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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
nettiklive wrote: »
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: »
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 -
nettiklive wrote: »
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.
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.28 -
nettiklive wrote: »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.
If it "failed" them then they didn't actually do it correctly, no matter what they think or claim.
The factors are NOT "beyond their control". That is making excuses.
CICO is a math problem. The math does not fail YOU because you did the problem incorrectly.
If YOU did the math WRONG and got the wrong answer then that does not give you the right to say that math (the formulas, order of operations, associated variables and rules) is "wrong".
You did it WRONG, but math is still "True".
Just because you cannot claim correctly that "150 - 200 = +350" does not mean Math is wrong.
One or more of the operations, variables, etc. is missing and/or wrong. It is your job to figure out what those things are.
Maybe something needs to be added (MORE food? MORE exercise?) while something else might need to be subtracted (LESS excuses? LESS looking for a magic pill?).
Many people are inherently lazy and don't like to do hard things.
Proper tracking, logging and accountability can be hard.
Follow the rules, get the right answer, eventually.
Always remember that CICO is a moving target and must be constantly reevaluated and readjusted.
As for why they "deny" it, I don't really care but I already answered that a page or 2 back.
However it follows that another reason could be that they are simply too lazy, stupid, or ignorant to learn how the math really works and to strive to do it properly.
If that is "insulting" to them then it is a reflection on that person's dedication, intelligence, or education but not on me.
Almost everyone in the world now has access to the internet and to search engines.
Spend less time looking at pictures of cats (or whatever) and more time learning how to properly take care of the only body you have.
Here is a tip: the site(s) that are talking in terms that sound like more effort or more difficulty than what you were hoping for are probably more accurate than the ones telling you things more like what you wanted to hear.
How do I come to that conclusion? Simple: The easier things that you are willing to do without much effort are clearly not working very well thus far, are they?
18 -
Absolute nonsense. What is a metabolic response?
Metabolic pathways are nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions with very little variation. If this were otherwise life would cease to exist.
Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit as they do denying the obvious.
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.26 -
First of all I continue to not understand why people conflate their own inability to correctly determine their CI and CO levels with whether CICO works as a universal concept that applies to them just like it does to everyone else.
Whether you are able to establish the level of CI-CO balance you want to achieve and whether you are able to accurately measure and gauge the effects of whatever balance you have actually achieved, has nothing to do with whether CICO works underneath all that, or not.
Which is why people are usually advised to apply a reasonable deficit for 4 to 6 weeks and then adjust based on their own results as reflected by their trending weight changes and their logging.
Having said that,Take a random sampling of people in the same height and weight and you will find < 5% variation in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE). That is effectively below the degree of error for instrumentation and statistically insignificant.
I don't know that your above statement is true and would love to see some corraboration/sourcing as I believe that even intra-person variability can exceed 5%. Which means that interperson variability, even keeping age, height, and weight constant would, presumably, be even more.
However my google-foo is failing today and while I am finding stuff that sort of corraborates my belief (see below), I am not finding multitudes of conclusive studies.
Then again, on the face of it, I don't know why one would assume that there is no interpersonal variance. Even at the same age, weight, height people have different amounts of fat and fat free mass and, also, may be starting off from different degrees of over- or under- feeding, or may be starting from a position of illness or other differing circumstances.
Hence if you know something I don't about how little REE varies among same height/age/weight individuals... kindly direct me to it.
--
We calculated total error to be 8 %. Variance in body composition (CV(intra) FFM) explains 19 % of the variability in REE(adj), whereas the remaining 81 % is explained by the variability of the metabolic rate (CV(intra) REE). We conclude that CV(intra) of REE measurements was neither influenced by type of protocol for data analysis nor by the number of repeated measurements. About 20 % of the variance in REE(adj) is explained by variance in body composition. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16277790
{standard formula derived}BMR over- or underestimated REE by >10 kcal · kg · day in 15 of 28 (54%) patients. REE was not significantly correlated with severity of liver disease, nutritional status, total energy intake, or gestational age....with approximately 80% of our cohort exhibiting either hypo- or hypermetabolism. Standard estimation equations frequently do not correctly predict individual REE. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24361903
Different established equations can be used for estimating REE at the population level in both sexes. However, the accuracy was very low for all predictive equations used, particularly among females and when BMI was high, limiting their use in clinical practice. Our findings suggest that the validation of new predictive equations would improve the accuracy of REE prediction, especially for severely obese subjects (BMI>40 kg m−2). - https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo201734
Now THAT would obviously work! But **sometimes**... it is not trivial.Imagine if people would devote the same energy and dedication to establishing a caloric deficit8 -
First of all I continue to not understand why people conflate their own inability to correctly determine their CI and CO levels with whether CICO works as a universal concept that applies to them just like it does to everyone else.
Whether you are able to establish the level of CI-CO balance you want to achieve and whether you are able to accurately measure and gauge the effects of whatever balance you have actually achieved, has nothing to do with whether CICO works underneath all that, or not.
Which is why people are usually advised to apply a reasonable deficit for 4 to 6 weeks and then adjust based on their own results as reflected by their trending weight changes and their logging....
Exactly.
Arguing for pages and pages that there are variations in metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, etc. do absolutely nothing to disprove or invalidate the principles of CICO. Congratulations, you've discovered what we already knew - that it's not an exact science.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the incontrovertible scientific fact that if you are in a caloric deficit, by whatever means that is accomplished, you WILL lose weight/fat. The only issue at hand is that it may take some trial and error to flesh out the exact numbers based upon your individual data/results.
The alternative is to give in to the multitude of excuses why it can't possibly work and Just Stay Fat.27 -
I think they dislike math and think it's too much work to track everything they eat, honestly. And want to believe 1 donut is less fattening than a large salad.5
-
Exactly.
Arguing for pages and pages that there are variations in metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, etc. do absolutely nothing to disprove or invalidate the principles of CICO. Congratulations, you've discovered what we already knew - that it's not an exact science.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the incontrovertible scientific fact that if you are in a caloric deficit, by whatever means that is accomplished, you WILL lose weight/fat. The only issue at hand is that it may take some trial and error to flesh out the exact numbers based upon your individual data/results.
The alternative is to give in to the multitude of excuses why it can't possibly work and Just Stay Fat.
My point is, what if some people are not able to create a deficit large enough to lose weight, because when they restrict their intake, their metabolism adapts to meet that intake level. Now, I'm sure that at SOME point, you can eat little enough to create a deficit, but what if for some, that level is, I don't know, 500 calories?
When someone comes on here stating they eat 1200-1500 calories and are not losing weight, everyone jumps on them assuming they're tracking improperly because if they were, it would be impossible for them not to lose. Even though they have no knowledge, aside from random online calculators, of what the person's RMR actually is.
Same as for some others, it may be nearly impossible to create a surplus, because while one person their weight may gain at 2,000 calories, they may need something like 4,000 calories because their metabolism adapts to anything less, burning faster.
Again, it is pretty well known that our metabolisms do shift up and down daily to adapt for small variations in diet - because the majority of people do not track their diets, may eat wildly varying amounts each day, yet tend to maintain the same weight unless they sustain a prolonged and drastic deficit or surplus. Pretty much everyone I know has stayed more or less the same weight for years and none of them track or even really watch their calories, aside from a couple of overweight people trying to lose. So all those people must be naturally eating at maintenance, but it's hard to believe they're naturally eating EXACTLY at maintenance every single day or even over the course of a week, without tracking whatsoever. I'm CERTAIN they aren't, but their bodies maintain a homeostasis by adjusting slightly to the caloric variations. So why is it a stretch to assume that for some, this process of metabolic adaptation can be a lot more pronounced and extend to higher or lower intakes?34 -
nettiklive wrote: »
My point is, what if some people are not able to create a deficit large enough to lose weight, because when they restrict their intake, their metabolism adapts to meet that intake level. Now, I'm sure that at SOME point, you can eat little enough to create a deficit, but what if for some, that level is, I don't know, 500 calories?
When someone comes on here stating they eat 1200-1500 calories and are not losing weight, everyone jumps on them assuming they're tracking improperly because if they were, it would be impossible for them not to lose. Even though they have no knowledge, aside from random online calculators, of what the person's RMR actually is.
Same as for some others, it may be nearly impossible to create a surplus, because while one person their weight may gain at 2,000 calories, they may need something like 4,000 calories because their metabolism adapts to anything less, burning faster.
Again, it is pretty well known that our metabolisms do shift up and down daily to adapt for small variations in diet - because the majority of people do not track their diets, may eat wildly varying amounts each day, yet tend to maintain the same weight unless they sustain a prolonged and drastic deficit or surplus. Pretty much everyone I know has stayed more or less the same weight for years and none of them track or even really watch their calories, aside from a couple of overweight people trying to lose. So all those people must be naturally eating at maintenance, but it's hard to believe they're naturally eating EXACTLY at maintenance every single day or even over the course of a week, without tracking whatsoever. I'm CERTAIN they aren't, but their bodies maintain a homeostasis by adjusting slightly to the caloric variations. So why is it a stretch to assume that for some, this process of metabolic adaptation can be a lot more pronounced and extend to higher or lower intakes?
I am just going to file this one under hopeless and move on. We tried MFP... we tried.22 -
You are correct and, believe me, I am a strict CICO believer; however, I don't 100% think that there aren't an extremely small population of exceptions (and I mean extremely small). And I couldn't even hazard a guess as to why anyone would be an exception. When I was very young, despite what I was fed, I had been labeled "failure to thrive" until I was 2. Things did turn around a bit and I got more normal, but I was always very thin. My parents did have me to the doctor for this and I had my intake monitored for several years because, I guess, the doctors wanted to ensure that my parents were actually feeding me. When i was 12 years old, I was tracked routinely at about 2,800 calories per day. Granted, it was not as easy back then to be as accurate with calories because the reference material was pretty slim for finding calories and ice cream pints didn't have calorie labels on them as they do today. Once I did reach 100 lbs (at 5'7") they finally sort of left me alone. I really do wish I could have been studied with the technology that is out there today. I'm also one of those people with a very slight build and low muscle mass.
Did the doctors ever diagnose the cause of the failure to thrive? There are gastrointestinal conditions that interfere with your body's ability to use the nutrients in your food.
Edited to fix messed-up quoting formatting.2 -
TristanHentbuckle wrote: »
Because it is WTONG AND TOTSLLY INACCURATE EXPLANATIO. OF NECHSNISMS. EBETGY IS FICTION, IT DOES NITVEXIST. CALIRIES ARE FICTION AND CANNOT AT ALL ACT ON HUMAN CELLS. FACT. I KNOW PHYSICISTS AND DISCUSS THIS
Wow! A sighting of shouty guy in a thread he didn't create! This is a strange and wondrous thing.14 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »
I am just going to file this one under hopeless and move on. We tried MFP... we tried.
Okay. Clearly no one is interested in having a rational discussion.
I have given examples and studies backing up my arguments, yet no one here has shown any research that would invalidate what I'm saying. It's clearly easier for people to just roll their eyes and refuse to even consider anything that may not fit their worldview.
FWIW, like I said, I personally have never been overweight, have ever only struggled with a few vanity lbs, and fairly simple calorie/ portion restriction has worked well for me for years.
Unlike many others here, however, I'm not smug and narrow-minded enough to take 100% credit for any of it. I consider myself fortunate, because it means that my body was working as it should all these years - however I have absolutely no conviction that it won't stop working as it should as some point, especially as I get older, just as I would not discount getting a heart attack or cancer or any other ailment. Nor do I discount the concept that other people may experience completely different health struggles that affect their weight, and am completely sympathetic to those I know in my life who are genuinely trying to restrict calories and lose weight yet fail because their bodies fight it so much. I would not even think of coming up to a friend who struggles with weight and who I have never ever seen eat anything remotely calorie-laden, and tell her she should just eat less like I did, and she'd lose weight. One, because it would be incredibly presumptuous and rude, and two, because I have absolutely zero conviction that it would actually happen in her case, with her own body and metabolism.
Okay, really done now.22 -
nettiklive wrote: »My point is, what if some people are not able to create a deficit large enough to lose weight, because when they restrict their intake, their metabolism adapts to meet that intake level...
Your point is entirely moot because that doesn't happen. Ever. It didn't even happen in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
I know you won't bother to click the link and read it, but maybe it will help others who are following along in the thread and maybe believe there might be any credibility to what you've been saying for the last 8 pages or so:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
Relevant excerpts:...But irrespective of that, let’s address what seems like a fairly simple question: Can the drop in metabolic rate, due to the drop in bodyweight and the adaptive component EVER be sufficient to completely eliminate true fat loss?
And the answer, at least based on the last 80 years of studies into the topic (in humans, NOT animal models) says no. Perhaps the classic study in this regard was the oft-quoted (and oft- misunderstood) Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study. In it, a dozen or so war objectors got to avoid going to war and arguably got into something worse. That is, researchers wanted to study long- term starvation as might occur during war or famine or being held in a prisoner camp.
Specifically the men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories, subject to forced daily activity (walking, NO weight training) and basically had their lives controlled and managed for 6 months. And in various sub-analyses, it was found that, by the end of the study the total drop in metabolic rate was nearly 40%. That is, of the original 50% deficit in calories, 80% of it had been offset. Of that 40%, a full 25% was simply due to the reduced bodyweight. Again, lighter bodies burn less calories and there’s no getting around it. But that also means that the adaptive component of metabolic rate reduction was only 15%. Which is about the largest drop ever measured (most studies measure less).
But here’s the punchline, the men had also reached the limits of human leanness. They were in the realm of 4-5% body fat by this point in the study. Even though their fat loss had basically stopped (and at some points in the study WEIGHT loss stopped due to severe water retention) it didn’t occur until they reached ultimate leanness (NB: the claims of bodybuilders to be 2-3% bodyfat is a measurement error). And even they were still losing tiny amounts of weight/fat. It just wouldn’t have amounted to much since most of the deficit had been offset by the metabolic rate reduction...
...Certainly women’s bodies do some strange things in this regard, they are more evolutionarily, err, evolved, to hold onto calories and fat stores than men (and there’s some profoundly goofy *kitten* that can occur where they shift upper body fat stores to their legs, discussed in my book The Stubborn Fat Solution). So I suppose it’s conceivable that there might be a woman or three for whom this could occur. Maybe. Not that that woman has ever shown up in a well-controlled study in 50 years. But I suppose she might exist. She probably rides my invisible unicorn.
Because in no study that i have ever seen or ever been aware of has the drop in metabolic rate (whether due to the drop in weight or adaptive component) EVER exceeded the actual deficit whether in men or women. Fine, yes, it may offset things, it may slow fat loss (i.e. if you set up a 30% caloric deficit and metabolic rate drops by 20%, your deficit is only 10% so fat loss is a lot slower than expected or predicted) but it has never been sufficient to either stop fat loss completely (or, even to address the even stupider claim being made about this, to cause actual fat gain).
But even when the drop in metabolic rate is massive, sufficient to drastically slow fat loss, even when it occurs it’s only when that person’s body has more or less reached the limits of leanness in the first place. So for ‘hundreds of women who are self-reporting this in emails’ to a certain coach to exist, well; just let me call that what it is: bull*kitten*.
I think what’s really going on is you have a bunch of neurotic crazed female dieters, who are misreporting their food intake (especially the crazy food binges we KNOW happen in this population) and who are holding onto massive amounts of water due to the combination of low calories, high-cardio and being bat*kitten* stressed mentally about the whole process. And who magically start losing fat again when their poorly controlled 1200 calories becomes a well-controlled 1250 calories, well….you’ll have to call me incredulous about the whole thing.
Because the science doesn’t support it in any way shape or form. No study in humans in 50 years has ever shown the claimed phenomenon. I mean not ever. Not a single study showing truly stopped fat loss in the face of a controlled deficit much less fat regain. And with plenty of other mechanisms (like water retention) to explain the “apparent” lack of fat loss that make more logical sense (Occam’s razor for the win)...18 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Okay. Clearly no one is interested in having a rational discussion.
I have given examples and studies backing up my arguments, <snip>
No you haven't. You have repeatedly said that you have "seen" people who don't lose or gain weight as you'd expect, as if you have some magic ball that calculates other people's calories for you. You keep saying you "believe" someone's CO can become so low that its impossible for them to lose weight, but have given no actual evidence of that. You seem to think that if you can't look at another person and obviously see why they are overweight, then that is scientific proof of an unusual metabolism, rather than the more likely scenario that neither you or anyone else can guess a person's CI and CO by working with them or even living with them.
I don't lack sympathy for people who struggle with their weight. In fact, most of the people you are arguing with here used to be the people you are trying to stand up for. It was when they stopped guessing and assuming and actually did the math and figured out their calorie level and deficit that they moved past feeling like an unfair universe was keeping them fat and realized they were in control. I think that's pretty damn empowering, so I'm going to keep saying it.33 -
This is what the men in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment looked like. And the adaptive component of their measured drop in metabolic rate was 15%. Fifteen percent.
So I suppose if anybody achieves that level of leanness, they can start using adaptive thermogenesis as an excuse for their weight loss slowing above and beyond what would normally be predicted by CICO. Otherwise, they're going to need to find another hobgoblin to blame.23 -
Verity1111 wrote: »I think they dislike math and think it's too much work to track everything they eat, honestly. And want to believe 1 donut is less fattening than a large salad.
That seems to be confusing CICO with calorie counting.
Some people do hate maths and do find tracking everything they eat to be too much hard work.
Nothing wrong with that - if you prefer a different method of weight loss and it works for you and there is no maths or tracking involved, that's great!
But it doesn't mean CICO is not still the underlying cause.
( and I suspect a large salad could well be more calories than a donut - obviously depending on the type of salad and/or the size of the donut)
10 -
TristanHentbuckle wrote: »CALORIES ARE ENTIRELY INVENTED AND HAVE NO EXISTENCE. PERIOD. YOU ARE ALL PHYSICS ILLITERATE.
I agree - calories are an invented thing.
Energy is not but the unit of measuring it is ( you could just as easily use a different unit, eg kilojoules)
Just like, say inches or cm, are an invented thing to measure height
Height itself is not invented though - a 6 foot tall person or an 182 cm person is still taller than me, regardless of which invented unit we use to measure them
Energy in/ energy out still applies, regardless of unit of measure.
10 -
paperpudding wrote: »
I agree - calories are an invented thing.
Energy is not but the unit of measuring it is ( you could just as easily use a different unit, eg kilojoules)
Just like, say inches or cm, are an invented thing to measure height
Height itself is not invented though - a 6 foot tall person or an 182 cm person is still taller than me, regardless of which invented unit we use to measure them
Energy in/ energy out still applies, regardless of unit of measure.
I suppose it makes perfect sense to try to reason with Shouty in this thread, given how it's evolved to this point.
14 -
I'm going to stick to the original topic. People are simultaneously too good and too bad at spotting patterns - they can see patterns where there are none and they can fail to see patterns if the connections aren't tangibly direct or generalizable. You can see it in all kinds of diet claims that try to tie weight to a more tangible part.
"My weight has been increasing lately. I have been eating more fast food, therefore, fast food causes weight gain". That's a straight easier to spot connection than "my overall calories have increased".
"I ate pasta and woke up heavier" translates into "pasta made me gain weight". It doesn't translate into "pasta is high in carbs and likely sodium and my weight fluctuated accordingly".
Calories are such an abstract concept. They're not directly and consistently observable. The same volume of different foods can have vastly different calories. The direct observation that many "healthy foods are not generally fattening" misses a whole lot of healthy foods that are higher in calories. The direct observation that many "processed foods are generally fattening" can cause a person to fixate on the processing, not on the actual reason these foods can be fattening.
Same can be said for activity. People tend to notice the trend of purposeful activity and forget about all kinds of activity that aren't purposeful. They also tend to fail to connect their activity to their overall in and out.
People being poor at estimating intake and activity ties directly into this flawed pattern recognition: they just see a pattern of "I'm exercising and eating healthy but not losing weight, it must be my metabolism".
14 -
Eating more than others still equates to cico.
Here's another perspective. I know by now that I have a very fickle low blood pressure. Well, basically it's constantly low and doesn't recover unless I stop what I do and drops down as soon as I continue doing this, including walking. If I do a city trip or day hike and walk all day I have to eat every 60-90 minutes because I get hungry and weak very quickly. People always told me that they have a good breakfast in the morning and can go all day. I never could do that. I'd get hungry and weak again 60-90 minutes later. Just because every step literally feels like wading through custard. So I ate a ton of food since childhood, and was always normal weight while not being as active as other kids simply because I could not be as active.
But guess what? When I became even more inactive, studying, sitting in an office all day i did gain weight as I was still eating the same. Cito works.
Finally having found out why I'm constantly tired and hungry and having found a fix (more salt and compression) means I again need to eat lesss, otherwise I gain. Cito still works, and I really need to take care of how much I eat and relearn about my personal nutritional needs - with the great addition that I am now able to walk briskly for a few hours with just a breakfast without feeling miserable.
CITO is just an energy equation. Eat less and you lose, eat more and you gain. How much this less or more is somewhat individual for everyone within certain statistical boundaries.0 -
Your point is entirely moot because that doesn't happen. Ever. It didn't even happen in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
It occurs to me that its our fault Anvil. We weren't thinking about it clearly enough. nettiklive has been getting their information about metabolism from the people they see every day who have despite eating nothing for days, weeks and in some cases even a month at a time and haven't lost any fat.
They are a mortician.23 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »
It occurs to me that its our fault Anvil. We weren't thinking about it clearly enough. nettiklive has been getting their information about metabolism from the people they see every day who have despite eating nothing for days, weeks and in some cases even a month at a time and haven't lost any fat.
They are a mortician.
Maybe it all comes from reading this latest "research" (courtesy of The Onion): https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-it-is-impossible-to-lose-weight-no-one-181957510515 -
I think most of the CICO deniers seem to really be denying the ways people estimate CI and CO. The mathematical formula is clearly undeniable. Your body can't magically make an energy source out of nothing. Your body might be really good or really poor at breaking down the food you eat so your CI might be different than what you think it is (for example, you might think your meal has 500 calories but if you are not actually digesting things completely and absorbing everything then your CI might be lower than you think). Your CO might be higher or lower than what is estimated based on your age/weight/sex. Unless you believe in magic CICO still applies to you. The way we estimate your CI and CO can be off but that isn't CICO being wrong.6
-
Follow the $. Using CICO to loose weight is virtually free. Weight loss companies are good at selling the very same concept but re-branding it to make huge profits.
It's simple capitalism... lol6 -
nettiklive wrote: »
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
You've yet to link any study that substantiates your beliefs and this is nothing more than confirmation bias.
That's the beauty of science and objective evidence. It does not care what you believe in.
...and 2 paragraphs regarding your inability to accept that reality does not fit your narrative...
When were you in?10 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »
I am just going to file this one under hopeless and move on. We tried MFP... we tried.
We are so close minded. Just time to accept that feelings > objective evidence.13 -
nettiklive wrote: »
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
I think you're conflating several distinct things. (BTW, I did read and consider your subsequent replies; it's this one that is the clearest segue.)
1. CICO is not calorie counting, nor is it an endorsement of the accuracy of any calorie needs "calculator" that spits out what amounts to an estimated population average based on a tiny number of variables. If someone's "metabolism" is down-regulated, their CO is reduced. If their "metabolism" see-saws in response to changes in CI, their CO is see-sawing up and down.
Note to other readers, I know what a "counterfactual conditional" is, and I know how to use one.
2. I agree that there is variation in caloric needs among superficially similar people, possibly fairly wide variation, and (because science) I presume this variation centers itself in some kind of statistical distribution around something close to what the "calculators" estimate. The implication is that most people will come out fairly close to the estimates, but others further away in either direction. Actual accurately-tracked calorie needs very far from the estimates will be quite, quite rare (because statistics).
Rare things happen rarely. Common things happen commonly.
It's common to see "can't lose" threads where - assuming the OP is engaged and honest, and the peanut gallery doesn't get kneejerk insulting beyond reason - we eventually collectively help OP understand what's happening. Sometimes their time scale is too short so water weight is masking results; sometimes they feel like they're being "so good" on a super-aggressive deficit but an open diary reveals unlogged days that they acknowledge were binge days caused by despairing, reactive over-eating (that unnecessary, unhelpful feelings of shame were leading them to deny in their own minds, or underestimate the impact); sometimes machines or instructors were encouraging them to massively inflate exercise calories; sometimes they were using lots of questionable food database entries.
Very rarely, there's been someone who was seemingly doing everything right, and getting anomalous results. Ideally, they get suggestions for medical tests, structured diet breaks (if the circumstances are right), or referrals to a registered dietician for help.
3. Sometimes - way too often, IMO - a chorus of "you're not a special snowflake" from people who don't understand #1 or #2 drives a sensitive OP into retreat before anyone sensible can help them figure out what's going on, or an over-confident OP gets huffy because they just know they're doing everything perfectly and decamps prematurely. I find these cases - especially the "sensitive OP" one - very sad. Some people have come to obesity through emotional fragility. Negative group behavior worsens the wounds.
IMO, it's important to keep in mind that a very few people will have lower than expected calorie needs, so not rush too soon to "you're doing it wrong", even though other explanations are much more common and likely than statistical outlier-hood.
That said, as others have documented, there is zero evidence that there are medically normal or even close to normal people who cannot lose weight by truly lowering CI to some level that will allow them to lose weight but still sustain nutrition. (There may be no psychologically sustainable level, or satiating level, but that's a different question.)
Now, a couple of observations:
A. It's frankly insulting to assume that everyone who believes in CICO (the energy balance equation) is on a "high horse" or "closed minded". Speaking personally, because I'm a person who can eat many more calories than the "calculators" estimate, I understand that people exist who must eat many fewer, and that recognizing and dealing with that will be very hard.
Many of the CICO proponents on this thread are knowledgeable, experienced frequent posters who patiently help despairing "can't lose" people sort out what's going on, and eventually succeed. Some are a little more touchy-feely about it, some are more about tough love: Different approaches work with different OPs.
The bottom line is that believing in science, and acting generously with compassion, are not mutually exclusive as you've implied
B. On the internet, there's no way to know whom you're exchanging posts with. (As the old cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog."
). An important corollary: Sometimes you may be arguing with actual professionals in the biological sciences, and never even realize how hubristic some statements can look in that context. Apropos of nothing here, of course. 43 -
nettiklive wrote: »
This is why I was linking all these studies, which apparently you don't care about reading, that show how the metabolism can change in response to various hormonal and other factors.
I don't believe there is "very little variation" to metabolism. Think about it - there is a LOT of variation to pretty much every other biological process in our bodies. I mean, there isn't *supposed* to be, in the perfect world - our bodies are all supposed to be working more or less the same, right? Except, quite regularly, people get sick, organs fail or malfunction, hormone levels get disrupted, malignant cells form, hearts stop beating. Women are *supposed* to have a monthly regular period and get pregnant, yet many aren't able to. People aren't *supposed* to have allergies or diabetes, yet they do. These are all deviations from the 'norma', which exist, in spite of the evolutionary disadvantage they create.
If all these other processes in the body can and do get disrupted, why is it SO hard for people to believe that the same can happen with metabolism?? I just don't understand, I mean, speak of denial. It's like telling someone with a nut allergy that they don't really have it because, after all, you and everyone else you know are able to eat peanuts with no problem! That one person out of hundreds must just be lying to themselves. Or just because I can eat sugar without an issue doesn't mean I can tell a diabetic that if they can't, they're just deluding themselves and they must not be doing something right. And diabetes is just as much a metabolic process as weight gain and loss.
Anyways. I'm out. Clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here because people are dead-set on their perspective as the only right one. Very closed-minded and deriving pleasure from off their high horses of being the only ones willing to "do the hard work" while everyone else is lazy, stupid, and uneducated. Okay. Here's hoping life will never prove you wrong.
You know what the tell is that you're not as well versed in what you're talking about as you think you are?
You think of and speak of "metabolism" as if it's single entity or process within the human body, and anyone who knows anything about metabolism knows it's not.
Metabolism is simply a word used to describe the series of processes that make the human body work. It's not a thing unto itself.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions