Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Interesting way that people excuse their overweight / obesity
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »The things you listed were simply wrong.
CICO works for everyone as it is based on a law of physics.
Starvation mode like that doesn't exist.
Amount of meals per day doesn't matter.
We can tell you that you're wrong BECAUSE we heard it all before. Do you think you're the first to come here talking about this stuff?
I'm not wrong. I simply had a different experience than you. CICO alone did not work for ME. Therefore, you cannot say "everyone". I tried it for 7 months (I was quite determined!), but didn't lose a single pound. As soon as I started tracking my macros in addition to calories (went from 1300 cals to 1400 cals/day and increased protein), I dropped 10 lbs in 8 weeks. Physics may work for you, but science/biology worked for me. And the amount of meals each day mattered for me. Some people eat 1 meal/day and that works for them. You may not choose to do that for yourself, but different things work for different people.
If you've heard of macros before and the benefits of tracking them, then why do you disbelieve it? Somebody had to tell you about CICO, why did you not question them? For some people, there's more to weightloss than CICO. It doesn't change the fact that CICO works for you/others. Lucky you, by the way. You don't have to track macros to meet your goals.6 -
What part about CICO being a law of physics and applying to every person on the planet is hard to understand?28
-
Today I learned that Physics isn't science.20
-
CICO "doesn't work" for a lot of people because they are unable to accurately track their calories, estimate portions or calculate calories burned for exercise. That doesn't mean it isn't still "true". Anyone that says CICO "doesn't work" for them, I just assume they can't tell they difference between a half pound steak and 6 ounces of steak, or that they don't realize the gallon of ranch they add to their low calorie salad had calories as well. Or perhaps they went for a bike ride and assume "yeah, that was like 14 mph, right?". I've seen instances of all those things in co-workers trying to lose weight. Compound that with the fact that people don't understand their own daily weight fluctuations, and you have a recipe for failure for many.
Again, CICO is a "truth", many people just fail to understand the rules.35 -
Suspended_User wrote: »CICO "doesn't work" for a lot of people because they are unable to accurately track their calories, estimate portions or calculate calories burned for exercise. That doesn't mean it isn't still "true". Anyone that says CICO "doesn't work" for them, I just assume they can't tell they difference between a half pound steak and 6 ounces of steak, or that they don't realize the gallon of ranch they add to their low calorie salad had calories as well. Or perhaps they went for a bike ride and assume "yeah, that was like 14 mph, right?". I've seen instances of all those things in co-workers trying to lose weight. Compound that with the fact that people don't understand their own daily weight fluctuations, and you have a recipe for failure for many.
Again, CICO is a "truth", many people just fail to understand the rules.
Well said.7 -
Suspended_User wrote: »CICO "doesn't work" for a lot of people because they are unable to accurately track their calories, estimate portions or calculate calories burned for exercise. That doesn't mean it isn't still "true". Anyone that says CICO "doesn't work" for them, I just assume they can't tell they difference between a half pound steak and 6 ounces of steak, or that they don't realize the gallon of ranch they add to their low calorie salad had calories as well. Or perhaps they went for a bike ride and assume "yeah, that was like 14 mph, right?". I've seen instances of all those things in co-workers trying to lose weight. Compound that with the fact that people don't understand their own daily weight fluctuations, and you have a recipe for failure for many.
Again, CICO is a "truth", many people just fail to understand the rules.
I think a lot of people are speaking in terms of practicality or simply making assumptions based on practical experience. The fact of the matter is: You don't need to understand the principle of manipulating CICO in order to implement its practice. Someone who says I ate whatever I wanted, as much as I wanted whenever I wanted it is probably telling the truth. It doesn't mean that they ate more calories than they burned.5 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
I've never been 100 lbs overweight so I can't answer your specific question, but I can address the first part. Calorie counting takes more than 5-10 min a day for me. WAY more. One meal takes longer than that. I would imagine this is because I eat differently than you. Most of meals are home prepared, contain lots of ingredients and I don't use recipes. Every bowl of chili is different from the last. Every omelet is different. Every meal is different. Saved entries must be edited every single time. Ingredients would have to be weighed every single meal. I couldn't just add a dash of that or a bit of this. I have to get out a container and scale and weigh it and then add it to the pot. It's frustrating and stressful and a royal PITA and I hate it.
This is true for those that make meals and like a lot of variety and taste. I am fortunate in that I am happy to eat plain baked chicken 7 nights a week, so it's just a matter of plopping it on a scale. But, I know people that can't do that, they need it marinated, and they want it friend, or basted, or whatever. They need the variety. It is much more difficult that way. I agree with that.
Even in those logging can be simplified. Using the meal option instead of "recipe" then editing the weight of the ingredients, adding or removing whatever needs to be added or removed. Even that can be simplified further by counting groups of ingredients as a single ingredient - the highest calorie ingredient. I usually actually enjoy logging every single ingredients, but when I'm in a rush and have a multiple bean dish, for example, I sometimes count them all as chickpeas and if I'm adding eggplants, zucchini and cauliflower I lump them together on the scale and count them all as cauliflower. Yes, it's less accurate, but since you are using the highest calorie ingredient you are not very likely to be underestimating the calorie count so this method does in a rush.8 -
I can't paraphrase it very well, but there was a thread in this forum about how long it takes for the body to stop trying to regain the weight you lose. It was a hormonal thing, if I remember correctly, and the time frame was a little less than a year. I found it very hopeful. If a person can hold out for a year, your body gets the hint.9
-
Gravity didn't work for me so how can you say gravity exists? Checkmate.14
-
Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
3 -
LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
Yes, but one's calorie requirement can decrease naturally as one ages, often without a corresponding decrease in hunger. Therefore one can eat the same as one always did and still gain weight. The reasons for the decrease in energy expenditure can vary greatly, which is why it can be hard to understand why one is suddenly gaining weight when they didn't before, especially if the reason is something 'unseen' like hormone levels.
As far as macros affecting weight loss, I don't think there have been a ton of studies in this area, at least not in humans (more in rats/mice). I at least find the hypothesis that macro composition could impact weight loss to be plausible, through a hormone or gut bacteria mechanism that would change nutrient absorption. I'm not saying something as extreme as true nutrient malabsorption. Just different digestion efficiencies, basically.
But like I said, while it's an intriguing hypothesis there's no comprehensive studies to back it up yet. Would like to see more research on that area to either prove or disprove it once and for all though!3 -
This might be a very weak analogy for what I was trying to say earlier, buy I'm gonna do it anyway:paulgads82 wrote: »Gravity didn't work for me so how can you say gravity exists? Checkmate.
If a person is in outer space, they may not feel the effects of gravity. However, the law of gravity still applies to them.
A person may be unaware that they were in balance or a deficit while eating as much as they wanted (because what they wanted was <=CO), but CICO still applied.
OK, that was a bad analogy, carry on.
7 -
I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
Yeah, philosophers have been chewing on the "mind-body problem", or mind-body dualism if you prefer, for centuries if not millennia. {Shrug.}
Like some other who've commented, I think it's best understood as figurative or metaphorical, and that trying to parse such things rationally, in extensional terms, is just another common example of being confused by abstractions.3 -
shinycrazy wrote: »I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
I'm a psychology major and one of the things that stuck with me was locus of control(it's been 10 years so bear with me). It's the idea of whether you (internal) or outside forces (external) control your behavior or outcomes. Many folks are more comfortable explaining behavior based on an external locus of control because then they are off the hook for what is happening.
^^^^
A huge "pet peeve"
Even when I was obese, I knew it was because of my choices.7 -
lithezebra wrote: »I can't paraphrase it very well, but there was a thread in this forum about how long it takes for the body to stop trying to regain the weight you lose. It was a hormonal thing, if I remember correctly, and the time frame was a little less than a year. I found it very hopeful. If a person can hold out for a year, your body gets the hint.
I don't think its hormonal but psychological. And behavioral repetition - aka creating habits.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.6 -
I don't believe it's as simple as CICO for a lot of people. Pretty simplistic view IMO..The majority of successful weight loss comes from the mind..one has to change their lifestyle. Fairly easy for some people to label other people's challenges as excuses and woefully wrong IMO to generalize that way. If weight loss were easy, it would not be a $20 Billion industry. Many people have to learn how to eat, how to control urges, how to count calories, what is healthy and what isn't. This is not simply and to boil it down to fat people make excuses..is terribly wrong.
Just my opinion...ymmv12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 385 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions