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.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »Great. Thanks, you guys. I've gotten into my sixties without ever knowing this is a thing, to worry about what other women are eating or not eating.
Really? I am supposed to worry about that? *Puppy* that.
The older I get the more I realize that people concern themselves far too much with what other people do in general when it in no way concerns them.7 -
myheartsabattleground wrote: »I believe WLS is cheating.
I have issues with WLS as well, but it has a large amount of research to support its efficacy (although I don't think the research has looked closely enough at long-term effects).
Saying WLS is "cheating" is equivalent to saying that coronary angioplasty is "cheating", back surgery is "cheating", etc.
I agree. Those saying WLS is "cheating" are greatly uneducated and uninformed. WLS is just a tool to aid the individual in their journey. You absolutely will not succeed with WLS if you don't eat right, learn nutrition, exercise, and take care of your body. It's a catalyst to get you there. Not a "cheat."3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?
I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?
The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.
Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.
Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.
It's doing that based on your activity being consistent through the rest of the day, so 2500 sound about right.3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?
I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?
The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.
Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.
Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.
It's doing that based on your activity being consistent through the rest of the day, so 2500 sound about right.
I gave up trying to figure out the formula behind the steps vs calories because too much maths. Diary gives me rough calories in, fitbit gives me rough calories out, observation of real-life weight loss trends gives me balance. Life is good. 3 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Great. Thanks, you guys. I've gotten into my sixties without ever knowing this is a thing, to worry about what other women are eating or not eating.
Really? I am supposed to worry about that? *Puppy* that.
Nope don't worry about it!! I honestly feel bad for them being willing to sit there hungry and pass on meals. If it were me, I would binge so hard later, so I am glad I don't do it!
Me too! When i have a meal i get the comments of "how did you eat ALL that and so quickly"! It does sometimes make me feel somewhat unlady like, but I've never eaten like a dainty bird, my whole family is the same, none of whom are overweight.
My husband always mentions that me and my sister are always the first up at the buffet table or at the "food trough" at our family get togethers. And watching my son and daughter pack it away at all you can eat places just warms my heart (both are fit and trim), I would much rather see that then fussy,picky salad nibblers. Watching people like that just irritates me.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?
I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?
The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.
Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.
Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.
Yep, i start getting positive adjustments around that step mark too.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?
I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?
The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.
Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.
Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.
Yep, i start getting positive adjustments around that step mark too.
is that fitbit giving you the calories or Mfp Just asking for clarification as it indicates on the exercise page that if you change certain things then only adjustments "received" from that point forward will be impacted...to me it sounds like that number is coming from Fitbit...
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?
I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?
The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.
Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.
Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.
Yep, i start getting positive adjustments around that step mark too.
is that fitbit giving you the calories or Mfp Just asking for clarification as it indicates on the exercise page that if you change certain things then only adjustments "received" from that point forward will be impacted...to me it sounds like that number is coming from Fitbit...
It's in MFP . My steps sync over from Fitbit.
Is this what you're asking?
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »Great. Thanks, you guys. I've gotten into my sixties without ever knowing this is a thing, to worry about what other women are eating or not eating.
Really? I am supposed to worry about that? *Puppy* that.
The older I get the more I realize that people concern themselves far too much with what other people do in general when it in no way concerns them.
I really don't think anyone is talking about being a nosy Nancy about what others are eating. I don't know how to be more clear than above, but I would never think it was weird that someone just didn't order much (let alone had a salad, which I do all the time, and I saw you said you sometimes felt uncomfortable about in the other thread, so maybe that's coloring your take on this?).3 -
I don't believe in cheat days. Why should I work hard to loose weight to then turn around and gain some back? Plus that'll make me crave those foods even more. I'm trying to change my lifestyle. Having cheat days won't help that I don't think. I know I won't always be perfect and sometimes I'll go over my calories but I haven't yet and I'm doing everything I can to be sure I don't start to.2
-
Leftovers?2
-
MissMandyT85 wrote: »I don't believe in cheat days. Why should I work hard to loose weight to then turn around and gain some back? Plus that'll make me crave those foods even more. I'm trying to change my lifestyle. Having cheat days won't help that I don't think. I know I won't always be perfect and sometimes I'll go over my calories but I haven't yet and I'm doing everything I can to be sure I don't start to.
I both agree and disagree with what you said, but only for my own dieting practices (people do well on what they do well).
The mentality of "cheating" is not for me because it would divide my days into two groups: cheat days, and waiting-for-cheat-days days. Can't deny it works for some people, but not me.
Where we part is that I don't consider eating the foods I love which are higher in calories "cheating" and I'm not afraid of craving them. I include them in my diet whenever I feel like having them. It doesn't work for me to exclude foods and I don't see myself doing that years from now, so why start? I also don't consider temporary controlled weight gain a bad thing, as long as it's both temporary and controlled. Sometimes higher calorie days are part of my plan and I don't consider them an imperfection. Keeping my sanity will always be part of my plan.17 -
cmriverside wrote: »Most of this stuff (not just your mom, but in general) comes down to attention whoring, right? I mean narcissistic people pull this kind of crap all the time so they can be the center of attention.
i think that's a little uncharitable. what i've noticed is how much of a social role food/eating plays for women.
i mean, i have a great list of mfp friends who are all active and have tons of stuff going on in their lives. we still talk a whole ton about food. what we ate, whether we ate, why we ate, how we felt about it. in the right social context, it's fun.
so, whatever. i have my gang of friends and we have our own ways of exchanging foodspeak. it's none of my business if i look over in a restaurant and a totally different group of people are trading their own form of it. it's not my personal thing, but it's not narcissism just because it's a different dialect from mine.
3 -
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
52 -
karifossum0329 wrote: »
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
May the powers that be help you. You don't realize how deep this can of worms is.29 -
I'm loving Fasting and OMAD! I don't care what people think, I enjoy the feeling of hunger. At least I know that I can eat whatever I want at my next and only meal for the day.3
-
canadianlbs wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Most of this stuff (not just your mom, but in general) comes down to attention whoring, right? I mean narcissistic people pull this kind of crap all the time so they can be the center of attention.
i think that's a little uncharitable. what i've noticed is how much of a social role food/eating plays for women.
i mean, i have a great list of mfp friends who are all active and have tons of stuff going on in their lives. we still talk a whole ton about food. what we ate, whether we ate, why we ate, how we felt about it. in the right social context, it's fun.
so, whatever. i have my gang of friends and we have our own ways of exchanging foodspeak. it's none of my business if i look over in a restaurant and a totally different group of people are trading their own form of it. it's not my personal thing, but it's not narcissism just because it's a different dialect from mine.
Your MFP feed is a bit of a different scenario than in a restaurant though isn't it?
My mum is definitely warped in the noggin.4 -
I believe fruit should be eaten with caution. I aim for maximum 2 a day but try just stick to one portion. Veggies over fruit anytime. Less Sugar. Yes even too much natural sugar is bad for you27
-
sawyergarden13 wrote: »I believe fruit should be eaten with caution. I aim for maximum 2 a day but try just stick to one portion. Veggies over fruit anytime. Less Sugar. Yes even too much natural sugar is bad for you
I eat around 5 servings of fruit a day and manage just fine.
6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
Yep, and I think that's a recent change for MFP, because my cals per MFP and Fitbit used to match up. Now they don't and it's fecking annoying. MFP is basically giving me an extra 100 cals a day over Fitbit.
ETA: just checked back over the last few days, and it seems to be doing that sorting itself out at midnight thing, which I was sure I'd solved somehow. Still annoying.2 -
karifossum0329 wrote: »
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
It worked pretty great for me
eta: one post and then deleted account. Ok then lol.16 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?
I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?
The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.
Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.
Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.
Yep, i start getting positive adjustments around that step mark too.
is that fitbit giving you the calories or Mfp Just asking for clarification as it indicates on the exercise page that if you change certain things then only adjustments "received" from that point forward will be impacted...to me it sounds like that number is coming from Fitbit...
It's in MFP . My steps sync over from Fitbit.
Is this what you're asking?
Not really...
but it's fine really because I still say regardless of when or where the adjustment comes from that the pubmed publication is a more accurate source of "activity Level" than what MFP uses and that if a person doesn't get past lets says light active on their "extra life activity" such as moving boxes then that stuff should not be logged...
However we all have our own opinion...and I see someone says CICO doesn't work so I will leave my small unpopular opinion to die and let this monster live....3 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »karifossum0329 wrote: »
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
It worked pretty great for me
eta: one post and then deleted account. Ok then lol.
Yup open a can of worms and doesn't stay for the can oh whoop "kitten"..smh1 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »karifossum0329 wrote: »
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
It worked pretty great for me
eta: one post and then deleted account. Ok then lol.
Good. Another "a calorie is not a calorie" spiral would have been too much. If these are the leading metabolism researchers I fear for the state of metabolism science.9 -
karifossum0329 wrote: »
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
I think you are about to set a "woo" record. 9 -
My unpopular opinion today: ItWorks doesn't.18
-
karifossum0329 wrote: »
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
These "real world applications" where you think CICO "doesn't hold water" often involve logging errors and overestimating calories burnt through activity.4 -
karifossum0329 wrote: »
This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.
[826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm going to riff on stuff Kevin Hall said in a Sigma Nutrition podcast here. I'm not this smart, but I'm dumb enough to word things this poorly.
Science is a cool thing. People come up with hypotheses, and the interesting thing about a hypothesis is that you can falsify it or find it likely, but with caveats (confounders get in the way, so there are always questions remaining).
That carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis has been tested and proven false.
The thing with obesity that's problematic is that the reason for it is not likely scientific in that there's not a single factor that can explain why people get fat. The mechanism for weight gain is known. Someone consumes more calories than they burn. WHY they consume more calories than they burn is unknown.
Sadly, since the "why" is likely to be different for different people, and also likely to be multi-factorial (possibly even for the same person), this might never be known for sure.
The one truth that has been tested under laboratory-like conditions is the calorie hypothesis. When you control calories, people lose weight. This is in hospital settings where caloric intake and physical activity output are tightly controlled.
Data on real world subjects? Too easily dismissed as having user input errors, because there is no subject who has come out of a metabolic ward who has been subjected to caloric restriction who has not lost weight.
So no, your post is all kinds of wrong.
Edit: I see now this was a drive by from the woo fairy, but it was still worth typing out my interpretation of what Hall said on the podcast, because it was awesome. At least I think so.21 -
I'm loving Fasting and OMAD! I don't care what people think, I enjoy the feeling of hunger. At least I know that I can eat whatever I want at my next and only meal for the day.
I wish I could love hunger. It terrifies me. I'm always afraid that it's going to bring on a migraine. Because I've played that game before to bad result.
Ultimately, I'm not afraid of hunger. I'm afraid of my migraines. It makes managing my food intake a dicey proposition.
I am able to IF and eat pretty much two meals a day, but if I by chance have a hungrier day? I eat.5 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133
I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.
I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.
If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...
and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...
and then there is this part.
Per this article
1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035
Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.
I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.
Yep, and I think that's a recent change for MFP, because my cals per MFP and Fitbit used to match up. Now they don't and it's fecking annoying. MFP is basically giving me an extra 100 cals a day over Fitbit.
ETA: just checked back over the last few days, and it seems to be doing that sorting itself out at midnight thing, which I was sure I'd solved somehow. Still annoying.
Is it? That's annoying. I'm glad I pretty much do a TDEE method with how I have things set up and just eat a consistent caloric level. I look at my adjustment, but don't pay too much attention to it.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions