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
-
This is simple
People excuse their obesity because it is a defense mechanism.
Obesity is painful, they feel bad, they feel judged, and rather than say "okay, I am fat because I eat too much" they make excuses instead.
3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?
Why am I supposed to explain how human error cropped up in your case? Regardless, it fits your results. Instrumentation error tends to produce systematic measurement error. Human error is much more likely to produce nonsystematic error, which is exactly what you're describing.
I certainly have no idea how you produced those kinds of results. But I can tell how this is going to go - you're going to swear up and down that when you say you cut your intake by 500 calories, well, darn it, it was precisely 500 calories and I know that for a fact!! I say that basic physics dictates that mass can't be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), so the only explanation left is human error - the nature of which I'm not able to explain, since I have had no opportunity to observe you 24/7.10 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
If we must rely on measurements in order to assess CICO, and there is no practical way to accurately measure all factors 100% percent of the time, isn't feasible that conventional concepts of CICO will prove ineffective in practice for some people?
I suppose you could say that people who use CICO as a concept put into practice sometimes fail at it, and then when they use other methods based on non-CICO concepts (like low-carb, or the grapefruit diet, or whatnot) perhaps they can have more success. That doesn't mean the underlying concept is false, it just means that sometimes people need to use mental heuristics or models that don't necessarily translate into rational, logical, real-world mechanisms in order to exist.
But when people say "CICO didn't work for me" that, to me (with my annoyingly literal brain, as my girlfriend always tells me) that sounds as nonsensical as "gravity didn't work for me." Gravity always works. The law of Conservation of Energy applies to everyone, all the time. You can't generate fat spontaneously without a calorie surplus, you can't lose weight without a calorie deficit - it's simply, physically impossible, period.
BTW they've done studies on this over and over using animal and human models. It's expensive and cumbersome in probably most cases, but it's certainly feasible in laboratory conditions to with almost complete precision keep track of calorie inputs and calorie outputs in humans and animals - and I am not aware of a single instance where a person or animal spontaneously generated visceral body mass without a corresponding caloric input.11 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »
What a load of crap.
Excuses have the implication that the person saying it has no culpability, that the results aren't their fault because of outside forces.
"I am overweight because I eat more than my TDEE" is a reason.
"I am overweight but I have bad genetics" is an excuse.12 -
IMO I am 30 lbs over weight because I made poor choices. I now have lost 5 of those pounds because I made better choices. I now eat a very healthy breakfast and lunch and smaller portions for supper. I also walk 2 miles per day. I have found if I just keep slightly under 1200 calories per day and slightly under my macro's for the day plus a nice walk then I can lose weight. No excuses, it was my fault to gain the weight and it's my victory to lose the weight.5
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?
Why am I supposed to explain how human error cropped up in your case? Regardless, it fits your results. Instrumentation error tends to produce systematic measurement error. Human error is much more likely to produce nonsystematic error, which is exactly what you're describing.
I certainly have no idea how you produced those kinds of results. But I can tell how this is going to go - you're going to swear up and down that when you say you cut your intake by 500 calories, well, darn it, it was precisely 500 calories and I know that for a fact!! I say that basic physics dictates that mass can't be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), so the only explanation left is human error - the nature of which I'm not able to explain, since I have had no opportunity to observe you 24/7.
You have to explain how because it's your assertion that this is what happened. It is quite evident to me that you are throwing your hands up and saying you don't understand what happened and therefore, I must have logged incorrectly. In your mind, there is no other way (whether you understand it or not) that my results occurred. While I don't understand why that is what happened either, I'm different in that I will acknowledge there are things I don't understand. I'm sure there is, in fact, a scientific explanation... I just don't know it (and you don't know it). Maybe that explanation validates CICO in a way that is more complicated than you are willing to acknowledge. Maybe that explanation disproves CICO. I don't know, but I do know that if you are going to say with certainty that I must not be logging properly, you need to be able to explain that answer better than "Human error is much more likely."5 -
Wicked_Seraph wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »Wicked_Seraph 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... really don't like the word "excuse", to be honest. It implies a fault, flaw, or moral failing that one is trying to justify. I don't think being overweight or obese is a fault or flaw.
I'm not trying to be a pedantic jerk, but it really is important to be careful about the words we use. "Reasons" for being overweight/obese? Fine. Reasons do not carry a connotation of fault or the implication that the respondent should feel ashamed.
I had plenty of reasons for being overweight. I didn't know my maintenance calories. I ate to deal with negative (and positive!) emotions. I was in denial. I really like food. I figured it was due to HBC and/or PCOS I likely don't actually have.
I wouldn't consider any of these things excuses. To say that they were excuses implies that the "right" thing to do is lose weight. Losing weight is a very personal decision, and not one to give moral overtones.
I think you make a fair point. But I would also argue that some people do use things as an excuse.
I used to say that my health problems were 50% responsible for my weight and that I was responsible for the rest. Well, hey, I owned 50% of it, but I wasn't doing anything about that half I couldn't excuse. In reality the health problems contributed to physical inactivity but I was 100% responsible for the portions I consumed. Feeling tired and in pain didn't make me fat. My hands and mouth did. I was making excuses, and making those health problems worse. I am not hurt by anyone pointing that out. It's the truth.
Now the health issues are being addressed and obviously I'm doing well. No one would be doing me any favors to be sympathetic to my past. They don't have to be jerks, but truth is truth.
Yes, but there is a world of difference, I think, in saying that you weren't taking responsibility for your health vs saying that you were making excuses for being overweight.
"Excuse" puts a moral slant on something that really shouldn't have it. Being obese or overweight is neither good nor bad - it's simply how someone is at that point in time. I don't consider those who are obese - like myself, for one - to have committed some kind of moral failing. We simply made mistakes, and ultimately it's our choice whether or not to continue going down the same path or do something different.
I will 100% say that I wasn't taking personal responsibility for my health. I will agree that having the truth sugar-coated did nothing to help me - it made it so much easier to pretend that MY CHOICES weren't the cause of my obesity. I wanted desperately to think that I wasn't losing weight because of something else... because surely it wouldn't be because I was insufficient in some way? It's easier to attribute failure to one's genetics or metabolism than, as much as it sucks, admitting that you eat too much and need to knock that *kitten* off. I agree that in many cases, people are refusing to acknowledge their own shortcomings. But again... phrasing it as "making excuses" is shaming and puts people on the defensive.
I don't think we're talking about 100% of people who are overweight. It was my impression that we were speaking of people here and sites like this, who are making excuses.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?
Why am I supposed to explain how human error cropped up in your case? Regardless, it fits your results. Instrumentation error tends to produce systematic measurement error. Human error is much more likely to produce nonsystematic error, which is exactly what you're describing.
I certainly have no idea how you produced those kinds of results. But I can tell how this is going to go - you're going to swear up and down that when you say you cut your intake by 500 calories, well, darn it, it was precisely 500 calories and I know that for a fact!! I say that basic physics dictates that mass can't be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), so the only explanation left is human error - the nature of which I'm not able to explain, since I have had no opportunity to observe you 24/7.
You have to explain how because it's your assertion that this is what happened. It is quite evident to me that you are throwing your hands up and saying you don't understand what happened and therefore, I must have logged incorrectly. In your mind, there is no other way (whether you understand it or not) that my results occurred. While I don't understand why that is what happened either, I'm different in that I will acknowledge there are things I don't understand. I'm sure there is, in fact, a scientific explanation... I just don't know it (and you don't know it). Maybe that explanation validates CICO in a way that is more complicated than you are willing to acknowledge. Maybe that explanation disproves CICO. I don't know, but I do know that if you are going to say with certainty that I must not be logging properly, you need to be able to explain that answer better than "Human error is much more likely."
There's literally a million+ different ways human error could have biased your measurements to the point of such inaccuracy. Just a sampling (and you'll deny you did any of them, so there's really no point in bringing them up): you weren't paying attention to other things you were eating. You didn't count particular foods. You forgot to count things you actually ate. You entered things incorrectly. Etc.
I don't need to explain your error. It's enough that human error exists, it's common (rampant, really) and it's a far more sensible explanation for what happened to you than positing some sort of mysterious process that we can't name.8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
False, because the rest of the starving people would die of starvation, and all that would be left would be those magical chubbies and their genetically magical offspring who magically went into "starvation mode" without any food. Natural selection would have packed Africa with these people decades (centuries?) ago.
And do you really think that the only reason we see starving people is because photographers want to trick us into believing that tons of people are starving there? That's an insane level of privilege you got there.17 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
False, because the rest of the starving people would die of starvation, and all that would be left would be those magical chubbies and their genetically magical offspring who magically went into "starvation mode" without any food. Natural selection would have packed Africa with these people decades (centuries?) ago.
And do you really think that the only reason we see starving people is because photographers want to trick us into believing that tons of people are starving there? That's an insane level of privilege you got there.
On your first point, you assume that no new people exist... not exactly a safe assumption. I don't know about Africa, but I know world-wide, more than twice as many new births happen on an average day than deaths.
On your second point, I'm not arguing that photographers "want to trick us into believing that tons of people are starving there" at all. I'm just saying that a photographer sent to obtain images of starvation conditions is likely to ignore the few people who don't look like they are starving.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?
Why am I supposed to explain how human error cropped up in your case? Regardless, it fits your results. Instrumentation error tends to produce systematic measurement error. Human error is much more likely to produce nonsystematic error, which is exactly what you're describing.
I certainly have no idea how you produced those kinds of results. But I can tell how this is going to go - you're going to swear up and down that when you say you cut your intake by 500 calories, well, darn it, it was precisely 500 calories and I know that for a fact!! I say that basic physics dictates that mass can't be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), so the only explanation left is human error - the nature of which I'm not able to explain, since I have had no opportunity to observe you 24/7.
You have to explain how because it's your assertion that this is what happened. It is quite evident to me that you are throwing your hands up and saying you don't understand what happened and therefore, I must have logged incorrectly. In your mind, there is no other way (whether you understand it or not) that my results occurred. While I don't understand why that is what happened either, I'm different in that I will acknowledge there are things I don't understand. I'm sure there is, in fact, a scientific explanation... I just don't know it (and you don't know it). Maybe that explanation validates CICO in a way that is more complicated than you are willing to acknowledge. Maybe that explanation disproves CICO. I don't know, but I do know that if you are going to say with certainty that I must not be logging properly, you need to be able to explain that answer better than "Human error is much more likely."
There's literally a million+ different ways human error could have biased your measurements to the point of such inaccuracy. Just a sampling (and you'll deny you did any of them, so there's really no point in bringing them up): you weren't paying attention to other things you were eating. You didn't count particular foods. You forgot to count things you actually ate. You entered things incorrectly. Etc.
I don't need to explain your error. It's enough that human error exists, it's common (rampant, really) and it's a far more sensible explanation for what happened to you than positing some sort of mysterious process that we can't name.
If you are making the point that I've made an error, then yes you do need to explain it. And you are right about one thing... I will deny that I eat things that I don't log. I log supplements I take because some of them have calories (I log even those that don't), and I log gum that I chew, and I log absolutely everything I eat with more precision than you are willing to believe. But since my results didn't match what you would expect, you just assume that I'm not logging accurately, though you have not been able to explain exactly how you think I didn't log accurately. In the end, you are only denying what happened to me because it helps you to feel better about your belief that CICO is absolutely infallible and that there is no possibility of something you don't understand that could have caused my results.5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?
Why am I supposed to explain how human error cropped up in your case? Regardless, it fits your results. Instrumentation error tends to produce systematic measurement error. Human error is much more likely to produce nonsystematic error, which is exactly what you're describing.
I certainly have no idea how you produced those kinds of results. But I can tell how this is going to go - you're going to swear up and down that when you say you cut your intake by 500 calories, well, darn it, it was precisely 500 calories and I know that for a fact!! I say that basic physics dictates that mass can't be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), so the only explanation left is human error - the nature of which I'm not able to explain, since I have had no opportunity to observe you 24/7.
You have to explain how because it's your assertion that this is what happened. It is quite evident to me that you are throwing your hands up and saying you don't understand what happened and therefore, I must have logged incorrectly. In your mind, there is no other way (whether you understand it or not) that my results occurred. While I don't understand why that is what happened either, I'm different in that I will acknowledge there are things I don't understand. I'm sure there is, in fact, a scientific explanation... I just don't know it (and you don't know it). Maybe that explanation validates CICO in a way that is more complicated than you are willing to acknowledge. Maybe that explanation disproves CICO. I don't know, but I do know that if you are going to say with certainty that I must not be logging properly, you need to be able to explain that answer better than "Human error is much more likely."
There's literally a million+ different ways human error could have biased your measurements to the point of such inaccuracy. Just a sampling (and you'll deny you did any of them, so there's really no point in bringing them up): you weren't paying attention to other things you were eating. You didn't count particular foods. You forgot to count things you actually ate. You entered things incorrectly. Etc.
I don't need to explain your error. It's enough that human error exists, it's common (rampant, really) and it's a far more sensible explanation for what happened to you than positing some sort of mysterious process that we can't name.
If you are making the point that I've made an error, then yes you do need to explain it. And you are right about one thing... I will deny that I eat things that I don't log.
To be fair, I just offered some pretty boring and sensible explanations of your error (which all fall under the category of "you're not logging accurately"), and as I predicted, you deny all of them. So, no point in continuing, really.5 -
So this is where I come when I get to goal weight to talk about others who are not ready for their journey...6
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?
Why am I supposed to explain how human error cropped up in your case? Regardless, it fits your results. Instrumentation error tends to produce systematic measurement error. Human error is much more likely to produce nonsystematic error, which is exactly what you're describing.
I certainly have no idea how you produced those kinds of results. But I can tell how this is going to go - you're going to swear up and down that when you say you cut your intake by 500 calories, well, darn it, it was precisely 500 calories and I know that for a fact!! I say that basic physics dictates that mass can't be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), so the only explanation left is human error - the nature of which I'm not able to explain, since I have had no opportunity to observe you 24/7.
You have to explain how because it's your assertion that this is what happened. It is quite evident to me that you are throwing your hands up and saying you don't understand what happened and therefore, I must have logged incorrectly. In your mind, there is no other way (whether you understand it or not) that my results occurred. While I don't understand why that is what happened either, I'm different in that I will acknowledge there are things I don't understand. I'm sure there is, in fact, a scientific explanation... I just don't know it (and you don't know it). Maybe that explanation validates CICO in a way that is more complicated than you are willing to acknowledge. Maybe that explanation disproves CICO. I don't know, but I do know that if you are going to say with certainty that I must not be logging properly, you need to be able to explain that answer better than "Human error is much more likely."
There's literally a million+ different ways human error could have biased your measurements to the point of such inaccuracy. Just a sampling (and you'll deny you did any of them, so there's really no point in bringing them up): you weren't paying attention to other things you were eating. You didn't count particular foods. You forgot to count things you actually ate. You entered things incorrectly. Etc.
I don't need to explain your error. It's enough that human error exists, it's common (rampant, really) and it's a far more sensible explanation for what happened to you than positing some sort of mysterious process that we can't name.
If you are making the point that I've made an error, then yes you do need to explain it. And you are right about one thing... I will deny that I eat things that I don't log.
To be fair, I just offered some pretty boring and sensible explanations of your error (which all fall under the category of "you're not logging accurately"), and as I predicted, you deny all of them. And you will deny all of them. That's your shtick, apparently.
Since it's simply flat-out impossible to get fat without eating at a calorie surplus, there's really no other way for this conversation to go. Have a nice day!
Right - as I've said, I will deny that I ate without logging because I really and truly did not eat without logging. It isn't a "shtick" (not sure what you mean by that), it is a reiteration that I'm being 100% honest with myself and with everyone on this forum. You don't understand how I obtained such results. I don't either. Your response to not understanding it is to conclude with certainty that I didn't log accurately, despite being unsure how. My response is to acknowledge that there is an explanation that I don't understand. Clearly the explanation is something you don't understand either because you wouldn't have to convince yourself of large changes in measurement methods if you actually understood what happened.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
If we must rely on measurements in order to assess CICO, and there is no practical way to accurately measure all factors 100% percent of the time, isn't feasible that conventional concepts of CICO will prove ineffective in practice for some people?
I suppose you could say that people who use CICO as a concept put into practice sometimes fail at it, and then when they use other methods based on non-CICO concepts (like low-carb, or the grapefruit diet, or whatnot) perhaps they can have more success. That doesn't mean the underlying concept is false, it just means that sometimes people need to use mental heuristics or models that don't necessarily translate into rational, logical, real-world mechanisms in order to exist.
But when people say "CICO didn't work for me" that, to me (with my annoyingly literal brain, as my girlfriend always tells me) that sounds as nonsensical as "gravity didn't work for me." Gravity always works. The law of Conservation of Energy applies to everyone, all the time. You can't generate fat spontaneously without a calorie surplus, you can't lose weight without a calorie deficit - it's simply, physically impossible, period.
BTW they've done studies on this over and over using animal and human models. It's expensive and cumbersome in probably most cases, but it's certainly feasible in laboratory conditions to with almost complete precision keep track of calorie inputs and calorie outputs in humans and animals - and I am not aware of a single instance where a person or animal spontaneously generated visceral body mass without a corresponding caloric input.
Bold 1: Or that the methodologies for measuring either side of the energy equation are less effective for certain people.
Bold 2: While gravity always works, its effects are not always felt, for example in outer space.1 -
You don't understand how I obtained such results.
Incorrect. I understand just fine.I don't either. Your response to not understanding it is to conclude with certainty that I didn't log accurately, despite being unsure how.
I'm unsure precisely how you made your logging errors on a day by day, minute-by-minute basis - simply because I have never observed you, at home, doing your logging. But again, I understand completely that your logging was inaccurate.My response is to acknowledge that there is an explanation that I don't understand.
That's a cop-out. Aren't you the one demanding that we all assume your ability to measure your caloric intake and caloric expenditures has super-duper, laboratory-level precision (without us having any evidence to support this)? I mean, you're telling us you're SUPER precise in how you measure everything, to the point there is zero possibility you've made measurement error (despite the fact that research shows logging errors are extremely common).
So, you really are the one who needs to provide an alternative hypothesis.Clearly the explanation is something you don't understand either because you wouldn't have to convince yourself of large changes in measurement methods if you actually understood what happened.
Didn't you already swear up and down that your instrumentation and method didn't change (e.g., that you used the same scale and that you weighed everything you ate)? So, actually, your measurement methods didn't change. Your error, as you described it, was suggestive of nonsystematic, nonrandom error. That tends to suggest human error.
Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is typically the best one. You've suggesting there's some process "we don't understand" explaining your results. Whether you like it or not, you're obliquely suggesting that one of the explanations may be that visceral body mass can be created when the body is in a state of calorie deficit (which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics).
You've also said that your results may in fact be in keeping with the principle of CICO, but in a 'way we can't explain' (well, I can - it's measurement error).
And around and around we go.
5 -
I don't either. Your response to not understanding it is to conclude with certainty that I didn't log accurately, despite being unsure how.[/quote]midwesterner85 wrote: »
You don't understand how I obtained such results.midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Physics doesn't lie. If CICO didn't work 100% of the time, sub-Saharan Africa would be packed with fat people, instead of people who look like they're made of sticks.
Not exactly - it would only take 1 person to prove it doesn't work 100% of the time, so "packed with fat people" is an enormous exaggeration. From photographers trying to document starvation conditions, do you think that person ever gets attention?
Fine let's say CICO works 99.99999+% percent of the time. Then we can be in agreement.
I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I agree it works in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are some situations where it is not that simple. The MFP forums will have a disproportionately larger share than the population as a whole simply because this is where those who struggle with weight loss (when following CICO) are likely to seek help. For many of those seeking help, there are CICO-based solutions (tighter logging, for example), but there are still going to be some who cannot be helped by those CICO-based answers. And of all places in the world to find such a person, the MFP forums are one of the most likely places to encounter people who don't fit the CICO mold.
I absolutely agree with you that there are unusual, outlier cases (though they're rare). What I disagree about is the nature of those cases, even while agreeing that it isn't necessarily always "will power" or logging or somesuch.
IMO, there are people for whom the regular calorie-needs calculators/estimators are way, way off. (I'm one, at the moment, but in the happier direction. I have MFP friends who are outliers in the unhappy direction, and I believe them.) Yup, those people are more likely to post in the forums.
IMO, this does not mean "CICO doesn't work". Their personal calories in and their personal calories out still need to be in the relationship of CI < CO in order for them to lose weight. But something's seriously out of whack, in those very, very few cases, in how their CI or CO operate.
I don't know what it is. It's probably different for all of them. Could be the difference between the "organic apple" and the "pesticide-soaked apple" mentioned above. Could be that they're fidget-y people or non-fidget-y (which makes a surprisingly large difference on the CO side). Could be a metabolic medical issue. Could be gut microbiome. Who knows? But CI < CO to lose weight really, really is just physics.
(edited to fix typo)
I think some of this is semantics. Even if CICO does work, in situations where nobody can understand exactly why a particular person can't make it work as expected, it doesn't make any difference to that person whether there is some explanation somewhere that explains that it is all just CICO and the factors that make it up are unknown. It doesn't make a difference between saying that CICO works and there are unknown factors affecting the formula when compared with saying it doesn't work. As I would see things, the formula isn't working - there may be an explanation for why it isn't working, and maybe that explanation is that a person's BMR suddenly dropped 1K calories per day for a perfectly legitimate reason. But if that reason is unknown and a solution is therefore unknown, then CICO isn't working for them. Sure, the math might be there somewhere hidden away, but if it doesn't help a person lose weight, by definition, it doesn't work.
To me, that is not semantics. The estimation of CI/CO, or the process of calorie counting is not working for the person. That would be clear. But the underlying physics doesn't change.
If they think the whole thing is invalid, they may just give up entirely or try something completely counter to CICO which would of course be a failure. At least if they keep in mind that CICO still holds true, they know in general how to make adjustments that will eventually make them successful (and if medical issues make those adjustments inadvisable, they know that, too).
It really is not that simple. Here is an example: I once was frustrated at how slowly I was losing weight, so I cut calorie intake by 500 calories / day. I didn't make any changes to how I was measuring calorie intake nor did I make any changes to how I was measuring calories out. Almost immediately, I began to gain weight at a pace of almost 2 lbs. / week. So I increased my deficit and the result changed from a slow loss to a fast gain. While I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this result, I don't really know what it is. Maybe the scientific explanation, whatever it is, fits within CICO. Even if that is the case, the general adjustments one would make when considering CICO didn't work. In my situation, I returned to a smaller deficit and started losing weight again... slowly again (and was further behind at this point). In that case, CICO didn't work... at least not in a way that knowing in general how to make adjustments did any good.
The problem is your example assumes you precisely measured calories in, and that you precisely measured calories out.
Simplest explanation more often than not being the best one (Occam's Razor), you weren't measuring your inputs and outputs properly. In fact, I would say with basically 100% certainty than in every case where a person on these boards says "CICO didn't work for me" (barring issues like edema or malignancy) the above is really what is happening - measurement error. The measurement error may be systematic or nonsystematic (the latter which probably explains your results above), but it's measurement error just the same.
Like I said, I didn't change the method used (yes, I was using the same digital food scale) to measure calories in, nor did I change the method used to measure calories out. It doesn't make a lot of sense that, without changing measurement method, I suddenly began under-estimating calorie intake to an extent that I was eating twice what I thought. It also doesn't make sense to assume that when I raised calorie intake without changing measurement method, I suddenly started measuring properly again without actually changing the method. None of that makes sense. Sure, it is the easy answer and it is a way you can justify your argument that CICO is infallible; but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: CICO isn't perfect.
It's not about the scale. It's about the person operating the scale. Human error.
I didn't change any method. Could you elaborate exactly how you think I suddenly started operating the scale wrong and then suddenly started operating the scale right again at the times I decreased and then increased calorie intake? If you are saying I went from adding plate weight to no longer adding plate weight, then you are wrong. What, specifically, do you think I changed about how I operated the scale during that time to accidentally eat so many more calories per day for that period of time only?
Why am I supposed to explain how human error cropped up in your case? Regardless, it fits your results. Instrumentation error tends to produce systematic measurement error. Human error is much more likely to produce nonsystematic error, which is exactly what you're describing.
I certainly have no idea how you produced those kinds of results. But I can tell how this is going to go - you're going to swear up and down that when you say you cut your intake by 500 calories, well, darn it, it was precisely 500 calories and I know that for a fact!! I say that basic physics dictates that mass can't be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), so the only explanation left is human error - the nature of which I'm not able to explain, since I have had no opportunity to observe you 24/7.
You have to explain how because it's your assertion that this is what happened. It is quite evident to me that you are throwing your hands up and saying you don't understand what happened and therefore, I must have logged incorrectly. In your mind, there is no other way (whether you understand it or not) that my results occurred. While I don't understand why that is what happened either, I'm different in that I will acknowledge there are things I don't understand. I'm sure there is, in fact, a scientific explanation... I just don't know it (and you don't know it). Maybe that explanation validates CICO in a way that is more complicated than you are willing to acknowledge. Maybe that explanation disproves CICO. I don't know, but I do know that if you are going to say with certainty that I must not be logging properly, you need to be able to explain that answer better than "Human error is much more likely."
There's literally a million+ different ways human error could have biased your measurements to the point of such inaccuracy. Just a sampling (and you'll deny you did any of them, so there's really no point in bringing them up): you weren't paying attention to other things you were eating. You didn't count particular foods. You forgot to count things you actually ate. You entered things incorrectly. Etc.
I don't need to explain your error. It's enough that human error exists, it's common (rampant, really) and it's a far more sensible explanation for what happened to you than positing some sort of mysterious process that we can't name.
If you are making the point that I've made an error, then yes you do need to explain it. And you are right about one thing... I will deny that I eat things that I don't log.
To be fair, I just offered some pretty boring and sensible explanations of your error (which all fall under the category of "you're not logging accurately"), and as I predicted, you deny all of them. And you will deny all of them. That's your shtick, apparently.
Since it's simply flat-out impossible to get fat without eating at a calorie surplus, there's really no other way for this conversation to go. Have a nice day!
Incorrect. I understand just fine.
I'm unsure how you made your logging errors - simply because I have never observed you. But again, I understand completely that your logging was inaccurate.
[/quote]My response is to acknowledge that there is an explanation that I don't understand.[/quote]
That's a cop-out.
[/quote]Clearly the explanation is something you don't understand either because you wouldn't have to convince yourself of large changes in measurement methods if you actually understood what happened.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're saying. You already explained that your instrumentation and method didn't change (e.g., that you used the same scale and that you weighed everything you ate). So, your measurement methods didn't change. Your error had a nonzero mean, which is indicative of nonsystematic error. That tends to suggest human error.
Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is typically the best one. You've suggesting there's some process "we don't understand" explaining your results. You've obliquely suggested that one of the explanations may be that visceral body mass can be created when the body is in a state of calorie deficit (which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics). You've also said that your results may in fact be in keeping with the principle of CICO, but in a 'way we can't explain' (well, I can - it's measurement error).
And around and around we go.
[/quote]
Still, you are just saying I must have made a measurement error because it is the easy answer. I'm sure that isn't the case, and you really can't explain how that is the case. We aren't going around and around... we are at the same place we have been for awhile. Since you can't determine how I made a measurement error but are certain that I did, then you can move forward by providing how you are saying I made a measurement error (which you have said you can't do) or by acknowledging there may be another explanation (which you clearly won't do). If you want to move forward on this topic, it's up to you.2 -
Still, you are just saying I must have made a measurement error because it is the easy answer. I'm sure that isn't the case, and you really can't explain how that is the case. We aren't going around and around... we are at the same place we have been for awhile. Since you can't determine how I made a measurement error but are certain that I did, then you can move forward by providing how you are saying I made a measurement error (which you have said you can't do) or by acknowledging there may be another explanation (which you clearly won't do). If you want to move forward on this topic, it's up to you.
I said: "you weren't paying attention to other things you were eating. You didn't count particular foods. You forgot to count things you actually ate. You entered things incorrectly"
Your response: "no I didn't - I measured everything with 100 percent precision."
You're demanding we all assume your ability to log your exercise and log your intake has 100%, utter, complete, laboratory-level precision. Why should I assume this about a person I don't know, have never met, and have never observed?
I hate to break it to you - but you're not special.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions