
I guess if you want to take a snippet of my post and make it sound the way you want, that's fine, but I'm going to take a doctors word over anyone else's. Especially people on this forum who have the absurd notion that calories only apply to food.
This is supposed to be a fitness forum, and I never seen so many people who discount exercise in my entire life.
Maybe some day they will rename it to MyUnFinessPal (MUFP).0 -
All I did for the first year I was here was monitor my calories. As long as I stayed under my calorie goal I was fine. I lost 40 pounds. Now a days people want instant gratification. That is not how weight loss works. You didn't put that weight on overnight and it won't come off overnight.0
-
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »
Sounds like a lot of hibity jibity to me.
It is simple, and only has 2 requirements.
1. Get butt off of couch and walk 5 miles every day.
2. Don't eat too much.
Problem solved.
FIFY.
Why did you cross out the most important one?
I crossed out the one that doesn't matter. It's not necessary to exercise at all to lose weight. Exercise is for fitness.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »In the past 10 months, I have lost 53 pounds, 80% of that is just from walking at least 5 miles every day. The other 20% is from bike riding, kayaking, and ball parking my calories. I basically eat the same as I always have, but I do try to eat healthier. 100% of which is from maintaining a calorie deficit.
FTFY
I guess if you want to take a snippet of my post and make it sound the way you want, that's fine, but I'm going to take a doctors word over anyone else's. Especially people on this forum who have the absurd notion that calories only apply to food.
This is supposed to be a fitness forum, and I never seen so many people who discount exercise in my entire life.
Maybe some day they will rename it to MyUnFinessPal (MUFP).
Doctors have about 6 hours of nutritional education. And not much more in regards to fitness, either, unless it's a specialist. You might want to take the word of people who have years of experience. Personally, I've lost weight and maintained it without doing any exercise at all.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Exercise is wonderful and allows me to eat much more everyday. But I did lose the majority of my weight with diet alone and was very sedentary at the time.
Successful weight loss can be achieved with or without exercise.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »In the past 10 months, I have lost 53 pounds, 80% of that is just from walking at least 5 miles every day. The other 20% is from bike riding, kayaking, and ball parking my calories. I basically eat the same as I always have, but I do try to eat healthier. 100% of which is from maintaining a calorie deficit.
FTFY
I guess if you want to take a snippet of my post and make it sound the way you want, that's fine, but I'm going to take a doctors word over anyone else's. Especially people on this forum who have the absurd notion that calories only apply to food.
This is supposed to be a fitness forum, and I never seen so many people who discount exercise in my entire life.
Maybe some day they will rename it to MyUnFinessPal (MUFP).
Lol. I don't discount exercise. I exercise 6 days a week and highly recommend strength training and cardio. As big a fan as I am of exercise, I have no qualms with saying it has nothing to do with weight management. Many people would have similar improvements in their health markers after losing 50+ pounds.
This is a thread about the CICO model. In that context, all exercise does is change the CO side of that equation.0 -
what about folks who are not eating at a deficit and who are nevertheless losing weight (fat, specifically)?0
-
tmdalton849 wrote: »what about folks who are not eating at a deficit and who are nevertheless losing weight (fat, specifically)?
Which folks?0 -
tmdalton849 wrote: »what about folks who are not eating at a deficit and who are nevertheless losing weight (fat, specifically)?
One can but dream...
I'd also like to know who these folks are
0 -
i am.0
-
tmdalton849 wrote: »what about folks who are not eating at a deficit and who are nevertheless losing weight (fat, specifically)?
Those people might want to contact some doctors or scientists because they are medical miracles.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions