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
-
mskessler89 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are under hormonal control?
This still doesn't negate CICO. Your hormones being out of whack somehow will impact the CO side of the equation, and your diet can affect your hormones. CICO still applies, but models based on averages, where average is a person with no medical/hormonal issues, will not give a good estimation of CO.
^Yeah, that.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.
Regarding that post, I took no offense.
You said:I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
I took that as a call for more information. JaneiR also mentioned relevant data earlier.
All I am saying is that it is conceivable for someone with his history, in particular, to have difficulty perceiving a meaningful affect from conventional CICO implementation due to the fact that he is an anomaly and as such, would be unlikely to have accurate caloric estimations while using conventional formulas.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.
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.
Regarding that post, I took no offense.
You said:I agree with JaneiR36. The discussion can progress no further unless he provides more information. It's his prerogative to decline to do so.
I took that as a call for more information. JaneiR also mentioned relevant data earlier.
All I am saying is that it is conceivable for someone with his history, in particular, to have difficulty perceiving a meaningful affect from conventional CICO implementation due to the fact that he is an anomaly and as such, would be unlikely to have accurate caloric estimations while using conventional formulas.
I see what you're saying. Thanks for explaining it so clearly.
And I'm glad you didn't take offense. I thought later that maybe my post sounded snarky.0 -
Why do people who are overweight or obese need to make an "excuse" for their weight?
How and why a persons body is what it is, is really not the issue. If someone wants to change their body, good for them and good luck. If they don't, what's it to you?
Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect no matter their bmi.7 -
cindylou234 wrote: »Why do people who are overweight or obese need to make an "excuse" for their weight?
How and why a persons body is what it is, is really not the issue. If someone wants to change their body, good for them and good luck. If they don't, what's it to you?
Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect no matter their bmi.
I agree with that.
However, I interpreted the discussion to be relative to the site we are on. Excuse making does happen here with some frequency. And there are those that make it a very public matter. Whitney Thore saying PCOS is why she weighs nearly 400lbs, for instance. This discussion is in response to those who are vocal about it. At least that's my read.6 -
It is easier to lie to ones self than to work hard to improve. People do it in fitness, finances, moral decisions...you name it. Why does this surprise people?
What amazes me is how people pointing fingers like to hold others accountable to standards they themselves don't hold. But wutevs.3 -
extra_medium wrote: »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.
To be fair, we might have said that certain food combinations weren't possible to eat.
Like what?
I have no idea, that was one of the reasons given for the closed diary.0 -
To me personally, people that make excuses for the reasons they are fat are trying to justify it to themselves, If people are truly happy being fat they shouldn't have to justify it to anyone. You can be happy and fat but in most cases the overweight are not happy that they are fat for health reasons or being uncomfortable, other wise the weigh loss industry would bnot be a billion dollar industry.
Whitney Thore likes the excuse that she has PCOS, but actually she ate her way to 400 Lbs.3 -
extra_medium wrote: »extra_medium wrote: »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.
To be fair, we might have said that certain food combinations weren't possible to eat.
Like what?
I have no idea, that was one of the reasons given for the closed diary.
Oh ok. I thought you meant you were one that had previously seen his diary and told him that what he was eating is impossible. I've been wracking my brain to figure out what food combination would be impossible!
1 -
One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
The thing I find hardest is controlling my MFP addiction, which makes it seem like I'm calorie counting a lot longer than 10 minutes a day!!
Though really, because I cook in small batches, it takes longer than 10 minutes a day. Especially when MFP is glitching and refuses to give my searches appropriate results or won't save time and time again, making me have to redo so much calorie counting. Really wish their recipe builder would pull up the same entries I use when I enter ingredients into my diary individually.3 -
One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
The thing I find hardest is controlling my MFP addiction, which makes it seem like I'm calorie counting a lot longer than 10 minutes a day!!
Though really, because I cook in small batches, it takes longer than 10 minutes a day. Especially when MFP is glitching and refuses to give my searches appropriate results or won't save time and time again, making me have to redo so much calorie counting. Really wish their recipe builder would pull up the same entries I use when I enter ingredients into my diary individually.
Interesting. So far we've got the perspective of experienced users (MFP does piss me off too when it's being glitchy), but I wonder if the "no, logging won't work for me" response mainly comes from people who haven't even tried it? That was my assumption, anyway, basically people just writing it off without really ever putting in the effort.2 -
I have for now given up on the recipe builder. sigh. (Katie, you can see my diary,) that's why I enter each salad, sandwich, or omelet ingredient separately.1
-
So the diary is closed because he's not logging or because he was in the hospital for dka? So confused.......0
-
What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.6 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.
Snark is not really intended - please note that you are in the "debate" section of the forums where members are not trying to sugar coat their discussions.
That is a very interesting point that you make about the special needs adults that you work with. People of different heights, ages and activity levels need different amounts of calories to maintain their weight - and men/women have quite significant differences in their caloric needs. It is absolutely expected that giving these adults all the same number of calories would result in their weights being all over the place, because the number of calories each individual requires will differ by quite a lot.9 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.
Snark is not really intended - please note that you are in the "debate" section of the forums where members are not trying to sugar coat their discussions.
That is a very interesting point that you make about the special needs adults that you work with. People of different heights, ages and activity levels need different amounts of calories to maintain their weight - and men/women have quite significant differences in their caloric needs. It is absolutely expected that giving these adults all the same number of calories would result in their weights being all over the place, because the number of calories each individual requires will differ by quite a lot.
I also wonder if just because they're special needs, the previous poster could really be certain that all they eat is what they're fed at meal time?2 -
Do you count calories in olestra? It contains as much chemical energy as any other fat but you can not absorb it.
If not then what about lactose calories in people who do not produce lactase?
How do you count the extra calories burned after resistance training?
1 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »What i find interesting is the implied snark and judgement. People who are here are trying. Give them credit. If our bodies were all identical, and worked all the same, then we could all take the same treatments for illness...with identical results.
I work with special needs adults, in supervised group home settings. They all eat the same diet, with identical portions, but their weights are all over the place. I have had people suggest to us that we STARVE them til they are fit...."for their own good." So lay off the interesting comments unless you happen to be a MD with a background in endocrine studies. You are expert about your own body....period.
Snark is not really intended - please note that you are in the "debate" section of the forums where members are not trying to sugar coat their discussions.
That is a very interesting point that you make about the special needs adults that you work with. People of different heights, ages and activity levels need different amounts of calories to maintain their weight - and men/women have quite significant differences in their caloric needs. It is absolutely expected that giving these adults all the same number of calories would result in their weights being all over the place, because the number of calories each individual requires will differ by quite a lot.
There are not just differences in needs. There are differences in abilities to absorb calories.
The most obvious example would people who do not produce lactase.
There are also differences in calorie expenditure.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions