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.
Is it the same for everyone ?
Replies
-
elisa123gal wrote: »You all crack me up.. how about plateaus? okay.. Many people on here are stuck for many long weeks..even months ... many months sometimes.. working out and eating at a deficit and don't lose. If CICO worked consistently ... we'd all be at goal by now. there wouldn't be one discouraging post.
I think it works perfectly for some...and those are the ones who point the boney finger at all the others who it doesn't work as well for.. and blame them for not eating at a low enough deficit or that they're dong it wrong.
You're not thinking in the long term. Weight loss is not a linear process - you will not lose exactly x pounds every x days while eating x amount of calories. But over the long term, if you're tracking your input and expenditure properly, it should be reasonably close.
Last month I looked back at my progress over the last 13 months. My loss averaged out to around .96 pounds per week, and my goal over that entire time period was to lose 1 pound per week. I don't weigh most of what I eat and am fairly loose with my logging (I log everything I eat, but don't always strive for accuracy down to the last calorie). I had several 2-4 week spans at a time where I didn't lose and even gained a couple pounds, but in the end, over the long term, it came out to within .04 pounds of what I was shooting for. So it's a hard sell to tell me that CI<CO isn't effective because my n=1 convincingly tells me otherwise.6 -
elisa123gal wrote: »You all crack me up.. how about plateaus? okay.. Many people on here are stuck for many long weeks..even months ... many months sometimes.. working out and eating at a deficit and don't lose. If CICO worked consistently ... we'd all be at goal by now. there wouldn't be one discouraging post.
I think it works perfectly for some...and those are the ones who point the boney finger at all the others who it doesn't work as well for.. and blame them for not eating at a low enough deficit or that they're dong it wrong.
Are you actually thin shaming? You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?
To your point, I think ummcmp addressed it perfectly. The fact that weight loss isn't linear does not negate CICO.
The fact that someone doesn't understand the intricate interplay of hormones involved in long term weight loss efforts and their affect on the scale doesn't negate CICO either.
The fact that we can't objectively and predictively calculate what our bodies do doesn't violate the principles on which they function.11 -
It's definitely not the same for everyone. There are going to be some general concepts that will be mostly true for most people ("foods with a high fiber/water content will fill you up faster" "protein and fiber help you feel full for longer" "eating a large amount of starch/sugar on its own will leave you feeling hungrier sooner"), but there's more to it than that. Physiologically, yes, people are quite similar. But, as a few people have said or alluded to, there's a huge psychological component to satiety, plus people's hormonal responses to food can vary widely.
Once you eat the food, did your body produce the proper type and amount of hormones in response? Did your brain and other organs accept, interpret, and respond to the hormones in the proper way? Did you eat a sufficient amount/type of foods and nutrients but still feel unsatisfied because your meal lacked a food you enjoy the taste of? Is there an issue in your life that drives you to continue to eat even after you physically feel full?
Side note re: CICO - I am a legit, honest-to-god, special snowflake who for YEARS did everything correctly on the logging side, followed my Fitbit, and religiously ate at a calorie goal that, per MFP, should have allowed me to lose 1-2lbs per week, and yet lost basically nothing. Medical testing eventually revealed that my body simply burns ~25-30% fewer calories per day than what would be expected for someone with my stats and activity level - my metabolism is more comparable to someone 11 inches shorter and 65 years older than I am - such that what I thought was a 500-1000/day deficit was really closer to maintenance (which, honestly, I knew already based on the math, but I resisted believing it until a knowledgeable doctor put numbers in front of me). CICO is still true for me, just as it is for everyone else on this planet. It just took me a little more work to nail down the "CO" side - now that I have, I'm finally having slow but steady success by simply eating fewer calories than what I now know I'm actually burning each day.
Nice post as it shows that CICO can be more complex for some because the CO side can vary more for some, which is why many of us always advocate doing a systematic reduction of calories to see how your body is reacting. I think you are statistically a true 1 in a million with that much lower of a metabolism than the mean.3 -
elisa123gal wrote: »You all crack me up.. how about plateaus? okay.. Many people on here are stuck for many long weeks..even months ... many months sometimes.. working out and eating at a deficit and don't lose. If CICO worked consistently ... we'd all be at goal by now. there wouldn't be one discouraging post.
I think it works perfectly for some...and those are the ones who point the boney finger at all the others who it doesn't work as well for.. and blame them for not eating at a low enough deficit or that they're dong it wrong.
Pointing out plateaus and struggles that everyone has isn't defeating what CICO really is. Every diet that loses weight is about CICO and I challenge you to find one properly controlled study in a metabolic ward that would contradict this.7 -
elisa123gal wrote: »You all crack me up.. how about plateaus? okay.. Many people on here are stuck for many long weeks..even months ... many months sometimes.. working out and eating at a deficit and don't lose. If CICO worked consistently ... we'd all be at goal by now. there wouldn't be one discouraging post.
I think it works perfectly for some...and those are the ones who point the boney finger at all the others who it doesn't work as well for.. and blame them for not eating at a low enough deficit or that they're dong it wrong.
What about plateaus? They are a natural part of the weight loss (and weight gain) process. Adjustments are required along the way. Does not negate CICO in the least...5 -
always a blame game. Just read a post where a girl was thanking people for telling her to up her calories that she was only eating 1100 calories a day and not losing after her initial 10 pound loss. now if CICO worked..she would have continued to lose. But she didn't.. because her body and metabolism where off.
There is more to it than CICO.0 -
elisa123gal wrote: »always a blame game. Just read a post where a girl was thanking people for telling her to up her calories that she was only eating 1100 calories a day and not losing after her initial 10 pound loss. now if CICO worked..she would have continued to lose. But she didn't.. because her body and metabolism where off.
There is more to it than CICO.
She was probably retaining fluid or something else is off. You keep on assuming starvation mode is a thing but it isn't. Metabolism doesn't drop that much that quickly. Otherwise anorexics would not be massively underweight eating a lot less than 1100 for a lot more than 5 weeks.
You absolutely do not gain weight other than fluid weight eating less than your calorie out and you don't lose weight other than fluid weight eating more than your calorie out.5 -
elisa123gal wrote: »always a blame game. Just read a post where a girl was thanking people for telling her to up her calories that she was only eating 1100 calories a day and not losing after her initial 10 pound loss. now if CICO worked..she would have continued to lose. But she didn't.. because her body and metabolism where off.
There is more to it than CICO.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/2 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive, vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken, vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
I would agree that there is a personal preference to what makes you feel full, and preference in foods. Some of it may be related to physical traits or diseases (cealic, PCOS, type 1 diabetes) but generally speaking there is taste and psychology IMO that is at work most of the time.
For instance; my mum is currently under a dietician's regime. The dietician asked her on which diet (she is 72 and has done so many diets it is not funny) she had felt best and found easiest. She was put reduced carb and under control. She is feeling great and is loosing her weight (SInce February, under supervision and with holidays she already lost about 18kg). Added bonus turned out to be that she learned to cook for my nephew who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes late spring.
Yet every time we go to my parents for the weekend my husband and I feel hungry as afterwards. Her current way of eating, even if we eat a lot of it and meet out calorie goal, just does not fill us up. We know that now so we take things into account our own way. by being filled up before we go for instance. Our MFP lifestyle is more balanced over macros as well as high fibre.
It seems that there is a significant difference in what my mother and I find a preferred way of eating. Our downfalls are different too. I always feel the need to clear my plate (solution smaller plate, less on it) and nothing on the table, finished is finished. Also bread, just love the stuff, specifically when freshly baked.
Mum does not have that issue at all, but she cannot walk past the cheese without eating it. She also has to have something sweet with her mid-morning coffee. It is just habit, but for 50 years she's had a cookie then. She still does, just a tiny one. Whereas both of those just do not bother me, unless of course they are on the meal table on display.
Both mum and I agree that it is about CICO, we just get there a different way and with different preferences. Taste and lifestyle have their place in it.5 -
elisa123gal wrote: »always a blame game. Just read a post where a girl was thanking people for telling her to up her calories that she was only eating 1100 calories a day and not losing after her initial 10 pound loss. now if CICO worked..she would have continued to lose. But she didn't.. because her body and metabolism where off.
There is more to it than CICO.
You seem to have a basic mis-understanding of what CICO is, which is not uncommon. You talk about CICO as if it were a tool for weight loss. It is nothing more then an energy equation.6 -
elisa123gal wrote: »always a blame game. Just read a post where a girl was thanking people for telling her to up her calories that she was only eating 1100 calories a day and not losing after her initial 10 pound loss. now if CICO worked..she would have continued to lose. But she didn't.. because her body and metabolism where off.
There is more to it than CICO.
There are a myriad of factors that can prevent weight loss; inaccurate tracking of calories and inconsistency in logging being the most prevalent on this website. But there are other factors that due occur with several caloric restriction, such as: reductions in resting metabolic rate, reductions in non exercise activity thermogenesis, etc...
I was one of those people who lost more weight at 2300 calories than I did on 1800. It's possible that by doing the increase, I was able to put more effort forward... it's possible my dietary compliance improve helping me get in a deficit or exercise was improved since i have more available energy.
Fact is though, if you look at all metabolic studies, there is a common theme. The measure EE and modify calories from there. Now if you look at overfeed studies, you will see something interesting.. people rarely don't gain as much as they expect... why because metabolic rates increase. Similarly, the inverse can occur while creating a deficit.
The bigger problem is, we truly can't measure calories out which leads people to assume that CICO isn't working.8 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
I think it's all about satiation to be able to stick to the calorie deficit. When I tried to lose weight eating low fat and no sugar I did not lose weight because I was so hungry I ended up eating more calories than I realized. However, some people do fine on low fat or low sugar diets. It all comes down to what works for the individual as to maintaining a calorie deficit.0 -
Maybe going back to chocolate and sweet stuff and smaller amounts of protein is more mental. Meaning perhaps there is a psychological factor there that you are feeling more satisfied with the things you are enjoying and really hated eating chicken, veggies and no sugar.
"we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone" .. YES
Heck yeah. I feel better when I include my ice cream, cookies and homemade bread pudding in my calorie goals. It's absolute.........
1 -
There is a lot of personal preference in eating patterns. Some people cannot control themselves when it comes to eating sweets and others can. These are also factors that can change over time or under different circumstances. That's why many of us suggest people ditch eating plans or restrictive diets to discover eating patterns that will work for them long term.
I got help for my eating disorder, and it was years after that I finally believed that I could control myself around sweets, potato chips anything else that was a snack. It took a lot of hard work, but it worked.
It depends. Is the person still logging accurately? How much weight have they lost up to that point and how rapidly? Are they exercising? Could it be water weight due to workouts, stress, hormones, or other changes? Are they drinking adequate water, getting appropriate vitamins, hitting appropriate macros, and watching electrolyte balance?
There are times where someone needs a diet break after losing weight consistently for many months. Overall it's typically a hormonal issue at that point whether it's psychological or physiological. It still falls within calories in compared to calories out because hormonal changes caused by dieting reduce the calories out portion.
Yep.0 -
elisa123gal wrote: »always a blame game. Just read a post where a girl was thanking people for telling her to up her calories that she was only eating 1100 calories a day and not losing after her initial 10 pound loss. now if CICO worked..she would have continued to lose. But she didn't.. because her body and metabolism where off.
There is more to it than CICO.
Well, no.....there's not.
There are certainly factors that come into play but the actual mechanics of weight loss comes down to eating less calories than you burn overall.4 -
There is a lot of personal preference in eating patterns. Some people cannot control themselves when it comes to eating sweets and others can. These are also factors that can change over time or under different circumstances. That's why many of us suggest people ditch eating plans or restrictive diets to discover eating patterns that will work for them long term.
I got help for my eating disorder, and it was years after that I finally believed that I could control myself around sweets, potato chips anything else that was a snack. It took a lot of hard work, but it worked.
I more meant that part as an initial reaction. I have written about my low impulse control around Swiss Cake Rolls many times. Lots of work over the last six years and I don't have that impulsive reaction to them anymore. In the beginning there are many people who cannot control themselves due to various psychological reasons. I agree that if that's something they can't work past then they should seek help.3 -
There is a lot of personal preference in eating patterns. Some people cannot control themselves when it comes to eating sweets and others can. These are also factors that can change over time or under different circumstances. That's why many of us suggest people ditch eating plans or restrictive diets to discover eating patterns that will work for them long term.
I got help for my eating disorder, and it was years after that I finally believed that I could control myself around sweets, potato chips anything else that was a snack. It took a lot of hard work, but it worked.
I more meant that part as an initial reaction. I have written about my low impulse control around Swiss Cake Rolls many times. Lots of work over the last six years and I don't have that impulsive reaction to them anymore. In the beginning there are many people who cannot control themselves due to various psychological reasons. I agree that if that's something they can't work past then they should seek help.
Yes, I got that. I like that you use the term "impulse control."3 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
I agree that it all comes down to CI<CO but I think it is often oversimplified and assumed to be a static number. I find CO to be affected not just by activity level but by sleep, medication, health (insulin resistance, autoimmune issues or even a flu) and choice of food. Those factors can change my CO by several hundred calories. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's not.
Those factors also affect CI. A double whammy. If I get sick, unhealthy or tired, I am more likely to eat more food than I need in a subconscious search for more energy.
This is just me. I realize that others do not find this to be true, so no, I don't think it is the same for everybody.
And your example of chocoltae and sweet stuff? I may be happy while I eat it but it will lead to eating more, feeling unenergetic and being less active, affect my health, possibly decrease CO due to foods choices... Not a good food choice for me.6 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
I agree that it all comes down to CI<CO but I think it is often oversimplified and assumed to be a static number. I find CO to be affected not just by activity level but by sleep, medication, health (insulin resistance, autoimmune issues or even a flu) and choice of food. Those factors can change my CO by several hundred calories. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's not.
Those factors also affect CI. A double whammy. If I get sick, unhealthy or tired, I am more likely to eat more food than I need in a subconscious search for more energy.
This is just me. I realize that others do not find this to be true, so no, I don't think it is the same for everybody.
And your example of chocoltae and sweet stuff? I may be happy while I eat it but it will lead to eating more, feeling unenergetic and being less active, affect my health, possibly decrease CO due to foods choices... Not a good food choice for me.
You're talking about factors that influence CICO here. They don't in any way change its validity.
I don't think anyone assumes it to be a static number except for people who don't understand what it means.6 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
I agree that it all comes down to CI<CO but I think it is often oversimplified and assumed to be a static number. I find CO to be affected not just by activity level but by sleep, medication, health (insulin resistance, autoimmune issues or even a flu) and choice of food. Those factors can change my CO by several hundred calories. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's not.
Those factors also affect CI. A double whammy. If I get sick, unhealthy or tired, I am more likely to eat more food than I need in a subconscious search for more energy.
This is just me. I realize that others do not find this to be true, so no, I don't think it is the same for everybody.
And your example of chocoltae and sweet stuff? I may be happy while I eat it but it will lead to eating more, feeling unenergetic and being less active, affect my health, possibly decrease CO due to foods choices... Not a good food choice for me.
Other factors do not negate CICO, though. 1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
I agree that it all comes down to CI<CO but I think it is often oversimplified and assumed to be a static number. I find CO to be affected not just by activity level but by sleep, medication, health (insulin resistance, autoimmune issues or even a flu) and choice of food. Those factors can change my CO by several hundred calories. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's not.
Those factors also affect CI. A double whammy. If I get sick, unhealthy or tired, I am more likely to eat more food than I need in a subconscious search for more energy.
This is just me. I realize that others do not find this to be true, so no, I don't think it is the same for everybody.
And your example of chocoltae and sweet stuff? I may be happy while I eat it but it will lead to eating more, feeling unenergetic and being less active, affect my health, possibly decrease CO due to foods choices... Not a good food choice for me.
You're talking about factors that influence CICO here. They don't in any way change its validity.
I don't think anyone assumes it to be a static number except for people who don't understand what it means.
I know. I didn't say CICO was not valid. I think it is often over simplified.
I think many assume it is static number. People often complain about stalls or weight loss slowing or weight fluctuations.2 -
elisa123gal wrote: »You all crack me up.. how about plateaus? okay.. Many people on here are stuck for many long weeks..even months ... many months sometimes.. working out and eating at a deficit and don't lose. If CICO worked consistently ... we'd all be at goal by now. there wouldn't be one discouraging post.
I think it works perfectly for some...and those are the ones who point the boney finger at all the others who it doesn't work as well for.. and blame them for not eating at a low enough deficit or that they're dong it wrong.
Those people usually think that they are at a deficit but in reality they are not. Some examples I have come across:
1. One woman that I had helped had not adjusted her calorie goal while losing. It turned out that her calorie goal was off by about 300 calories. Add to that her logging wasn't the best and it caused her weight loss to stop.
2. Another couldn't figure out why she couldn't lose and her logging looked on point. Later on she admitted that she wasn't logging anything that she ate after dinner.
3. Came across another one who was plateaued for months and couldn't figure out what was wrong. She was only logging quick add calories because she didn't have time to search the database for what she was eating. She refused to tighten up her logging and continued to maintain her current weight, and eventually quit.
4. One was logging every little activity including food prep, shopping, washing dishes, etc. while eating all of those calories back. Most likely double dipping and overestimating those calorie burns.
Add to that the fact that they were estimating portions and using incorrect entries in the database and it's easy to see how they were stuck. They all were eating more than they thought they were. It's easy to do it wrong without knowing it. That's why it's so important to learn how to log accurately, measure out portion sizes correctly, and be honest with yourself.9 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
What's the criteria for calling CICO a success? What's the criteria for failure?
You can find study after study that proves a calorie deficit results in weight loss - so clearly there is some truth to the "first law of thermodynamics", which seemingly everyone has suddenly become an expert.
You can also take a look around at all the people you run into each and every day and see pretty clearly that the problem isn't as simple as "Calories In/Calories Out", since it is FAILING for the majority of people. Every year that goes by, the simple "Calories In/Calories Out" equation fails more and more, yet people still want to boil this problem down into the simplest of terms and place the blame squarely on a person's own will power or lack of enthusiasm for exercise.
I mean, sure, you can do that - just blame the person, because hey - that's EASY!
But you aren't going to solve the obesity epidemic this way
1 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
What's the criteria for calling CICO a success? What's the criteria for failure?
You can find study after study that proves a calorie deficit results in weight loss - so clearly there is some truth to the "first law of thermodynamics", which seemingly everyone has suddenly become an expert.
You can also take a look around at all the people you run into each and every day and see pretty clearly that the problem isn't as simple as "Calories In/Calories Out", since it is FAILING for the majority of people. Every year that goes by, the simple "Calories In/Calories Out" equation fails more and more, yet people still want to boil this problem down into the simplest of terms and place the blame squarely on a person's own will power or lack of enthusiasm for exercise.
I mean, sure, you can do that - just blame the person, because hey - that's EASY!
But you aren't going to solve the obesity epidemic this way
You aren't going to solve the obesity epidemic by perpetuating people's false beliefs that they must be a special snowflake which is what's preventing them from losing weight.
Bottom line? If they aren't losing, they're eating in excess of what their body can burn off.13 -
healthy491 wrote: »So we can all agree that CI<CO leads to weight loss for everyone, which is awesome. BUT when it comes to certain facts ( or myths ? idk ) like sugar being addictive , vegetables are fulfilling etc.. are they the same for everyone ? I am asking this because when I was eating chicken , vegetables etc and no sugar , I used to feel extremely hungry and sad and end up eating more and more. Now I basically eat chocolate and sweet stuff during the day and some proteins at night and I feel happy and full while still staying under my calorie goal.
What's the criteria for calling CICO a success? What's the criteria for failure?
You can find study after study that proves a calorie deficit results in weight loss - so clearly there is some truth to the "first law of thermodynamics", which seemingly everyone has suddenly become an expert.
You can also take a look around at all the people you run into each and every day and see pretty clearly that the problem isn't as simple as "Calories In/Calories Out", since it is FAILING for the majority of people. Every year that goes by, the simple "Calories In/Calories Out" equation fails more and more, yet people still want to boil this problem down into the simplest of terms and place the blame squarely on a person's own will power or lack of enthusiasm for exercise.
I mean, sure, you can do that - just blame the person, because hey - that's EASY!
But you aren't going to solve the obesity epidemic this way
No way.
This is really simplified and makes the assumption that we, as the outside observer, know exactly how much those people are eating, as well as exercising if that's part of the equation. The reason the majority of people fail at weight loss is because they are not taking the steps that they can take to ensure that their CICO equation for a deficit is correct. I am not talking about weighing and logging food specifically, as I recognize that does not work for everyone. I am talking about taking whatever steps work for the individual to ensure that they are eating the correct amount of calories to lose weight.11 -
elisa123gal wrote: »You all crack me up.. how about plateaus? okay.. Many people on here are stuck for many long weeks..even months ... many months sometimes.. working out and eating at a deficit and don't lose. If CICO worked consistently ... we'd all be at goal by now. there wouldn't be one discouraging post.
Thinking you're in a calorie deficit and actually being in one can be two entirely different things. For everyone who actually IS in a calorie deficit (for whatever that means for their particular stats and metabolic rate) weight loss will occur.
It's really not more complicated than that.12 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
You aren't going to solve the obesity epidemic by perpetuating people's false beliefs that they must be a special snowflake which is what's preventing them from losing weight.
Bottom line? If they aren't losing, they're eating in excess of what their body can burn off.
I don't think anyone disputes that - but if the problem were that simple then we'd all be a healthy weight. But we aren't, and the problem is just not as simple as people make it out to be.
I'm not saying people should start chiming in with the "me too's" and make excuses for why they're fat. I'm simply saying that the problem has been oversimplified to the point where society has apparently chosen to simply persecute individuals for their failure to maintain a healthy weight, when clearly there is more than just an individual force at play.
If you want to believe that "CICO is the way", go ahead - but you're going to see that basic concept fail people repeatedly for various reasons - reasons that will undoubtedly be oversimplified to it being a "personal failing", which I think is an incorrect approach.1 -
elisa123gal wrote: »You all crack me up.. how about plateaus? okay.. Many people on here are stuck for many long weeks..even months ... many months sometimes.. working out and eating at a deficit and don't lose. If CICO worked consistently ... we'd all be at goal by now. there wouldn't be one discouraging post.
I think it works perfectly for some...and those are the ones who point the boney finger at all the others who it doesn't work as well for.. and blame them for not eating at a low enough deficit or that they're dong it wrong.
*sigh*
You crack me up.
Plateaus...are when someone eats at maintenance.
Obviously, you're supposed to check your numbers at every 10lbs lost.
You are not a special snowflake, unless you're from another world. Then you're a special alien.
Those who go against CICO are either underestimating their intake, overestimating their CO or just lying to themselves.7 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
You aren't going to solve the obesity epidemic by perpetuating people's false beliefs that they must be a special snowflake which is what's preventing them from losing weight.
Bottom line? If they aren't losing, they're eating in excess of what their body can burn off.
I don't think anyone disputes that - but if the problem were that simple then we'd all be a healthy weight. But we aren't, and the problem is just not as simple as people make it out to be.
Confounds simplicity with adherence. Correct statement would read, "but if the problem were that simple and everyone adhered to the solution then we'd all be a healthy weight"I'm not saying people should start chiming in with the "me too's" and make excuses for why they're fat. I'm simply saying that the problem has been oversimplified to the point where society has apparently chosen to simply persecute individuals for their failure to maintain a healthy weight, when clearly there is more than just an individual force at play.
Sorry, I just don't see anyone getting "persecuted" by society. Can you please point out an example of someone being persecuted for not adhering to CICO.If you want to believe that "CICO is the way", go ahead - but you're going to see that basic concept fail people repeatedly for various reasons - reasons that will undoubtedly be oversimplified to it being a "personal failing", which I think is an incorrect approach.
People succeed, people fail. Not sure how that invalidates an application of a physical law of the universe to a particular problem. But I guess that's just me.
10 -
...You can also take a look around at all the people you run into each and every day and see pretty clearly that the problem isn't as simple as "Calories In/Calories Out", since it is FAILING for the majority of people. Every year that goes by, the simple "Calories In/Calories Out" equation fails more and more, yet people still want to boil this problem down into the simplest of terms and place the blame squarely on a person's own will power or lack of enthusiasm for exercise.
That has nothing to do with CICO failing. It has to do with lack of adherence, improper accounting of CI, CO or both, lack of education about how weight loss really works and/or lack of sufficient motivation to do anything about the problem. There are a myriad of reasons why any or all of the above may apply, but it doesn't invalidate the principles of CICO.
If you take in less calories than you expend, you will lose weight over time. Period. Full stop. That is a scientifically proven fact. Neither CI nor CO are the same for everybody and there are plenty of physiological issues which may complicate the calculations - but that doesn't invalidate the principles of CICO either. It just takes some time and effort to come up with your own empirical data and adjust accordingly.
I also place part of the blame upon the diet/nutrition/fitness industry as a whole, which deludes people into thinking that there's a magic pill, diet or device which will allow them to lose weight without calorie restriction. It's a multi-billion dollar industry based almost entirely upon fraud, false advertising and deception.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions