Fast Metabolism Diet
Replies
-
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
How wonderful that you accomplished weight loss without literally counting calories!
Still doesn't mean that CICO didn't work for you. It simply means that you found a sustainable way for you to eat at a deficit, hence you dropped your weight. There are as many successes for those who don't literally count calories as with those who do.
There are all kinds of things written all over the web, especially about weight loss methods that are nothing but hyperbole based on myth and a desire to sell product.
Again another person that claims they know what I'm doing what I did more than I do. You are simply incorrect. I spent two years torturing myself tying to make calorie deficit and exercise work after it quite working for me. While I could move my weight, it wouldn't stick. Then I started changing what foods I ate and that made a huge difference in both my weight and workout performance. Even eating more calories than before, I lost weight with less exercise time. I did start the changes with a minor additional deficit but quickly started adding back healthy foods. I ended up losing 8kg and eating more per day than what I was doing for two years but a different mix of food and largely free of refined sugar. The main benefit was the loss of the driving hunger.
Now my weight is a couple kg lower, but I'm playing around with meal timing and other ideas. I'm going to start measuring bio markers like blood glucose and chart those and make decisions about what I do. However I'm at a different point now from where I was a the beginning of the year having reduced my body fat by about 8%. (~28% to ~20%) My goal is to reduce my insulin resistance at this point and move my body fat down to about 15%. However at this point I could care less about how many calories I eat, I care about how I feel and how my body is responding. I'm not going to torture myself anymore with trying to maintain calorie deficits which I can't even really control.
You keep saying that, but since you didn't log, you can't prove it. Your claims mean nothing.
Everyone who thinks they have discovered some way of hacking the body's hormonal systems makes outrageous claims about their calorie consumption.
I remember once going to a website that promoted a high starch diet, and they showed a plate of a typical day's food claiming it was 3000 calories. Being an experienced calorie counter and food logger myself, I quickly ran my own count on the plate. If was probably worth 1500.
I've been eating 2500 kc /day and above. I've seen countless thread were people attack logs. Besides most people here don't have a clue about a lot of Japanese foods. The calorie counting mindset here is simply insane and I'm not going to play that game.
Proof is simple, removed added refined sugar from your diet and see what happens. Replace it with things like nuts or complex carbs. If you have too much visceral fat like I did you probably start losing it.
More words, no calorie counts. But that's beside the main point. Because this is turning into bickering at this point.
How about this, back up what you're saying with data from someone else?
Find me one, just one metabolic ward study in controlled conditions done where people lost weight in a calorie surplus.
Then your claims will have some teeth.
Funny, he claimed to have lost weight on 2500 cals per day.
Given that 2500 cals is the standard suggested calorie intake for men to maintain a healthy weight, hypothetically for an overweight man it is enough to be taller and/or more active than average to be able to lose weight at that level.
But... but... but... that would mean CICO is valid!!!7 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
Right. Not understanding how to maximize CICO doesn't make it invalid, just like not being able to figure out how to navigate a Safeway and find affordable healthy food options doesn't make all US grocery stores to blame for obesity...
It's actually quite a testament to ones perceived self importance to think that if I can't figure something out for myself, then the entire system must be flawed...9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
How wonderful that you accomplished weight loss without literally counting calories!
Still doesn't mean that CICO didn't work for you. It simply means that you found a sustainable way for you to eat at a deficit, hence you dropped your weight. There are as many successes for those who don't literally count calories as with those who do.
There are all kinds of things written all over the web, especially about weight loss methods that are nothing but hyperbole based on myth and a desire to sell product.
Again another person that claims they know what I'm doing what I did more than I do. You are simply incorrect. I spent two years torturing myself tying to make calorie deficit and exercise work after it quite working for me. While I could move my weight, it wouldn't stick. Then I started changing what foods I ate and that made a huge difference in both my weight and workout performance. Even eating more calories than before, I lost weight with less exercise time. I did start the changes with a minor additional deficit but quickly started adding back healthy foods. I ended up losing 8kg and eating more per day than what I was doing for two years but a different mix of food and largely free of refined sugar. The main benefit was the loss of the driving hunger.
Now my weight is a couple kg lower, but I'm playing around with meal timing and other ideas. I'm going to start measuring bio markers like blood glucose and chart those and make decisions about what I do. However I'm at a different point now from where I was a the beginning of the year having reduced my body fat by about 8%. (~28% to ~20%) My goal is to reduce my insulin resistance at this point and move my body fat down to about 15%. However at this point I could care less about how many calories I eat, I care about how I feel and how my body is responding. I'm not going to torture myself anymore with trying to maintain calorie deficits which I can't even really control.
You keep saying that, but since you didn't log, you can't prove it. Your claims mean nothing.
Everyone who thinks they have discovered some way of hacking the body's hormonal systems makes outrageous claims about their calorie consumption.
I remember once going to a website that promoted a high starch diet, and they showed a plate of a typical day's food claiming it was 3000 calories. Being an experienced calorie counter and food logger myself, I quickly ran my own count on the plate. If was probably worth 1500.
I've been eating 2500 kc /day and above. I've seen countless thread were people attack logs. Besides most people here don't have a clue about a lot of Japanese foods. The calorie counting mindset here is simply insane and I'm not going to play that game.
Proof is simple, removed added refined sugar from your diet and see what happens. Replace it with things like nuts or complex carbs. If you have too much visceral fat like I did you probably start losing it.
More words, no calorie counts. But that's beside the main point. Because this is turning into bickering at this point.
How about this, back up what you're saying with data from someone else?
Find me one, just one metabolic ward study in controlled conditions done where people lost weight in a calorie surplus.
Then your claims will have some teeth.
Funny, he claimed to have lost weight on 2500 cals per day.
Given that 2500 cals is the standard suggested calorie intake for men to maintain a healthy weight, hypothetically for an overweight man it is enough to be taller and/or more active than average to be able to lose weight at that level.
But... but... but... that would mean CICO is valid!!!
exactly, the fact that someone can lose "comfortably" without counting every single calorie doesn't invalidate CiCo, while other people gain back the weight right after they stop logging.2 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
How wonderful that you accomplished weight loss without literally counting calories!
Still doesn't mean that CICO didn't work for you. It simply means that you found a sustainable way for you to eat at a deficit, hence you dropped your weight. There are as many successes for those who don't literally count calories as with those who do.
There are all kinds of things written all over the web, especially about weight loss methods that are nothing but hyperbole based on myth and a desire to sell product.
Again another person that claims they know what I'm doing what I did more than I do. You are simply incorrect. I spent two years torturing myself tying to make calorie deficit and exercise work after it quite working for me. While I could move my weight, it wouldn't stick. Then I started changing what foods I ate and that made a huge difference in both my weight and workout performance. Even eating more calories than before, I lost weight with less exercise time. I did start the changes with a minor additional deficit but quickly started adding back healthy foods. I ended up losing 8kg and eating more per day than what I was doing for two years but a different mix of food and largely free of refined sugar. The main benefit was the loss of the driving hunger.
Now my weight is a couple kg lower, but I'm playing around with meal timing and other ideas. I'm going to start measuring bio markers like blood glucose and chart those and make decisions about what I do. However I'm at a different point now from where I was a the beginning of the year having reduced my body fat by about 8%. (~28% to ~20%) My goal is to reduce my insulin resistance at this point and move my body fat down to about 15%. However at this point I could care less about how many calories I eat, I care about how I feel and how my body is responding. I'm not going to torture myself anymore with trying to maintain calorie deficits which I can't even really control.
You keep saying that, but since you didn't log, you can't prove it. Your claims mean nothing.
Everyone who thinks they have discovered some way of hacking the body's hormonal systems makes outrageous claims about their calorie consumption.
I remember once going to a website that promoted a high starch diet, and they showed a plate of a typical day's food claiming it was 3000 calories. Being an experienced calorie counter and food logger myself, I quickly ran my own count on the plate. If was probably worth 1500.
I've been eating 2500 kc /day and above. I've seen countless thread were people attack logs. Besides most people here don't have a clue about a lot of Japanese foods. The calorie counting mindset here is simply insane and I'm not going to play that game.
Proof is simple, removed added refined sugar from your diet and see what happens. Replace it with things like nuts or complex carbs. If you have too much visceral fat like I did you probably start losing it.
More words, no calorie counts. But that's beside the main point. Because this is turning into bickering at this point.
How about this, back up what you're saying with data from someone else?
Find me one, just one metabolic ward study in controlled conditions done where people lost weight in a calorie surplus.
Then your claims will have some teeth.
Funny, he claimed to have lost weight on 2500 cals per day.
Given that 2500 cals is the standard suggested calorie intake for men to maintain a healthy weight, hypothetically for an overweight man it is enough to be taller and/or more active than average to be able to lose weight at that level.
Sigh ... 2500 kc is where I'm comfortable at. My body fat is about 20% maybe slightly lower, so I'm not so overweight as you imply.
The reasons why I don't share my log are as follows:
* Logs are never accepted at face value, so it is pointless.
* Many of my foods are Japanese foods that most people outside of Japan wouldn't even know much about.
* Frankly I don't see the need to prove myself.
Cutting refined sugar is just what worked for me after the CICO/exercise approach failed me for two years. (The standard CICO basically worked until I got down to about 92kg, but after that no dice.) Those were a miserable two years where I had to fight hunger a lot. The primary benefit of avoiding refined sugar was the hunger became very muted and didn't bother me anymore. After that I lost the 17cm from my waistline and 8kg very easily without trying to force it. My current weight is actually around 84kg but I've now added IF and haven't settled into a pattern yet. So I'm not taking about that.
*Your word is accepted at less face value than your logs.
*Because this is 1950, and none of us know anything beyond the food available within 50 miles, nor have anything like the internet to look up stuff we may be unfamiliar with. /sarcasm off
*The person making the claims hold the responsibility regarding proving the claims.
I've never seen you or others accept anyone logs. You aren't looking for proof you are just looking for more reason to attack. I'm not going to play that stupid game.0 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
No, but that is a part of it. Again calories out isn't independent of calories in. That doesn't mean one can't force their weight up and if done for long enough probably set their body to a much higher weight. Forcing the weight down is normally much more difficult than forcing it up.
The amount of calories is consumed is only one factor in body weight. Other factors include:
* Type of calories (types of foods and ratios)
* Amounts of micro nutrients available
* Amounts of anti-nutrients like fiber
* Hormone levels and resistance
* Amounts of visceral fat
* Activity levels and condition of lean body mass
* Mixtures of bacteria living in the gut
Probably even more ... Sometime one of these factors overwhelm everything else. For example if insulin is too low the body will literally eat itself no matter how much food is consumed. If insulin is too high even an extremely obese body could die form malnourishment. A CICO example would be a 280 kg person eating 14000 kc / day. Sure they will lose weight if the calories are reduced, at least to a point. However many are unable to succeed without surgery.
However the biggest problem with CICO & exercise more is the limited success of it over the last fifty years. Since 1977 the US and now the world has been mostly gaining and obesity has really taken off. The vast majority of calorie restricted diets fail. It doesn't matter if the failure is compliance because hormones and drive a lot of behavior. The more CICO and exercise has been pushed the fatter the world has become. Even here at MFP there are probably many more failures than long term than successes. The people that do succeed either figure out how to make it work for them or are in a small group of people that CICO works well. Almost everyone else runs into issues. At best CICO and exercise are only part of the solution. At worst calorie restriction cost a lot of needless suffering. A solution that requires one to progressively starve themselves more and more in order to loss weight isn't much of a solution. I don't advocate overeating but I'm also against starving.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
It's actually quite a testament to ones perceived self importance to think that if I can't figure something out for myself, then the entire system must be flawed...
3 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
How wonderful that you accomplished weight loss without literally counting calories!
Still doesn't mean that CICO didn't work for you. It simply means that you found a sustainable way for you to eat at a deficit, hence you dropped your weight. There are as many successes for those who don't literally count calories as with those who do.
There are all kinds of things written all over the web, especially about weight loss methods that are nothing but hyperbole based on myth and a desire to sell product.
Again another person that claims they know what I'm doing what I did more than I do. You are simply incorrect. I spent two years torturing myself tying to make calorie deficit and exercise work after it quite working for me. While I could move my weight, it wouldn't stick. Then I started changing what foods I ate and that made a huge difference in both my weight and workout performance. Even eating more calories than before, I lost weight with less exercise time. I did start the changes with a minor additional deficit but quickly started adding back healthy foods. I ended up losing 8kg and eating more per day than what I was doing for two years but a different mix of food and largely free of refined sugar. The main benefit was the loss of the driving hunger.
Now my weight is a couple kg lower, but I'm playing around with meal timing and other ideas. I'm going to start measuring bio markers like blood glucose and chart those and make decisions about what I do. However I'm at a different point now from where I was a the beginning of the year having reduced my body fat by about 8%. (~28% to ~20%) My goal is to reduce my insulin resistance at this point and move my body fat down to about 15%. However at this point I could care less about how many calories I eat, I care about how I feel and how my body is responding. I'm not going to torture myself anymore with trying to maintain calorie deficits which I can't even really control.
You keep saying that, but since you didn't log, you can't prove it. Your claims mean nothing.
Everyone who thinks they have discovered some way of hacking the body's hormonal systems makes outrageous claims about their calorie consumption.
I remember once going to a website that promoted a high starch diet, and they showed a plate of a typical day's food claiming it was 3000 calories. Being an experienced calorie counter and food logger myself, I quickly ran my own count on the plate. If was probably worth 1500.
I've been eating 2500 kc /day and above. I've seen countless thread were people attack logs. Besides most people here don't have a clue about a lot of Japanese foods. The calorie counting mindset here is simply insane and I'm not going to play that game.
Proof is simple, removed added refined sugar from your diet and see what happens. Replace it with things like nuts or complex carbs. If you have too much visceral fat like I did you probably start losing it.
More words, no calorie counts. But that's beside the main point. Because this is turning into bickering at this point.
How about this, back up what you're saying with data from someone else?
Find me one, just one metabolic ward study in controlled conditions done where people lost weight in a calorie surplus.
Then your claims will have some teeth.
Funny, he claimed to have lost weight on 2500 cals per day.
Given that 2500 cals is the standard suggested calorie intake for men to maintain a healthy weight, hypothetically for an overweight man it is enough to be taller and/or more active than average to be able to lose weight at that level.
But... but... but... that would mean CICO is valid!!!
exactly, the fact that someone can lose "comfortably" without counting every single calorie doesn't invalidate CiCo, while other people gain back the weight right after they stop logging.
Well, that's just the point, though. The person in question is arguing that calorie restriction doesn't work to lose weight. He's not arguing against tracking calories. He's arguing against calorie restriction.
I agree that there are other methods of restricting calories that don't involve logging food. For many people directly counting calories is something that won't work because it doesn't suit their preference, personality... or whatever. There could be many reasons. That's not the issue here.
The issue at hand is the very nature of energy balance itself.
2 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
No, but that is a part of it. Again calories out isn't independent of calories in. That doesn't mean one can't force their weight up and if done for long enough probably set their body to a much higher weight. Forcing the weight down is normally much more difficult than forcing it up.
The amount of calories is consumed is only one factor in body weight. Other factors include:
* Type of calories (types of foods and ratios)
* Amounts of micro nutrients available
* Amounts of anti-nutrients like fiber
* Hormone levels and resistance
* Amounts of visceral fat
* Activity levels and condition of lean body mass
* Mixtures of bacteria living in the gut
Probably even more ... Sometime one of these factors overwhelm everything else. For example if insulin is too low the body will literally eat itself no matter how much food is consumed. If insulin is too high even an extremely obese body could die form malnourishment. A CICO example would be a 280 kg person eating 14000 kc / day. Sure they will lose weight if the calories are reduced, at least to a point. However many are unable to succeed without surgery.
However the biggest problem with CICO & exercise more is the limited success of it over the last fifty years. Since 1977 the US and now the world has been mostly gaining and obesity has really taken off. The vast majority of calorie restricted diets fail. It doesn't matter if the failure is compliance because hormones and drive a lot of behavior. The more CICO and exercise has been pushed the fatter the world has become. Even here at MFP there are probably many more failures than long term than successes. The people that do succeed either figure out how to make it work for them or are in a small group of people that CICO works well. Almost everyone else runs into issues. At best CICO and exercise are only part of the solution. At worst calorie restriction cost a lot of needless suffering. A solution that requires one to progressively starve themselves more and more in order to loss weight isn't much of a solution. I don't advocate overeating but I'm also against starving.
People dieting are not starving.
I am a small person getting progressively smaller.
My smaller body requires less fuel to maintain itself, much in the same way a smaller house would cost less to heat or a small car would require less fuel to run. I am not starving myself to lose the last few pounds. The idea that I'd need a lot of calories at my goal weight is as preposterous as saying the heating bill for a 6,000 square foot house should be the same as the heating bill for a 900 square foot apartment.
People used to eat very little food compared to what they eat now. You said yourself you grew up in the 60's. I remember our family dinners. We didn't get heaping portions of food. Our dinner plates weren't huge, and neither were our dessert bowls. A serving of ice cream was one scoop.
Portion distortion, people moving less? This is why people are obese now. Calorie consumption has risen drastically over the years.
I'll also, even though I'm a firm believer in the fact that you can eat anything within your calorie goals, put in a word for food quality. Back when I was a kid, we snacked on fruit. Candy was a rare treat. Soda was a holiday only drink, or maybe something we had when we visited our grandparents. Desserts were portioned and usually something like 3 small cookies or jello. Snack at school recess break? Milk.
You are viewing everything through a lens of the propaganda you've read on those websites you frequent.9 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
No, but that is a part of it. Again calories out isn't independent of calories in. That doesn't mean one can't force their weight up and if done for long enough probably set their body to a much higher weight. Forcing the weight down is normally much more difficult than forcing it up.
The amount of calories is consumed is only one factor in body weight. Other factors include:
* Type of calories (types of foods and ratios)
* Amounts of micro nutrients available
* Amounts of anti-nutrients like fiber
* Hormone levels and resistance
* Amounts of visceral fat
* Activity levels and condition of lean body mass
* Mixtures of bacteria living in the gut
Probably even more ... Sometime one of these factors overwhelm everything else. For example if insulin is too low the body will literally eat itself no matter how much food is consumed. If insulin is too high even an extremely obese body could die form malnourishment. A CICO example would be a 280 kg person eating 14000 kc / day. Sure they will lose weight if the calories are reduced, at least to a point. However many are unable to succeed without surgery.
However the biggest problem with CICO & exercise more is the limited success of it over the last fifty years. Since 1977 the US and now the world has been mostly gaining and obesity has really taken off. The vast majority of calorie restricted diets fail. It doesn't matter if the failure is compliance because hormones and drive a lot of behavior. The more CICO and exercise has been pushed the fatter the world has become. Even here at MFP there are probably many more failures than long term than successes. The people that do succeed either figure out how to make it work for them or are in a small group of people that CICO works well. Almost everyone else runs into issues. At best CICO and exercise are only part of the solution. At worst calorie restriction cost a lot of needless suffering. A solution that requires one to progressively starve themselves more and more in order to loss weight isn't much of a solution. I don't advocate overeating but I'm also against starving.
I am fairly convinced that you do not even understand what CICO is and seemingly are arguing just to argue. Nothing that you are saying invalidates CICO. Dietary compliance is hard, no matter what diet you follow. It fails for a plethora of reason that are well beyond calories. But that still doesn't invalidate it.
If you actually want to understand CICO, look at metabolic ward studies that measure EE at baseline and then have people eat above those levels while cutting sugar and see what happens. Or maybe do what I recommended at eat 5000 calories a day of low carb or low sugar and see what happens.7 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
No, but that is a part of it. Again calories out isn't independent of calories in. That doesn't mean one can't force their weight up and if done for long enough probably set their body to a much higher weight. Forcing the weight down is normally much more difficult than forcing it up.
The amount of calories is consumed is only one factor in body weight. Other factors include:
* Type of calories (types of foods and ratios)
* Amounts of micro nutrients available
* Amounts of anti-nutrients like fiber
* Hormone levels and resistance
* Amounts of visceral fat
* Activity levels and condition of lean body mass
* Mixtures of bacteria living in the gut
Probably even more ... Sometime one of these factors overwhelm everything else. For example if insulin is too low the body will literally eat itself no matter how much food is consumed. If insulin is too high even an extremely obese body could die form malnourishment. A CICO example would be a 280 kg person eating 14000 kc / day. Sure they will lose weight if the calories are reduced, at least to a point. However many are unable to succeed without surgery.
However the biggest problem with CICO & exercise more is the limited success of it over the last fifty years. Since 1977 the US and now the world has been mostly gaining and obesity has really taken off. The vast majority of calorie restricted diets fail. It doesn't matter if the failure is compliance because hormones and drive a lot of behavior. The more CICO and exercise has been pushed the fatter the world has become. Even here at MFP there are probably many more failures than long term than successes. The people that do succeed either figure out how to make it work for them or are in a small group of people that CICO works well. Almost everyone else runs into issues. At best CICO and exercise are only part of the solution. At worst calorie restriction cost a lot of needless suffering. A solution that requires one to progressively starve themselves more and more in order to loss weight isn't much of a solution. I don't advocate overeating but I'm also against starving.
I am fairly convinced that you do not even understand what CICO is and seemingly are arguing just to argue.
You are just now coming to this realization?3 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
No, but that is a part of it. Again calories out isn't independent of calories in. That doesn't mean one can't force their weight up and if done for long enough probably set their body to a much higher weight. Forcing the weight down is normally much more difficult than forcing it up.
The amount of calories is consumed is only one factor in body weight. Other factors include:
* Type of calories (types of foods and ratios)
* Amounts of micro nutrients available
* Amounts of anti-nutrients like fiber
* Hormone levels and resistance
* Amounts of visceral fat
* Activity levels and condition of lean body mass
* Mixtures of bacteria living in the gut
Probably even more ... Sometime one of these factors overwhelm everything else. For example if insulin is too low the body will literally eat itself no matter how much food is consumed. If insulin is too high even an extremely obese body could die form malnourishment. A CICO example would be a 280 kg person eating 14000 kc / day. Sure they will lose weight if the calories are reduced, at least to a point. However many are unable to succeed without surgery.
However the biggest problem with CICO & exercise more is the limited success of it over the last fifty years. Since 1977 the US and now the world has been mostly gaining and obesity has really taken off. The vast majority of calorie restricted diets fail. It doesn't matter if the failure is compliance because hormones and drive a lot of behavior. The more CICO and exercise has been pushed the fatter the world has become. Even here at MFP there are probably many more failures than long term than successes. The people that do succeed either figure out how to make it work for them or are in a small group of people that CICO works well. Almost everyone else runs into issues. At best CICO and exercise are only part of the solution. At worst calorie restriction cost a lot of needless suffering. A solution that requires one to progressively starve themselves more and more in order to loss weight isn't much of a solution. I don't advocate overeating but I'm also against starving.
First of all, a person eating 14,000 calories will gain weight. Other than the initial weight loss of eating all that food, they will lose weight if they eat below their TDEE (total daily energy expenditure).
If insulin is causing the problems you describe, a person needs to get to the doctor asap. In fact, medical don't fit into this conversation.
The reason people are getting fatter is because they are eating more. Period.
While personal preference and other such factors do come into play, they never negate the fact that eating at a calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Sorry to break it to you, but you are eating below your TDEE if you are losing weight. Sugar in and of itself does not cause weight gain, and eliminating it does not cause weight loss. No foods have magic properties to cause weight loss.
The fact that you don't advocate overeating and are also against starving is black and white. If eating at a calorie deficit causes someone to starve, then they're not doing it right.2 -
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
This is your mistake, that you assume that calorie restriction (CICO) = suffering. For most people, who do a sensible restriction, it doesn't. I did a sensible calorie restriction (that began at a deficit of 1000, since I had a lot to lose) and it was almost unnoticeable, because I made reasonable decisions in what I cut and made sure my diet was satiating to me. It also helped that -- like many people who gain weight -- hunger wasn't really my reason for overeating. Eating in a non-mindful way, and out of habit, and sometimes emotionally were the reasons. So when I cut calories and greatly increased activity (which did not increase appetite), the weight fell off, even though I ate breakfast at 6 am, lunch at noon, and dinner at 9 or after -- the opposite of what you'd recommend! And this loss was consistent both when I was extremely low on added sugar (I was never low carb) and when I was higher on it (I've never really been hugely high, even when gaining weight).
Now, of course, there ARE people who struggle with appetite for whatever reason, and I sounds like you might have been one of them (although for at least some I think it's that the idea of cutting calories makes them feel hungry). For them, there are various things to try that can help, and IF is one (one of the many forms, as there are different versions and different people prefer different ones), as well as keto or other forms of low carbing. Also there are diets that are much less satiating, although I'd think anyone sensible struggling with hunger would just naturally make changes to help with that.
All this aside, and back to OP's diet, there is NO evidence that what you eat is going to change your metabolism (also, I agree with the point that metabolism is not just one thing). It might make it easier to eat less (and so you don't even have to think about it), or it might make you more energetic and active in your daily life, and you can also do things to be more active without it seeming like that big a change (which is a way of increasing overall TDEE).5 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
So largely your argument against CICO is the inaccuracy of understanding what is actually your CI or CO. None of which actually disproves it. It just means its harder to understand where your sweet spot is. And while you may not be able to find that based on where you live, it's fairly easy to know I maintain weight at roughly 3000 calories. And I have figured this out a long time ago regardless if I ate Paleo, IF, IIFYM or whatever diet I ate. I know... shocking right. And I don't eat much added sugar.
No, but that is a part of it. Again calories out isn't independent of calories in. That doesn't mean one can't force their weight up and if done for long enough probably set their body to a much higher weight. Forcing the weight down is normally much more difficult than forcing it up.
The amount of calories is consumed is only one factor in body weight. Other factors include:
* Type of calories (types of foods and ratios)
* Amounts of micro nutrients available
* Amounts of anti-nutrients like fiber
* Hormone levels and resistance
* Amounts of visceral fat
* Activity levels and condition of lean body mass
* Mixtures of bacteria living in the gut
Probably even more ... Sometime one of these factors overwhelm everything else. For example if insulin is too low the body will literally eat itself no matter how much food is consumed. If insulin is too high even an extremely obese body could die form malnourishment. A CICO example would be a 280 kg person eating 14000 kc / day. Sure they will lose weight if the calories are reduced, at least to a point. However many are unable to succeed without surgery.
However the biggest problem with CICO & exercise more is the limited success of it over the last fifty years. Since 1977 the US and now the world has been mostly gaining and obesity has really taken off. The vast majority of calorie restricted diets fail. It doesn't matter if the failure is compliance because hormones and drive a lot of behavior. The more CICO and exercise has been pushed the fatter the world has become. Even here at MFP there are probably many more failures than long term than successes. The people that do succeed either figure out how to make it work for them or are in a small group of people that CICO works well. Almost everyone else runs into issues. At best CICO and exercise are only part of the solution. At worst calorie restriction cost a lot of needless suffering. A solution that requires one to progressively starve themselves more and more in order to loss weight isn't much of a solution. I don't advocate overeating but I'm also against starving.
I am fairly convinced that you do not even understand what CICO is and seemingly are arguing just to argue.
You are just now coming to this realization?
Beat me to it by 27-28 minutes.0 -
This may help (or maybe not).
To lose weight, one must eat less than one needs to maintain weight, so that your body is forced to go to stored fat for energy. Dykask, you keep suggesting that a "calorie restricted diet" must be miserable, since you are in essence starving, but if starving means eating less than you mean to maintain so that you burn stored fat (which is what a calorie restriction is, yes), then that's the case ANY TIME you are eating in a way that causes weight loss.
You assert (without support, but oh well) that you eat as many or more calories now and lose, when you were maintaining before. IF that is true (and I admit I don't believe it is), then what that means is that you are burning more calories now than you were then -- you are "moving more" in some way (which maybe is your body wasting more calories in its processes -- inefficient as that would be -- or you feeling better and so moving more without noticing it or being more effective in workouts or who knows). In any case, to the extent that what you burn overall increases, the same calories would be deficit calories and therefore "starving" or a "calorie restriction" just as much as when you are counting and creating one in that manner. It's similar to me figuring my maintenance calories when sedentary and exercising but not logging calories from exercise (which is what I have done in the past, successfully, and am considering trying again).
The only times you don't have a calorie-restricted diet is if you are gaining or maintaining.
Ultimately, then, this is a discussion not of your body not magically losing weight despite a calorie restriction, but what are the easiest and least painful ways for an individual to have a calorie restriction? That varies person from person and, as BurnEm said, for some counting can be not a good way, even though for many of us it is. (I again think that some people freak at the notion of restricting calories and start to feel more hungry, so for them other methods are better, unless it's something they can get over.)
Also, I'm bored of the claims that it's so hard to avoid added sugar in the US. I don't think one needs to, but if you don't eat lots of packaged foods or choose packaged foods (like dried pasta or dried or canned beans or steel cut oats) without sugar, it's as easy as anywhere. For all your digs at the US supposedly being a hard place to find plain ole meat (including fish) and produce, it's easy, and from your own posts you seem to eat an awful lot of packaged and prepared foods, just different ones, so maybe it's natural that you assume that it's necessary to do that, who knows.2 -
I really don't get the whole argument how it's hard to avoid sugar, either. While I'm not afraid of it, I don't particularly eat a lot of it because I like my own cooking and I'm a scratch cook.3
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
How wonderful that you accomplished weight loss without literally counting calories!
Still doesn't mean that CICO didn't work for you. It simply means that you found a sustainable way for you to eat at a deficit, hence you dropped your weight. There are as many successes for those who don't literally count calories as with those who do.
There are all kinds of things written all over the web, especially about weight loss methods that are nothing but hyperbole based on myth and a desire to sell product.
Again another person that claims they know what I'm doing what I did more than I do. You are simply incorrect. I spent two years torturing myself tying to make calorie deficit and exercise work after it quite working for me. While I could move my weight, it wouldn't stick. Then I started changing what foods I ate and that made a huge difference in both my weight and workout performance. Even eating more calories than before, I lost weight with less exercise time. I did start the changes with a minor additional deficit but quickly started adding back healthy foods. I ended up losing 8kg and eating more per day than what I was doing for two years but a different mix of food and largely free of refined sugar. The main benefit was the loss of the driving hunger.
Now my weight is a couple kg lower, but I'm playing around with meal timing and other ideas. I'm going to start measuring bio markers like blood glucose and chart those and make decisions about what I do. However I'm at a different point now from where I was a the beginning of the year having reduced my body fat by about 8%. (~28% to ~20%) My goal is to reduce my insulin resistance at this point and move my body fat down to about 15%. However at this point I could care less about how many calories I eat, I care about how I feel and how my body is responding. I'm not going to torture myself anymore with trying to maintain calorie deficits which I can't even really control.
You keep saying that, but since you didn't log, you can't prove it. Your claims mean nothing.
Everyone who thinks they have discovered some way of hacking the body's hormonal systems makes outrageous claims about their calorie consumption.
I remember once going to a website that promoted a high starch diet, and they showed a plate of a typical day's food claiming it was 3000 calories. Being an experienced calorie counter and food logger myself, I quickly ran my own count on the plate. If was probably worth 1500.
I've been eating 2500 kc /day and above. I've seen countless thread were people attack logs. Besides most people here don't have a clue about a lot of Japanese foods. The calorie counting mindset here is simply insane and I'm not going to play that game.
Proof is simple, removed added refined sugar from your diet and see what happens. Replace it with things like nuts or complex carbs. If you have too much visceral fat like I did you probably start losing it.
So go eat 5000 calories of a low carb high fat diet and report back in sevarl months.
He's not a low carber. Funny thing is that when he landed here on MFP he thought low-carbers are the most confrontational people. I think he has already changed his mind on that, isn't it?
I would consider confrontational on MFP being jumping into threads and insisting that doing things your way is required for weight loss.
In that sense, there are some confrontational low carbers, but most are not. But what's going on here is dykask jumping into a thread (and there have been many others) and insisting that doing things his way -- cutting added sugar, fasting, is required for weight loss (or at least non-miserable, sustainable weight loss).
It seems to me that most of us acknowledge that when it comes to one of the most important elements of weight loss and maintenance -- satiety and being overall satisfied with how you are eating -- that low carbing and even keto can be helpful for some. I mentioned why upthread -- for some people it helps with appetite. Same with IF. Both of those also might lead to eating less without counting (I've read one of the major IF books and that's the premise of 5:2 -- you naturally don't replace all the calories lost on a fasting day).
What bothers me from dykask and some low carbers is they can't let it go at that but assert that people who don't follow their method must be starving or craving or miserable or losing extra muscle or obsessive or eating the SAD or all sorts of crazy things, including that carbs are never satiating to anyone and that fat always is (which annoys me since it's not to me -- wish it was).
Anyway, I wish we could drop the little jabs and stop with the idiotic carb battles. I don't really see many people (certainly not the regulars) questioning that low carb (and keto) can be good ways to lose weight if you want to eat that way. This idea that you all are under attack makes no sense to me and I think is based on events of long ago. Can't we all just get along, and all that?5 -
It is great we have a variety of diet approaches to choose from.
I've found some techniques that help me stay in a deficit comfortably due to posters sharing their success on MFP. For that I am thankful. I have to be aware and mindful that works for me won't work for everyone.1 -
And we all agree that muscle weighs more then fat... and if you don't eat enough calories it can take your muscle instead of your fat, right?
0 -
Oh, no. You went "there."1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions