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.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
psychod787 wrote: »As far as people who want to deny BW set point, why would people be resistant to weight gain by burning more calories in a surplus? Then after weight loss, there bodies burn less greater than what would be expected from mass loss? Makes sense to me that the body is pushing for a homeostatic point. Not saying BW set point can't go up. I believe it does over time. If you stop and think about it. Would it make sense for our early ancestors to be so large they could not run away from a predator? As far as the modern obesity problem, in the first world, how many cave bears do we have to run from? Its in our nature to rest when we can and eat as much as possible for survival. Our environment has overtaken our biology. Prevalence of high calorie hyper palatable foods and modern "Conveniences" that make us move less.
You dont burn more because you are in a surplus, you burn more when you are larger because it takes more energy to move the mass.
Rockets dont get into space because of set point.9 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Why aren't people like you never found under controlled circumstances in studies?
Agreed. I'd love to know what my "secret" was back then.
you ate less than you think you did, you were more active than you are now. You likely walked to school and friends houses ect, now you likely drive everywhere. Its not magic.
Honestly, I have given a lot of thought to it. Even at the time, it was perplexing to everyone around me, including my cousin who lived with me and was a gymnast. I really, truly was not active, did not walk to school or friends houses (drove everywhere), ate bacon/eggs for breakfast, bought lunch at school cafeteria or went to McDonald's, stopped at my local High's Dairy Store 2-3 times per week and bought a pint of chocolate chip ice cream and ate it in one sitting. My parents worked so we every weekend we went out to dinner both nights. I'd get a 12 ounce prime rib, baked potato, salad bar. No issues putting it all down and then having dessert. I was really a glutton and inactive. That all came to a stop around my mid 20s. Even now, though I easily gain weight, it doesn't seem to be as much as some other people my age and social circle. But I am definitely heavier than I should be. If I were to eat 2,000 calories a day, it seems way under what I used to eat in my youth. It's what makes things so hard now. I've never had to curb my eating and have a lifetime of overeating habits. Very hard to change.
I remember a thread once where we compared the idea of a big meal between "naturally" thin and "naturally" fat people and there's a biiiig disparity sometimes. 2-3 pints of ice cream a week? That's what I aim for in moderation. 2-3 pints a night was my serving size at my largest. I would have the same steakhouse meal, plus two meatball subs at lunch, plus a snack before dinner in case the restaurant is slow, plus a bag of chips or some pop tarts or something after because I'm 'hungry' again. The disparity between what a "big" portion looks like, plus snacks, plus drinks, etc all adds up. I was a big high schooler and a fat woman in my 20s and I was eating a ton to maintain that. What you describe as a typical day? I'd lose weight on that. I'm not surprised you weren't gaining.
Edited to try and fix the quotes.9 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »As far as people who want to deny BW set point, why would people be resistant to weight gain by burning more calories in a surplus? Then after weight loss, there bodies burn less greater than what would be expected from mass loss? Makes sense to me that the body is pushing for a homeostatic point. Not saying BW set point can't go up. I believe it does over time. If you stop and think about it. Would it make sense for our early ancestors to be so large they could not run away from a predator? As far as the modern obesity problem, in the first world, how many cave bears do we have to run from? Its in our nature to rest when we can and eat as much as possible for survival. Our environment has overtaken our biology. Prevalence of high calorie hyper palatable foods and modern "Conveniences" that make us move less.
You dont burn more because you are in a surplus, you burn more when you are larger because it takes more energy to move the mass.
Rockets dont get into space because of set point.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212
Maybe I read this wrong?8 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Why aren't people like you never found under controlled circumstances in studies?
Agreed. I'd love to know what my "secret" was back then.
you ate less than you think you did, you were more active than you are now. You likely walked to school and friends houses ect, now you likely drive everywhere. Its not magic.
Honestly, I have given a lot of thought to it. Even at the time, it was perplexing to everyone around me, including my cousin who lived with me and was a gymnast. I really, truly was not active, did not walk to school or friends houses (drove everywhere), ate bacon/eggs for breakfast, bought lunch at school cafeteria or went to McDonald's, stopped at my local High's Dairy Store 2-3 times per week and bought a pint of chocolate chip ice cream and ate it in one sitting. My parents worked so we every weekend we went out to dinner both nights. I'd get a 12 ounce prime rib, baked potato, salad bar. No issues putting it all down and then having dessert. I was really a glutton and inactive. That all came to a stop around my mid 20s. Even now, though I easily gain weight, it doesn't seem to be as much as some other people my age and social circle. But I am definitely heavier than I should be. If I were to eat 2,000 calories a day, it seems way under what I used to eat in my youth. It's what makes things so hard now. I've never had to curb my eating and have a lifetime of overeating habits. Very hard to change.
I remember a thread once where we compared the idea of a big meal between "naturally" thin and "naturally" fat people and there's a biiiig disparity sometimes. 2-3 pints of ice cream a week? That's what I aim for in moderation. 2-3 pints a night was my serving size at my largest. I would have the same steakhouse meal, plus two meatball subs at lunch, plus a snack before dinner in case the restaurant is slow, plus a bag of chips or some pop tarts or something after because I'm 'hungry' again. The disparity between what a "big" portion looks like, plus snacks, plus drinks, etc all adds up. I was a big high schooler and a fat woman in my 20s and I was eating a ton to maintain that. What you describe as a typical day? I'd lose weight on that. I'm not surprised you weren't gaining.
Edited to try and fix the quotes.
Interesting. I agree, that's quite a lot of food. Most people around me, though, who were heavier, were eating quite a bit less than I was. And probably exercising. Although at 2800 calories a day, at 100 lbs, I find it hard to believe I wouldn't gain. I certainly do now.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »As far as people who want to deny BW set point, why would people be resistant to weight gain by burning more calories in a surplus? Then after weight loss, there bodies burn less greater than what would be expected from mass loss? Makes sense to me that the body is pushing for a homeostatic point. Not saying BW set point can't go up. I believe it does over time. If you stop and think about it. Would it make sense for our early ancestors to be so large they could not run away from a predator? As far as the modern obesity problem, in the first world, how many cave bears do we have to run from? Its in our nature to rest when we can and eat as much as possible for survival. Our environment has overtaken our biology. Prevalence of high calorie hyper palatable foods and modern "Conveniences" that make us move less.
You dont burn more because you are in a surplus, you burn more when you are larger because it takes more energy to move the mass.
Rockets dont get into space because of set point.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212
Maybe I read this wrong?
It says that when they reduced their body weight they burned less calories per lean mass and when they increased their mass they burned more. This is literally obvious and not study worthy and has nothing to do with set point. Additionally they only studied 41 people split into smaller groups doing different things for a whopping 10 days of monitoring. Even the study itself say that its findings were not statistically significant in any manner.
Taken from the study
"We found that energy expenditure adjusted for metabolic mass increased with a weight gain and decreased with a weight loss."
Well holy crap, totally worth all that government grant money. These "scientists" were totally not just milking free money confirming the obvious.
"Physicians should be aware that for some obese patients the achievement of what is considered to be a more healthful body weight may be accompanied by metabolic alterations that make it difficult to maintain the lower weight."
If the patients are expecting to continue eating a higher caloric intake than is necessary for their lower weight then of course it would be harder to maintain, they didnt change anything, they reverted back to their original ways.8 -
It's easier to tell yourself "as long as I dont eat after 8 I won't gain weight" and eat anything and everything for the rest of the day. CICO is a hard truth that many don't want to hear.1
-
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »As far as people who want to deny BW set point, why would people be resistant to weight gain by burning more calories in a surplus? Then after weight loss, there bodies burn less greater than what would be expected from mass loss? Makes sense to me that the body is pushing for a homeostatic point. Not saying BW set point can't go up. I believe it does over time. If you stop and think about it. Would it make sense for our early ancestors to be so large they could not run away from a predator? As far as the modern obesity problem, in the first world, how many cave bears do we have to run from? Its in our nature to rest when we can and eat as much as possible for survival. Our environment has overtaken our biology. Prevalence of high calorie hyper palatable foods and modern "Conveniences" that make us move less.
You dont burn more because you are in a surplus, you burn more when you are larger because it takes more energy to move the mass.
Rockets dont get into space because of set point.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212
Maybe I read this wrong?
It says that when they reduced their body weight they burned less calories per lean mass and when they increased their mass they burned more. This is literally obvious and not study worthy and has nothing to do with set point. Additionally they only studied 41 people split into smaller groups doing different things for a whopping 10 days of monitoring. Even the study itself say that its findings were not statistically significant in any manner.
Taken from the study
"We found that energy expenditure adjusted for metabolic mass increased with a weight gain and decreased with a weight loss."
Well holy crap, totally worth all that government grant money. These "scientists" were totally not just milking free money confirming the obvious.
"Physicians should be aware that for some obese patients the achievement of what is considered to be a more healthful body weight may be accompanied by metabolic alterations that make it difficult to maintain the lower weight."
If the patients are expecting to continue eating a higher caloric intake than is necessary for their lower weight then of course it would be harder to maintain, they didnt change anything, they reverted back to their original ways.
First off, I would like to know how much weight you have lost and how long you have been in maintenance? As far as changes in RMR and muscle adaptation, I will know in about a week for myself. I have had my rmr's tested at a large university during and after weight loss. I have now been in a "lean bulk" for 3 months. So basically in a positive energy balance for a while. I have also had my vox tested to see how many calories I burn a minute during various exercises at various lvls. According to your train of thought, my rmr, which is actually lower than predicted for my size, was higher than predicted for my size when I started losing weight, should rebound? My muscles should burn more energy in action. I am about 4 lbs heavier than I was when I had my last one done. I expect my tdee to be slightly higher, due to carrying more weight, but not to rebound more than changes in BW?! Outside of going to a metabolic ward, I can't really get much closer of a study on myself. I also had my leptin, t3,t4,rt3, testosterone checked at 4 month intervals. All dropped significantly.I am guessing that all people who regain lost weight are just all sloth and gluttony according you? It has nothing to do with hormonal changes that drive regain? I will be happy to post the results of my rmr and vox when I get them done. I am actually very excited to see the results! I really hope you are correct and I am wrong. opps sorry rt3 increased.11 -
Here's another example. My second pregnancy, I had morning sickness and bad food aversion the whole first trimester, I couldn't eat and survived on almost nothing - literally maybe a piece of toast and a couple of granny smith apples or handful of berries were about the only foods I could handle. I didn't gain weight but I didn't lose either. By the second trimester it eased off and I started eating a little more but not much because I still wasn't really hungry, maybe around 1200-1300 calories a day if that. And I just blew up - I was gaining half a pound a day, way over the recommended 1 lb a week gain, and that was before I even started 'showing' much - it was all in my legs and butt and face, I joked that my butt was literally growing faster than my stomach. There is NO WAY I was consuming enough of a surplus to gain even a tenth of that; given the increased caloric needs in pregnancy, I should've been barely eating enough to sustain myself and the fetus. That didn't happen in my first pregnancy btw, I gained a lot more evenly and modestly and I was eating more. I felt that because I ate so little in the first trimester, my body basically freaked out and started storing away every bit of energy as soon as I started eating *something* again. Because I was so scared I'd gain some massive amount of weight the way I was going (it did level off later on thankfully), I looked up research on pregnancy and metabolism because that's what I do, I'm a research geek lol. And found that studies documented that a woman's metabolism slows down in the second trimester in particular to store fat away on hips especially to ensure sufficient energy stores for the pregnancy and breastfeeding. Later, it speeds up again in the third trimester, and then after the woman gives birth, the body works to metabolize these reserves into producing breastmilk, and in general it's been shown that the woman's body will 'try' to return itself to its pre-pregnancy weight within the first year. After that, losing any remaining weight becomes harder again.
It's fascinating stuff, really. And yes, obviously in pregnancy its all normal and expected. But if the body can do that, can adjust its metabolism so much up and down in these times, what's not to say it can't do it in others? What's to say the hormones that drives these processes can't malfunction and metabolism won't respond accordingly?
Again, none of it is contradicting the underlying concept of CICO. My argument is that, for some people, it may be nearly impossible to get a deficit or surplus while consuming a reasonable, healthy amount of food, because the metabolism will adjust up or down to counteract these changes.24 -
nettiklive wrote: »Here's another example. My second pregnancy, I had morning sickness and bad food aversion the whole first trimester, I couldn't eat and survived on almost nothing - literally maybe a piece of toast and a couple of granny smith apples or handful of berries were about the only foods I could handle. I didn't gain weight but I didn't lose either. By the second trimester it eased off and I started eating a little more but not much because I still wasn't really hungry, maybe around 1200-1300 calories a day if that. And I just blew up - I was gaining half a pound a day, way over the recommended 1 lb a week gain, and that was before I even started 'showing' much - it was all in my legs and butt and face, I joked that my butt was literally growing faster than my stomach. There is NO WAY I was consuming enough of a surplus to gain even a tenth of that; given the increased caloric needs in pregnancy, I should've been barely eating enough to sustain myself and the fetus. That didn't happen in my first pregnancy btw, I gained a lot more evenly and modestly and I was eating more. I felt that because I ate so little in the first trimester, my body basically freaked out and started storing away every bit of energy as soon as I started eating *something* again. Because I was so scared I'd gain some massive amount of weight the way I was going (it did level off later on thankfully), I looked up research on pregnancy and metabolism because that's what I do, I'm a research geek lol. And found that studies documented that a woman's metabolism slows down in the second trimester in particular to store fat away on hips especially to ensure sufficient energy stores for the pregnancy and breastfeeding. Later, it speeds up again in the third trimester, and then after the woman gives birth, the body works to metabolize these reserves into producing breastmilk, and in general it's been shown that the woman's body will 'try' to return itself to its pre-pregnancy weight within the first year. After that, losing any remaining weight becomes harder again.
It's fascinating stuff, really. And yes, obviously in pregnancy its all normal and expected. But if the body can do that, can adjust its metabolism so much up and down in these times, what's not to say it can't do it in others? What's to say the hormones that drives these processes can't malfunction and metabolism won't respond accordingly?
Again, none of it is contradicting the underlying concept of CICO. My argument is that, for some people, it may be nearly impossible to get a deficit or surplus while consuming a reasonable, healthy amount of food, because the metabolism will adjust up or down to counteract these changes.
Were you tracking calories while pregnant?11 -
Not all, go in the keto community for example, many will claim carbs are bad and evil, then you have other groups who blame sugar and when I listen to the nonsense being thrown by my coworkers about nutrition....I get the impression the majority of the people have no clue how weight loss really works. My mom for example thinks she eats 1200 calories, but she doesn't weigh anything and visually I can tell she eats more calories than that, but she denies it.terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
Very well said. Our bodies are not simple. There is so much people don't understand about how hormones control metabolism, cravings, hunger, fat storage, muscle development, etc. CICO works, but for some it is much harder to master, and not because they are lazy or not trying.
"Follow the sandal!"
"No, follow the gourd!"
~ Life of Brian5 -
The pregnancy post makes me chuckle. For 4 out of 5 of my pregnancies, I've thrown up for the majority of them. Been medicated for it, all of that good stuff. I've still managed to gain between 50-85 pounds during pregnancy (and I'm still working to get it off). Why? Because when I wasn't throwing up, I was shoving food in my face at warp speed. Food was comfort after feeling like I was literally dying. Eating was the only thing that made the excess saliva and nausea and vertigo somewhat bearable. It had nothing to do with my metabolism. I just ate way too *kitten* much.20
-
Yes, well known fact that women often LOSE weight in early pregnancy - because nausea means eating less.
As you get past first trimester this usually settles down and you get hungrier and eat more - obviously calorie needs change to grow the baby.4 -
After reading here,a few still deny CICO on mfp ( a calorie counting tool) ironically enough
9 -
DomesticKat wrote: »The pregnancy post makes me chuckle. For 4 out of 5 of my pregnancies, I've thrown up for the majority of them. Been medicated for it, all of that good stuff. I've still managed to gain between 50-85 pounds during pregnancy (and I'm still working to get it off). Why? Because when I wasn't throwing up, I was shoving food in my face at warp speed. Food was comfort after feeling like I was literally dying. Eating was the only thing that made the excess saliva and nausea and vertigo somewhat bearable. It had nothing to do with my metabolism. I just ate way too *kitten* much.
Well not in my case, because my appetite disappeared with both pregnancies, even though I wasn't throwing up, I simply had no appetite and became completely indifferent and even averse to all my favorite foods including bread and chocolate. I was trying to force myself to eat *something* because I was concerned about getting the essential nutrients for the baby, but I was eating way less than my regular diet (on which I had steadily maintained a 110 lb weight for the ten years before). I ate a small bowl of plain yogurt for breakfast, two-three green apples or apricots during the day, no lunch, and a small bowl of plain pasta with nothing on it, or a couple of scrambled eggs for dinner. That was more or less it. Even with the wildest overestimation, there was just no way I could have been eating enough to be gaining a pound every two days the way I did (although that was only for a couple of weeks, then it gradually tapered off). But it was freaky and really like an out-of-body experience, I remember being on the verge of tears thinking I'm going to be one of those women who gains like 70 lbs and then will have a ton left over to lose after the baby, and I can't do a single thing to control it. Luckily it did taper off later on, which I was thankful for. But it was really weird while it was happening.
For those who are not going to believe me anyway, here's another study (although probably useless as some posters on here only seem to trust studies when they confirm their own beliefs, and dismiss everything else...)This article reviews carbohydrate and fat metabolism in both healthy pregnant women and women with gestational diabetes. Emphasis is placed on more recent investigations that have utilized stable, nonradioactive isotopes with insulin clamps to study gestational fuel metabolism. In early pregnancy, glucose-stimulated insulin secretion is increased, insulin sensitivity is unchanged or enhanced, and glucose tolerance is normal or slightly improved. Late gestation is characterized by accelerated fetal growth, rising concentrations of several diabetogenic hormones, and increased insulin resistance. The increased resistance reduces maternal glucose utilization, sparing carbohydrates for the rapidly growing fetus. The inhibitory effect of insulin on the rate of lipolysis is also significantly reduced during the third trimester of pregnancy. An earlier than normal switch from carbohydrate to fat utilization serves to promote the use of lipids as a maternal energy source. Women with gestational diabetes have been reported to have either comparable or increased insulin resistance during late gestation with several studies also demonstrating reduced insulin secretory capacity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1052836310 -
Another really interesting study about breastfeeding and how it mobilizes fat stores after pregnancy - it is thought that the fat is mobilized from the hip and thigh region particularly because it contains fatty acids that support brain development. Fascinating stuff - the body really is so much smarter and more complex than people give it credit for! Which is exactly why it becomes difficult to believe in a one-fits-all solution, or to be precise, to completely discount all other possibilities besides human flaw when the approach doesn't work for someone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3006166/Several authors have examined the effect of pregnancy and breast-feeding on body fat distribution. Longitudinal studies of skin-fold thickness during pregnancy and lactation consistently show fat accumulation in the supra-iliac and midthigh regions during pregnancy, with mobilization from these areas postpartum.16,20,32–34 Sohlstrom and Forsum35 confirmed these findings in a longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study of lactating women. Studies of lipolysis and LPL activity in fat biopsies also show regional deposition of femoral fat during pregnancy and mobilization of these stores during lactation.36 Lassek and Gaulin37 examined the association between regional fat distribution and parity in a cross-sectional study of subjects in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Compared with nulligra-vid and pregnant women, those who were currently breast-feeding and had lactated more than 7 months had smaller suprailiac and thigh skinfolds and smaller hip and thigh circumferences. The authors note that long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids are concentrated in lower body fat, and they speculate that fat from this region is preferentially mobilized in lactation to support infant brain development.9 -
I honestly can't figure out why you think any of those studies invalidate CICO.
You've hijacked this thread for three full pages now to prove that fat utilization works differently in pregnant women?25 -
I honestly can't figure out why you think any of those studies invalidate CICO.
You've hijacked this thread for three full pages now to prove that fat utilization works differently in pregnant women?
No, my point, that everyone seems to keep missing, is in reply to the original question:
Why do people deny CICO?
Because for some people, their metabolic response, and hence their CO, may, for a variety of reasons, make it nearly impossible for them to create a deficit or surplus with a reasonably healthy food intake.
That, in a nutshell, is my argument, because, even though I haven't personally struggled with this to that extent quite yet, I absolutely believe people who sincerely say they do, and found it insulting to read several pages of smug responses essentially putting everyone else down as being stupid, wanting to stay fat as some sort of social club, buying into ridiculous marketing strategies, or simply lying about their food intake. It's demeaning and, frankly, short-sighted.
There ARE people who may do all of the above, definitely. But there are also people who deny CICO because it has failed them, in the sense that calorie restriction in itself did not allow them to reach their goals, due to a range of factors which may be beyond their control.24 -
nettiklive wrote: »I honestly can't figure out why you think any of those studies invalidate CICO.
You've hijacked this thread for three full pages now to prove that fat utilization works differently in pregnant women?
No, my point, that everyone seems to keep missing, is in reply to the original question:
Why do people deny CICO?
Because for some people, their metabolic response, and hence their CO, may, for a variety of reasons, make it nearly impossible for them to create a deficit or surplus with a reasonably healthy food intake.
That, in a nutshell, is my argument, because, even though I haven't personally struggled with this to that extent quite yet, I absolutely believe people who sincerely say they do, and found it insulting to read several pages of smug responses essentially putting everyone else down as being stupid, wanting to stay fat as some sort of social club, buying into ridiculous marketing strategies, or simply lying about their food intake. It's demeaning and, frankly, short-sighted.
There ARE people who may do all of the above, definitely. But there are also people who deny CICO because it has failed them, in the sense that calorie restriction in itself did not allow them to reach their goals, due to a range of factors which may be beyond their control.
And what you keep ignoring is that if somehow this unicorn scenario exists where a deficit cannot be created healthy through diet alone the priority shifts to exercise to increase the CO to make the deficit healthy.
Saying anything is beyond their control is making self defeatist reassurements to not even start or try. And completely false.
There are several people on this site who have lost hundreds of pounds wheelchair bound. Let that sink in.24 -
nettiklive wrote: »I honestly can't figure out why you think any of those studies invalidate CICO.
You've hijacked this thread for three full pages now to prove that fat utilization works differently in pregnant women?
No, my point, that everyone seems to keep missing, is in reply to the original question:
Why do people deny CICO?
Because for some people, their metabolic response, and hence their CO, may, for a variety of reasons, make it nearly impossible for them to create a deficit or surplus with a reasonably healthy food intake.
That, in a nutshell, is my argument, because, even though I haven't personally struggled with this to that extent quite yet, I absolutely believe people who sincerely say they do, and found it insulting to read several pages of smug responses essentially putting everyone else down as being stupid, wanting to stay fat as some sort of social club, buying into ridiculous marketing strategies, or simply lying about their food intake. It's demeaning and, frankly, short-sighted.
There ARE people who may do all of the above, definitely. But there are also people who deny CICO because it has failed them, in the sense that calorie restriction in itself did not allow them to reach their goals, due to a range of factors which may be beyond their control.
Watch this video this may change your perspective somewhat.
https://youtu.be/KA9AdlhB18o2 -
nettiklive wrote: »I honestly can't figure out why you think any of those studies invalidate CICO.
You've hijacked this thread for three full pages now to prove that fat utilization works differently in pregnant women?
No, my point, that everyone seems to keep missing, is in reply to the original question:
Why do people deny CICO?
Because for some people, their metabolic response, and hence their CO, may, for a variety of reasons, make it nearly impossible for them to create a deficit or surplus with a reasonably healthy food intake.
That, in a nutshell, is my argument, because, even though I haven't personally struggled with this to that extent quite yet, I absolutely believe people who sincerely say they do, and found it insulting to read several pages of smug responses essentially putting everyone else down as being stupid, wanting to stay fat as some sort of social club, buying into ridiculous marketing strategies, or simply lying about their food intake. It's demeaning and, frankly, short-sighted.
There ARE people who may do all of the above, definitely. But there are also people who deny CICO because it has failed them, in the sense that calorie restriction in itself did not allow them to reach their goals, due to a range of factors which may be beyond their control.
But the problem is that nothing you've posted suggests that anything throws off CO to the point that it becomes impossible for someone to control their weight. Yes, there are circumstances that will make an individuals CO different than what an Internet calculator would project. That's why some folks require a little more trial & error & tweaking. That's the beauty of accurate, consistent, and patient logging - it allows you to figure out your real life tdee and then determine your deficit from there. I'm sorry but I don't see anything that you've posted that contradicts that.
Yes, some people deny CICO because they think it didn't work for them. Usually because they don't understand it, expect a calculator to spit out a perfect number right from the outset, and don't know how to log accurately.22
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions