Skip to content
  • Register
    • Viewing the message boards in:

    Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss

    12467

    Replies

    • Posts: 10,368 Member
      edited October 2017
      Some people with celiacs also have other problems and cannot absorb nutrients like others. Which means those people might be undereating involuntarily by just eating a lot of food their body does not absorb properly. Just another possibility.

      edit: oh, just 6 pounds? That's water weight or just a bit of bloating for most. Forgot what I wrote above.
    • Posts: 9,426 Member
      Well, yes, yirara that is what I meant before - weight loss pills which mean you can't absorb fat or diseases which mean you cant absorb certain foods, eg Crohns disease or coleiac disease.

      I would call this reducing calories in - you aren't burning more, you are not absorbing them in the first place.
      They go through your digestive system unabsorbed

      But, semantics really.
    • Posts: 17,890 Member
      MFP suggests calorie target based on your weight loss rate, not your weight loss goal. Pick a too aggressive goal, and you get the lowest MFP will go.

      Could it be that eating enough is what stopped migraines and cravings, improved sleep and mood?

      Eating at a moderate deficit, and a balanced diet, is exactly what people in here recommend, every day.

      Sticking to a calorie deficit is what makes you lose weight. Eating so little that you can't stick to it, is extremely common, but it does not invalidate CICO.

      Do YOU have celiac disease? Keep in mind that restricting foods is not easy in the log run, it just seems so simple in the beginning.
    • Posts: 5,727 Member
      edited October 2017
      psuLemon wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      If a person is celiac and eats gluten, there is no may, it will. When a person consumes gluten with celiac disease, it attacks their small intestine. So you will have an inflammatory response from it.


      Except that celiac is one of thousands of autoimmune conditions. most of which have nothing to do with gluten, and thus your statement was ambiguous.


      Finally, having reread her OP, there's no clinical evidence she has celiac... merely a family history.
    • Posts: 4,372 Member
      paperpudding wrote: »
      Well, yes, yirara that is what I meant before - weight loss pills which mean you can't absorb fat or diseases which mean you cant absorb certain foods, eg Crohns disease or coleiac disease.

      I would call this reducing calories in - you aren't burning more, you are not absorbing them in the first place.
      They go through your digest

      It is semantics but it matters in these discussions.
    • Posts: 9,170 Member
      Nixi3Knox wrote: »
      Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.

      Surely if there is a medical situation it's still something that affects calories in or calories out, either by meddling with a persons metabolic rate or their ability to absorb certain nutrients.

      It's all approximates when it comes to Calories In and Calories Out but you can still get a pretty decent idea of what they are. I know what my Calories Out is for a normal day because I have been able to successfully maintain my weight over periods of time by eating the amount equal to what I burn.
    • Posts: 2,577 Member
      ccrdragon wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      And there is absolutely no need to know exactly what either your CI or your CO values are. The process is simple - choose a calorie goal, weigh yourself, stay at the calorie goal for at least 2 weeks (maybe even 4 weeks) and then weigh yourself again. If the number on the scale has gone up an appreciable amount (more than 1-2 pounds), then you are eating more than you need to maintain your current weight. If the number has stayed the same, you are eating to maintain your current weight and if the number has gone down your are eating at a deficit. Choose which side of the process you want to be on (gain, maintain or lose) and repeat the process until you reach your desired goal.

      I don't see why people keep getting bogged down in the minute details when we cannot possibly know what all the minute details are and cannot account for them, nor can we control all of them! Just use the process described above and you will have all of the information that you need to make the process work!

      Exactly!

      Everyone is different, but for the vast majority of people, without any medical issues, eating less calories than your body burns is the only way we lose excess weight. No matter whether or not you are actively counting the calories you consume or expend, or arrive at the loss by any other way. You are eating less calories than you are burning if you are losing weight.

    • Posts: 809 Member
      blambo61 wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      So it seems to me you just acknowledged that it does make LC or IF does make a difference at least in the short term.

      Of course it makes a difference, but what value does it provide? Why would you want to force your body to function inefficiently? And short-term results are not indicative of long-term results. You can eat a diet of purely isolated carbs (no fat or protein), and the short-term results (up to a few days maybe longer) would not be quantifiable or reach statistical significance against an isocaloric, mixed-macro control diet. Long-term though, the carb-only diet would make your body incredibly inefficient, making you lose weight until you eventually die from malnutrition-induced organ failure. None of this violates CICO by the way.
    • Posts: 49,188 Member
      davidylin wrote: »
      I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!
      Yes and anecdotes don't overide evidence. This is NOT an uncommon opinion by people who seem to think that CICO doesn't apply to people who don't eat "clean".

      A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
      IDEA Fitness member
      Kickboxing Certified Instructor
      Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
      9285851.png
    • Posts: 30,886 Member
      My understanding of LCHF (which I do, to some degree) is that the idea is that you DON'T do much gluconeogenesis. You simply fuel a higher percentage of your activity with fat (that you consume) vs. carbs.

      That's consistent with the evidence where a straight one for one comparison of low carb vs. low fat shows no meaningful difference in fat loss with controlled intake. It's also consistent with longer term studies and studies that control for protein intake, which also show no difference (although compliance is always an issue with those).

      I think the gluconeogensis argument is essentially the reverse of the McDougall Starch Solution argument, which is that you can't gain weight eating high carb and low fat, because you waste so many calories if you have to turn carbs to fat (and in any case it gives you a higher metabolism). That's silly too, when it comes to real life.

      Anyway, nothing to do with OP's post which seems to be that if you go from feeling bad to feeling good, drop some inflammation or water weight, and eat a sensible controlled diet, you can definitely do very well eating more than 1200. Heck, that's how I lost weight, and I never thought it meant CICO had no bearing on my diet or losses.
    This discussion has been closed.

    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register

    Quick Links

    Categories