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
-
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.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
9 -
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.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
0 -
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.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
The possibility that something nondescript and non-specific might maybe be going on? The next step in a situation like that is to attempt to nail down and/or eliminate some possibilities. He doesn't feel comfortable progressing to that step, so like I said, I don't really see the point in continuing to theorize8 -
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.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
The possibility that something nondescript and non-specific might maybe be going on? The next step in a situation like that is to attempt to nail down and/or eliminate some possibilities. He doesn't feel comfortable progressing to that step, so like I said, I don't really see the point in continuing to theorize
Seemed pretty specific to me. He says he decreased caloric intake, according to his normal routine for measuring CI, by 500 calories and gained weight. Many seem to doubt the veracity of that statement that he decreased CI and gained weight at the same time. They seem to say that this situation would contradict the concept of CICO. I don't think that is necessarily true.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 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.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.5 -
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.
Guess I just don't see how any of it matters without the relevant data.
Are you of the opinion that the situation he describes is impossible?
The possibility that something nondescript and non-specific might maybe be going on? The next step in a situation like that is to attempt to nail down and/or eliminate some possibilities. He doesn't feel comfortable progressing to that step, so like I said, I don't really see the point in continuing to theorize
Seemed pretty specific to me. He says he decreased caloric intake, according to his normal routine for measuring CI, by 500 calories and gained weight. Many seem to doubt the veracity of that statement that he decreased CI and gained weight at the same time. They seem to say that this situation would contradict the concept of CICO. I don't think that is necessarily true.
Logging details have been requested and he elected not to provide.4 -
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 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.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
Sure it can. There are only so many conclusions which could be reached about the logging details. We could list those possibilities and analyze their feasibility.
ETA: meaning feasibility as it relates to CICO and the laws of thermodynamics.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 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.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
Sure it can. There are only so many conclusions which could be reached about the logging details. We could list those possibilities and analyze their feasibility.
I guess I don't see the fun in a purely speculative analysis of someone's diet when there is absolutely no information to go on, but I suppose it could be an interesting exercise in logic the same way hypothesizing about what it would take to sustain a population of great apes in the American Northwest is an exercise in logic.
If you want to make a list of all the ways someone's logging can be inaccurate, I won't stand in your way.5 -
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 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.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
Sure it can. There are only so many conclusions which could be reached about the logging details. We could list those possibilities and analyze their feasibility.
I guess I don't see the fun in a purely speculative analysis of someone's diet when there is absolutely no information to go on, but I suppose it could be an interesting exercise in logic the same way hypothesizing about what it would take to sustain a population of great apes in the American Northwest is an exercise in logic.
If you want to make a list of all the ways someone's logging can be inaccurate, I won't stand in your way.
There seems to be a majority consensus that what he proposes is impossible. The data you seek will neither prove nor disprove that assertion. Therefore, it is unnecessary.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 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.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
Sure it can. There are only so many conclusions which could be reached about the logging details. We could list those possibilities and analyze their feasibility.
I guess I don't see the fun in a purely speculative analysis of someone's diet when there is absolutely no information to go on, but I suppose it could be an interesting exercise in logic the same way hypothesizing about what it would take to sustain a population of great apes in the American Northwest is an exercise in logic.
If you want to make a list of all the ways someone's logging can be inaccurate, I won't stand in your way.
There seems to be a majority consensus that what he proposes is impossible. The data you seek will neither prove nor disprove that assertion. Therefore, it is unnecessary.
Uhh...I'm not seeking data. I think the whole thing is rather silly. I already said what I think happened, but I don't really care one way or the other.
Also, I just want to say that I only meant for my last post to be humorous, not to sound belittling. I actually do think that a list of all the ways that one's logging could be unwittingly incorrect would make an interesting thread.2 -
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 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.
This is what he says about it. Unless I missed something early on, he's leaving the door open to the possibility that it was water weight or retained waste.
I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
Sure it can. There are only so many conclusions which could be reached about the logging details. We could list those possibilities and analyze their feasibility.
I guess I don't see the fun in a purely speculative analysis of someone's diet when there is absolutely no information to go on, but I suppose it could be an interesting exercise in logic the same way hypothesizing about what it would take to sustain a population of great apes in the American Northwest is an exercise in logic.
If you want to make a list of all the ways someone's logging can be inaccurate, I won't stand in your way.
There seems to be a majority consensus that what he proposes is impossible. The data you seek will neither prove nor disprove that assertion. Therefore, it is unnecessary.
Have you ever participated in an MFP diary review?3 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
That was a totally different situation... it was DKA, it was more than a couple dozen lbs., and I almost died. It isn't something that most people can do and isn't something anyone should do intentionally.1 -
Yeah, that already sounded rather implausible to happen even in a situation where you almost died. Losing a pound of body mass every other hour. Not to sound rude but it seems you have an issue misremembering things caused by a traumatic experience there and that might cloud your common sense in situations like the one presented here.9
-
stevencloser wrote: »Yeah, that already sounded rather implausible to happen even in a situation where you almost died. Losing a pound of body mass every other hour.
Certainly is possible to lose weight at an alarming rate when your body's collapsing. Pre-Chron's diagnosis I dropped fifteen pounds in four days as my body struggled valiantly to fight off multiple systemic infections while I was leaking blood all over and couldn't force myself to eat.
Spent five days in hospital for that one and had a five-page list of medications given during the stay.0 -
2 -
CipherZero wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Yeah, that already sounded rather implausible to happen even in a situation where you almost died. Losing a pound of body mass every other hour.
Certainly is possible to lose weight at an alarming rate when your body's collapsing. Pre-Chron's diagnosis I dropped fifteen pounds in four days as my body struggled valiantly to fight off multiple systemic infections while I was leaking blood all over and couldn't force myself to eat.
Spent five days in hospital for that one and had a five-page list of medications given during the stay.
Yeah, but his claim was more than 3 times as much loss in less time than that. That borders on being able to see them shrinking with the naked eye.
Rapid weight loss is a symptom of DKA but the amounts he claimed are unrealistic due to the nature of the weight loss DKA causes. As far as I can see from any sources, it is caused by no insulin being present, so the carbs and protein they ate basically going to waste while more and more ketones build up to give you the energy to survive, which is bad. So since the weight loss is simply caused by standard energy usage, it would put his energy usage at a good 30 times a normal person's over that time. Even if you assume one also loses a ton of water additionally, it would still be unrealistic amounts of loss.
I do think midwesterner is misremembering the amount of weight he lost (traumatic experiences like that tend to do that), which causes his suspicions about CICO for even trivial things like a 5 pound gain which could be explained by a lot of things without having to rewrite the laws of physics and evolutionary mechanisms to be as efficient as possible at all times.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Yeah, that already sounded rather implausible to happen even in a situation where you almost died. Losing a pound of body mass every other hour.
Certainly is possible to lose weight at an alarming rate when your body's collapsing. Pre-Chron's diagnosis I dropped fifteen pounds in four days as my body struggled valiantly to fight off multiple systemic infections while I was leaking blood all over and couldn't force myself to eat.
Spent five days in hospital for that one and had a five-page list of medications given during the stay.
Yeah, but his claim was more than 3 times as much loss in less time than that. That borders on being able to see them shrinking with the naked eye.
Rapid weight loss is a symptom of DKA but the amounts he claimed are unrealistic due to the nature of the weight loss DKA causes. As far as I can see from any sources, it is caused by no insulin being present, so the carbs and protein they ate basically going to waste while more and more ketones build up to give you the energy to survive, which is bad. So since the weight loss is simply caused by standard energy usage, it would put his energy usage at a good 30 times a normal person's over that time. Even if you assume one also loses a ton of water additionally, it would still be unrealistic amounts of loss.
I do think midwesterner is misremembering the amount of weight he lost (traumatic experiences like that tend to do that), which causes his suspicions about CICO for even trivial things like a 5 pound gain which could be explained by a lot of things without having to rewrite the laws of physics and evolutionary mechanisms to be as efficient as possible at all times.
It's actually more complicated than that with DKA. Since a person in such case cannot access glucose, any of the fat and muscle that is converted back to glucose ends up wasted. Some of it stays in the blood and will eventually get used or converted back to fat when insulin is taken again. Much of it is expelled through urine through osmotic diuresis. Here's the important part: A person in DKA cannot access glucose. So their body will burn fat and create glucose, but then can't get to it... so it will burn more fat and create more glucose, which will get expelled through urine. Only some of the fat that is broken down during this process is actually used, so the CICO equation now includes not only RMR and activity, but it also includes a large amount of excretion (through urine).1 -
honestly, if weight loss was as easily as CICO or hey fatty-put down the donut and go for a jog aaannndd we're good the diet, weight loss, fitness and supplement industry would not be worth the billions its currently worth.2
-
Bluejedi79 wrote: »honestly, if weight loss was as easily as CICO or hey fatty-put down the donut and go for a jog aaannndd we're good the diet, weight loss, fitness and supplement industry would not be worth the billions its currently worth.
Ooorrr, it's worth that because people don't want to believe that's all there is to it. I mean where's the fun in that? Eat less move more, rinse repeat. BORING!!
18 -
Bluejedi79 wrote: »honestly, if weight loss was as easily as CICO or hey fatty-put down the donut and go for a jog aaannndd we're good the diet, weight loss, fitness and supplement industry would not be worth the billions its currently worth.
It is as easy as CICO. Now is it as easy to implement? Not always. Humans are complex beings, and simple easy things that make sense do not always go well against habits, culture, food availability, hunger, hormones, patience, willpower..etc.
Making money as as simple as getting a job, but what job you choose, how good you are at it, supply and demand, how it pays in your area, how much are you willing to invest into it and how long you have to wait to see a good return...etc. No wonder there so many "get rich quick" schemes, because humans like things, like them easy, and like them now. Having industries that try to capitalize on human needs is nothing new, even when the answer is staring you right in the face.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions