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
Options
Replies
-
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.
What would be an example of the effects of CICO not being felt? The only one I can think of is when CI=CO. Are there other cases?
It seems like there's often a lot of effort to make this more complicated than it is. Here are assumption I make about all this:
1) No one here on these boards are able to precisely measure CI or CO.
2) Therefore, our calorie and exercise logging is based on estimates. Which are subject to instrumentation and human error (systematic and otherwise).
3) You can't violate the principle of Conservation of Energy (e.g., or "calories in, calories out")
Ergo, *any* person here who claims they gain weight on a calorie deficit is wrong. It's measurement error.
I know all that, but @moe0303 compared the effects of gravity not always being felt to the effects of CICO not always being felt. I was just curious when, in his opinion, that might be the case aside from when CI=CO.
I guess still losing fat but retaining water?1 -
I like how this whole decreased calories and gained weight is being touted as this OMG when this happens to tons of women every single month.11
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
I'm saying that there was an occasion where I cut calorie intake by 500 calories per day and the results were that I went from a small loss before to gaining 2 lbs/ week after cutting calories. I am not suggesting that it was any particular type of weight, because I really don't know. It very well could have water retention for some reason.1 -
stevencloser 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.
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.
What would be an example of the effects of CICO not being felt? The only one I can think of is when CI=CO. Are there other cases?
It seems like there's often a lot of effort to make this more complicated than it is. Here are assumption I make about all this:
1) No one here on these boards are able to precisely measure CI or CO.
2) Therefore, our calorie and exercise logging is based on estimates. Which are subject to instrumentation and human error (systematic and otherwise).
3) You can't violate the principle of Conservation of Energy (e.g., or "calories in, calories out")
Ergo, *any* person here who claims they gain weight on a calorie deficit is wrong. It's measurement error.
I know all that, but @moe0303 compared the effects of gravity not always being felt to the effects of CICO not always being felt. I was just curious when, in his opinion, that might be the case aside from when CI=CO.
I guess still losing fat but retaining water?
Oh, yeah. I didn't think of that. Makes perfect sense.
Thanks!0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
I'm saying that there was an occasion where I cut calorie intake by 500 calories per day and the results were that I went from a small deficit before to gaining 2 lbs/ week after cutting calories. I am not suggesting that it was any particular type of weight, because I really don't know. It very well could have water retention for some reason.
Thanks for answering! I'm glad to hear it from the horse's mouth. I'm going to go with it was water weight, unless you were on some sleeping medication during that time and had a problem with "sleep-eating" that you didn't know about.
Edit: How long did the 2 lb/week gain last? Did you do something to make it stop, or did it stop on it's own? Did you start losing weight again after?1 -
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
I'm saying that there was an occasion where I cut calorie intake by 500 calories per day and the results were that I went from a small deficit before to gaining 2 lbs/ week after cutting calories. I am not suggesting that it was any particular type of weight, because I really don't know. It very well could have water retention for some reason.
Thanks for answering! I'm glad to hear it from the horse's mouth. I'm going to go with it was water weight, unless you were on some sleeping medication during that time and had a problem with "sleep-eating" that you didn't know about.
Edit: How long did the 2 lb/week gain last? Did you do something to make it stop, or did it stop on it's own? Did you start losing weight again after?
It lasted just over 3 weeks and I gained about 8 lbs.. I didn't want to go on because I was gaining so fast and it was going to be harder to lose that again if it continued longer. At that point, I increased calorie intake to the previous level and started losing weight again (albeit just as slowly as before cutting calories).0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
On page 8, he said that "maybe" one explanation for the results he got is that CICO didn't apply to him (e.g., "Maybe that explanation disproves CICO").
So, if it "disproves CICO," then it means he thinks it's possible the principle of Conservation of Energy doesn't apply and that mass can be generated from nothing (unless we're saying that water retention "disproves CICO." Which is pendantic and silly and I don't think anyone is arguing that)
There's really only two possibilities at play when someone gains (non water) weight and claims they're on a caloric deficit. One, they're measuring wrong. Two, they've discovered how to magically conjure up mass from nothing at all. Which would be totally cool.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
On page 8, he said that "maybe" one explanation for the results he got is that CICO didn't apply to him (e.g., "Maybe that explanation disproves CICO").
So, if it "disproves CICO," then it means he thinks it's possible the principle of Conservation of Energy doesn't apply and that mass can be generated from nothing (unless we're saying that water retention "disproves CICO." Which is pendantic and silly and I don't think anyone is arguing that)
There's really only two possibilities at play when someone gains (non water) weight and claims they're on a caloric deficit. One, they're measuring wrong. Two, they've discovered how to magically conjure up mass from nothing at all. Which would be totally cool.
Or, Three, they're not pooping.9 -
Or four, they're just habitual exaggerators.8
-
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.
What would be an example of the effects of CICO not being felt? The only one I can think of is when CI=CO. Are there other cases?
It seems like there's often a lot of effort to make this more complicated than it is. Here are assumption I make about all this:
1) No one here on these boards are able to precisely measure CI or CO.
2) Therefore, our calorie and exercise logging is based on estimates. Which are subject to instrumentation and human error (systematic and otherwise).
3) You can't violate the principle of Conservation of Energy (e.g., or "calories in, calories out")
Ergo, *any* person here who claims they gain weight on a calorie deficit is wrong. It's measurement error.
I know all that, but @moe0303 compared the effects of gravity not always being felt to the effects of CICO not always being felt. I was just curious when, in his opinion, that might be the case aside from when CI=CO.
In an earlier post I used the word "perceived" instead of "felt". Such a case would arise (as implied) due to ineffective or impractical means of measuring various factors on either side of the energy equation. In common practice, there is potential for a high margin of error brought about because virtually every factor involved in the equation is an estimated number. This rings true on both sides of the energy equation. Someone who meticulously logs, weighs and measures food could still be measuring their CI inaccurately. Those same people are not likely to be measuring their CO at all and instead opting to utilize formulas based on a norm to estimate their CO. Therefore, if there are failings in the conventional implementation of the CICO concept, it is not unlikely that one could perceive it as not applying to them. Practically speaking, they are correct. Conceptually speaking, they are not.5 -
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.
What would be an example of the effects of CICO not being felt? The only one I can think of is when CI=CO. Are there other cases?
It seems like there's often a lot of effort to make this more complicated than it is. Here are assumption I make about all this:
1) No one here on these boards are able to precisely measure CI or CO.
2) Therefore, our calorie and exercise logging is based on estimates. Which are subject to instrumentation and human error (systematic and otherwise).
3) You can't violate the principle of Conservation of Energy (e.g., or "calories in, calories out")
Ergo, *any* person here who claims they gain weight on a calorie deficit is wrong. It's measurement error.
I know all that, but @moe0303 compared the effects of gravity not always being felt to the effects of CICO not always being felt. I was just curious when, in his opinion, that might be the case aside from when CI=CO.
In an earlier post I used the word "perceived" instead of "felt". Such a case would arise (as implied) due to ineffective or impractical means of measuring various factors on either side of the energy equation. In common practice, there is potential for a high margin of error brought about because virtually every factor involved in the equation is an estimated number. This rings true on both sides of the energy equation. Someone who meticulously logs, weighs and measures food could still be measuring their CI inaccurately. Those same people are not likely to be measuring their CO at all and instead opting to utilize formulas based on a norm to estimate their CO. Therefore, if there are failings in the conventional implementation of the CICO concept, it is not unlikely that one could perceive it as not applying to them. Practically speaking, they are correct. Conceptually speaking, they are not.
Thanks! Great explanation!1 -
T. S. Eliot — 'Humankind cannot bear very much reality.'5
-
1 Word...HABIT!0
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »
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 do that? I hate to break it to you - but you're not special.
No, I'm not demanding or expecting that. I changed from a small loss to a large gain and then to a small loss again without changing measurement methods; and by only changing calorie intake. You are saying it is because I didn't log correctly, and I'm expecting you to explain how exactly you think I was not logging correctly.
If something was being measured incorrectly, it was being measured incorrectly when I was losing and eating more calories since my measurement method and tool did not change. I'm not saying it was with clinical precision, but it was consistent. You are arguing that, during the time period when I was gaining, I was eating additional calories that I wasn't logging. I expect to you to believe that I wasn't eating things without logging them. Sure, maybe the food scale counted 2g less than actual... the same food scale that counted 2g less than actual when I was losing weight. For CICO to be correct and for your assertion that I was measuring incorrectly, I was putting more food on the scale than before and after I cut calorie intake, yet it was displaying an amount that was significantly less... for only that short period of time.
You realize the major flaw in this entire discussion is that it's completely dependent on your stated version of events. I have no way of knowing whether little green men biased your results, or that you've discovered how to spontaneously generate mass from nothing. Which makes the whole business of you telling me I need to explain the nature of your errors a completely pointless affair. Since you're the ultimate arbiter, you just get to reject everything that doesn't fit your desired storyline.
Again, the simpler (and likely better) explanation is that it's, again, human error, and your account isn't entirely accurate or complete. There's nothing mysterious about it in my mind.
(lather, rinse, repeat)
Right, I know what happened and you don't. I agree this puts you at a disadvantage in trying to determine how it happened. Rather than acknowledge this from the beginning, you instead were certain (and still are certain) that I had to have been logging incorrectly despite having no direct knowledge of the facts of the situation.
Except since you've stated that you wont share your data with the excuse "people criticise what I eat" (that has to be the lamest excuse here possible) no one is going to believe you.9 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »
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 do that? I hate to break it to you - but you're not special.
No, I'm not demanding or expecting that. I changed from a small loss to a large gain and then to a small loss again without changing measurement methods; and by only changing calorie intake. You are saying it is because I didn't log correctly, and I'm expecting you to explain how exactly you think I was not logging correctly.
If something was being measured incorrectly, it was being measured incorrectly when I was losing and eating more calories since my measurement method and tool did not change. I'm not saying it was with clinical precision, but it was consistent. You are arguing that, during the time period when I was gaining, I was eating additional calories that I wasn't logging. I expect to you to believe that I wasn't eating things without logging them. Sure, maybe the food scale counted 2g less than actual... the same food scale that counted 2g less than actual when I was losing weight. For CICO to be correct and for your assertion that I was measuring incorrectly, I was putting more food on the scale than before and after I cut calorie intake, yet it was displaying an amount that was significantly less... for only that short period of time.
You realize the major flaw in this entire discussion is that it's completely dependent on your stated version of events. I have no way of knowing whether little green men biased your results, or that you've discovered how to spontaneously generate mass from nothing. Which makes the whole business of you telling me I need to explain the nature of your errors a completely pointless affair. Since you're the ultimate arbiter, you just get to reject everything that doesn't fit your desired storyline.
Again, the simpler (and likely better) explanation is that it's, again, human error, and your account isn't entirely accurate or complete. There's nothing mysterious about it in my mind.
(lather, rinse, repeat)
Right, I know what happened and you don't. I agree this puts you at a disadvantage in trying to determine how it happened. Rather than acknowledge this from the beginning, you instead were certain (and still are certain) that I had to have been logging incorrectly despite having no direct knowledge of the facts of the situation.
Except since you've stated that you wont share your data with the excuse "people criticise what I eat" (that has to be the lamest excuse here possible) no one is going to believe you.
It isn't that people will criticize what I eat, it is that people will argue I must be lying. Like I said, this has happened in the past more than once where someone will claim it is not even possible to eat a particular combination of foods.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »Could midwesterner85's results have had something to do with the autoimmune disease that was mentioned? Is t one that affects the metabolism like Hashimoto's (low thyroid)?
I think he said he's already been checked out by a doctor and they said he's fine, unless I'm misremembering things.
You are mis-remembering things. What I said was that it was consistent throughout. I was losing slowly, then cut CI and started rapidly gaining, then raised calories to previous level and started losing slowly again without any change during that time to my health status or treatments.
Ummmm so does that mean you were diagnosed with a metabolic disorder or not....?
I have auto-immune diseases, yes. Is there a way that my BMR suddenly dropped during the same time I cut CI? My RMR would have to be around 110 cal/day during that time for the math to make sense.
Well, regardless, it still leaves us with only two explanations - you spontaneously generated body mass from nothing, or you didn't log accurately. You know which explanation I prefer.
Are we sure it wasn't water weight?
Even that isn't "generating body mass from nothing." Water in, water out.
Yes, but I don't think he's actually claiming his extra pounds were generated from nothing. Or is he?
I'm saying that there was an occasion where I cut calorie intake by 500 calories per day and the results were that I went from a small deficit before to gaining 2 lbs/ week after cutting calories. I am not suggesting that it was any particular type of weight, because I really don't know. It very well could have water retention for some reason.
Thanks for answering! I'm glad to hear it from the horse's mouth. I'm going to go with it was water weight, unless you were on some sleeping medication during that time and had a problem with "sleep-eating" that you didn't know about.
Edit: How long did the 2 lb/week gain last? Did you do something to make it stop, or did it stop on it's own? Did you start losing weight again after?
It lasted just over 3 weeks and I gained about 8 lbs.. I didn't want to go on because I was gaining so fast and it was going to be harder to lose that again if it continued longer. At that point, I increased calorie intake to the previous level and started losing weight again (albeit just as slowly as before cutting calories).
Have you read about cortisol's role in water weight gain and how it's the culprit in many many low calorie plateaus, where a lower calorie diet is recognized as a stressor driving cortisol up, and how increasing calories reversed those effects?
Have you also read that the more people lower their calories the more prone they are to have calorie amnesia and distorted portions?
Have you considered potential gastro issues from decreased calories causing slower gastric emptying?
The possibilities are endless, and every single one of them is more plausible than your body somehow conjuring energy from thin air or adapting its processes enough to operate on the energy requirements of a newborn.12 -
Wrt @midwesterner85's situation, why do we assume that the cause of the anomaly falls on the CI side of the equation? While I agree that this would be a common cause, he has related that his situation is not normal. There are a number of factors on either side of the equation (besides inaccurate logging) which could cause the change he described.1
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »
It isn't that people will criticize what I eat, it is that people will argue I must be lying. Like I said, this has happened in the past more than once where someone will claim it is not even possible to eat a particular combination of foods.
Do you mean you eat what someone thought was weird ? Raisin bran with tomato soup? Yogurt with sardines? If thats what you like to eat then fug'em who don't like it! LOL
My son used to love still frozen waffles and ketchup...6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »
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 do that? I hate to break it to you - but you're not special.
No, I'm not demanding or expecting that. I changed from a small loss to a large gain and then to a small loss again without changing measurement methods; and by only changing calorie intake. You are saying it is because I didn't log correctly, and I'm expecting you to explain how exactly you think I was not logging correctly.
If something was being measured incorrectly, it was being measured incorrectly when I was losing and eating more calories since my measurement method and tool did not change. I'm not saying it was with clinical precision, but it was consistent. You are arguing that, during the time period when I was gaining, I was eating additional calories that I wasn't logging. I expect to you to believe that I wasn't eating things without logging them. Sure, maybe the food scale counted 2g less than actual... the same food scale that counted 2g less than actual when I was losing weight. For CICO to be correct and for your assertion that I was measuring incorrectly, I was putting more food on the scale than before and after I cut calorie intake, yet it was displaying an amount that was significantly less... for only that short period of time.
You realize the major flaw in this entire discussion is that it's completely dependent on your stated version of events. I have no way of knowing whether little green men biased your results, or that you've discovered how to spontaneously generate mass from nothing. Which makes the whole business of you telling me I need to explain the nature of your errors a completely pointless affair. Since you're the ultimate arbiter, you just get to reject everything that doesn't fit your desired storyline.
Again, the simpler (and likely better) explanation is that it's, again, human error, and your account isn't entirely accurate or complete. There's nothing mysterious about it in my mind.
(lather, rinse, repeat)
Right, I know what happened and you don't. I agree this puts you at a disadvantage in trying to determine how it happened. Rather than acknowledge this from the beginning, you instead were certain (and still are certain) that I had to have been logging incorrectly despite having no direct knowledge of the facts of the situation.
Except since you've stated that you wont share your data with the excuse "people criticise what I eat" (that has to be the lamest excuse here possible) no one is going to believe you.
It isn't that people will criticize what I eat, it is that people will argue I must be lying. Like I said, this has happened in the past more than once where someone will claim it is not even possible to eat a particular combination of foods.
If I remember right you once said a medical condition made you lose a couple dozen pounds or so in a couple of days.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions