Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Options
Replies
-
This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
any weight loss pill that actually worked would be affecting the "CO" side of the equation, so you'd still be in a deficit while eating calories that would normally be maintenance level.
People who say you can't lose more than CICO predicts will lump those losses to more CO, but is the CO based on a metabolic need to support the activity and bmr or is the fat just released (with a possible raise in body temp that is independent of workload) without a need for it to be released?
If your body is burning more calories to keep you alive, usually raising your body temperature and making your restless, then you’re expensing more calories. CO
I’ve had good results with a diet pill called ShredJym. Not because it’s magical, but because it lowers my appetite and helps me skip breakfast (CI) and makes me more active and less lethargic in the morning (CO.)9 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »Ah yes, we have yet another medical miracle in the house. *Yawn* I'll be sure to alert the media
Had to smile at this. Well done OP for shedding some weight, finding something that works for you and feeling better about yourself. But weight loss in the end, all comes down to a calorie deficit, which you are clearly in.7 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
I believe there are catabolic drugs that work directly on fat reduction due to other mechanisms besides reduced hunger. I think it is foolish to use them also but it proves a point.17 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Don't they also tend to damage the heart? Or am I misremembering?3 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
I believe there are catabolic drugs that work due to other mechanisms besides reduced hunger.
Like the one that is illegal in the US and caused that chick in the UK to cook to death? I'll pass.6 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Don't they also tend to damage the heart? Or am I misremembering?
yes. that's why they had to pull the OG Hydroxicut off shelves, and new Hydroxicut is just caffeine and capsaicine, like every other diet pill.2 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Don't they also tend to damage the heart? Or am I misremembering?
Lil' bit.
I believe there's at least one regular poster with permanent heart damage from Phentermine. Don't know who it is, though. 1 -
What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.6 -
I don't think people should take the drugs either but it makes a point that other mechanisms can cause fat loss. if that is true then why are people dismissive that LC or IF can ever have an effect. Some things obviously do make a difference. Some are safe others are not.19
-
What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition.
Baring some disease? CICO is immutable or it isn't.10 -
What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition.
Baring some disease? CICO is immutable or it isn't.
you responded as i was editing... check it again1 -
What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Won't LC cause more gluconeogenisis which isn't 100% efficient (must use more than 1kcal of fat/protein to produce 1kcal of of glucose)? I think that is a fact.14 -
High carb is not efficient for many either. Low carb may increase glucogenesis but if you are getting the mother load of glucose from carbs it is still much less than what you would get from amino acids being converted to glucose
5 -
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.15
-
let me correct myself again... net carbs6
-
Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......33 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.14 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.3 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.
Long term results are the accumulation of short terms results and if IF and LC have short term results and are adhered to in the long term, you will get long term results doing them.13 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.
Long term results are the accumulation of short terms results and if IF and LC have short term results and are adhered to in the long term, you will get long term results doing them.
Except in the long term LC has no advantage over other woe with the same calorie deficit.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 951 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions