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
-
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/18 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
At this point I'm honestly not sure if you are so desperately trying to believe that there is some great conspiracy that you are honestly not able to understand what CICO is, or if you are just stirring the pot.
Just because there are things that change CI in ways that we can't as individuals see, doesn't mean you can't figure out your calorie goal by accurate and consistent logging and some critical thinking. People who have medical condituons, adaptive thermogenesis, or are just outliers on the fringes if normal variation can lose weight by starting with their standard calorie goal, then logging and tweaking, logging and tweaking. Yes, it's more difficult for them and that sucks. But it doesn't change the process or the equation at the foundation of the process.
Not trying to stir the pot! I'm genuinely curious about the role that things like PCOS and insulin resistance play in the weight loss process, because I'm having trouble finding credible information online. If insulin resistant people do better on low carb, why is that? Just because it cuts calories more, or is it something to do with insulin in the blood preventing fat loss, like Fung and his followers claim?
Again I'm NOT arguing CICO at its core. I'm debating the effectiveness of caloric restriction as a weight loss tool in the certain 'outliers' - forget about the perfectly healthy average person for now.
FWIW I hate the idea of keto and low carb. But I hear over and over of people, particularly those affected by issues such as PCOS and IR, unable to lose weight with a regular deficit and then losing dramatic amounts on keto or low-carb while eating more calories overall. I know there's water weight loss with low carb but these stories still seem too frequent to dismiss, and I do wonder where insulin fits into all this. I would never advocate going low carb at this point in my life - yet I'm not discounting the possibility of some people for whom it does work, due not only to lower calories but to some sort of increased insulin sensitivity or whatever the process may be. I'm not a doctor or scientist, so I'm genuinely just pondering these questions while admitting that I don't know everything; the doctors themselves in fact admit to as much, while many on this forum believe they have the only right answer figured out.
I think that LCHF is often better for people with PCOS and IR because it does lower insulin. Those with IR already have an excessively high amount of insulin floating around, and insulin is an energy storage hormone. It is going to want to store the energy you eat so first it will store the fat. Higher carb and moderate or higher fat is often a disaster for people with IR because dietary fat is being stored as fat and insulin is still being kept high so you store more fat and insulin stays high... It can be a bad cycle.
If one cuts carbs, insulin levels drop enough that dietary fat is no longer automatically being stored. If one goes very low carb for some months they become fat adapted and they become better at using fat for fuel, and not storage. Weight loss becomes a bit easier than when carbs and fat are both moderate to high.
Ornish, with his low fat high carb, is also known to help. You will have higher carb, but hopefully it is fibre rich to help keep BG and insulin response not too high, but even if it is a bit high, there is very little dietary fat to store.
This video with Dr Naimen is quite good. He comes from a low carb bias but is quick to say it is not for everyone, but it may be better for those with IR, as is an Ornish style of diet.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JipRwP754jA
Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
I agree with the bolded. It is basically what I said but from a different angle.
But IR is NOT always about weight, except maybe if you are talking about fat on the organs like the liver. Normal weight IR is not rare, and is more common in some countries. If your IR is not from being fat, then losing weight is not a huge help.
Consider how low carb or keto helps people reverse IR and normalize BG before there is any weight loss. Low carbing helps people with IR because it brings down insulin. Weight loss depends on how much they eat.
But this is off topic. I only responded to a specific question that wasn't being answered up thread. CICO explains why weight is lost, IR and what diet you use to treat it are just factors that affect what you CO or CI is.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
Usually the instructions for this sort of thing includes an inventory list. ... Just sayin'. So presumably, if you're missing a piece, you would know if you read the instructions.
I cannot believe how patient some of the other people in this forum are.
That, and it seems highly reminiscent of the threads we see where - on page 2 or 3 - oh, yeah OP has undisclosed medical issues (aka the cracked board). Oh, you have PCOS? Yeah - low carb would probably be a really good idea for you. But, until that was disclosed, there was no reason for anyone to think OP would "need" low-carb.
So why would a low carb diet be a good idea for PCOS, and why would having PCOS even matter if it's ALL down to CICO (and low carb only works due to cutting out calories)??
Because people with PCOS often have insulin resistance, and for them (and that), a low carb diet is helpful. It is all down to calories, but certain medical conditions can muddy the waters. Even on a low carb diet, you still need to count calories.
Speaking of insulin resistance - all the Fung sycophants spout his malarkey about insulin being the cause of obesity. Would it not make sense, then, that being insulin resistant would actually make it easier to lose weight, since you're not as prone to insulin causing fat storage as he claims? His entire theory about the cause of obesity hinges around insulin and he's an adamant CICO denier despite mountains of science proving he's wrong. He sure sells a lot of books, though. P.T. Barnum was right about a sucker being born every minute.
Not really.
He actually says that for those with insulin resistance they may have a harder time losing weight because of the higher circulating insulin levels... Fasting and low carb will help to lower that level of insulin which can make it easier for those with IR to lose weight, as seen in some studies (A to Z I think?).
I would not call Fung a CICO denier. He knows that you need CI<CO in order to lose weight. His book (Obesity Code - I'm re-reading it now because I have nothing new to read) discusses how other factors will affect CO and CI which can make it very hard to lose weight. Factors like lowered body temp; leptin, ghrelin, & insulin changes; high carb diets in those with IR; eating too frequently (in those with IR); slower metabolism when faced with a large caloric deficit over a long period of time; and even not enough protein. That's all. It's about how those factors affect CICO.
That's even worse because he's essentially saying the sole existence of insulin makes you gain weight. IR people have higher resting insulin amounts because the insulin isn't doing it's job at the normal amounts. If it's not doing its job, it can't make you gain weight if that's your theory. He's saying insulin just sitting there doing nothing is somehow making you gain weight.
He does not say if insulin is in existence that you will gain too much weight, nor does he say that is its only purpose, but excessive insulin, due to IR somewhere (organs, brain, muscle, where ever - IR is not uniform throughout the body but tends to affect some areas) can make it harder to reach a calorie deficit. He says people need to take responsibility for that fact and do things that will help lower that insulin level like lose weight by eating a low carb diet, fasting, and getting some exercise. Doing those things will make weight management easier. Injecting insulin rather than eating low carb tends to make matters worse. Many with IR find that they gain even more weight once they add exogenous insulin. Many find weight gain becomes easier once endogenous insulin starts staying too high too. That was me, I gained weight after IR was started.
Plus he is not saying it is all about insulin. That is one hormone that makes a difference but he addresses other factors in his book. But even if it was, insulin is doing its job still otherwise we would waste away to nothing. There is just too much of it in response to carbs, and protein to a lesser degree.
People who are IR have high insulin because normal amounts of insulin don't do the job anymore, including the "store energy" part. The existence of higher amounts of insulin in an IR patient does not create more fat storage because the amount they have which is high does the work of the amount that is normal in someone who is not IR.
Like someone who got used to taking painkillers needing higher doses to get the same effect as a normal person taking a lower dose.
Possibly. I think it is unlikely.
IR does not seem to apply to fat storage or T2 diabetics would get skinnier over time, and really start losing weight once they started injecting insulin. We know the opposite is true - those with IR gain more weight as insulin rises, and injected insulin often leads to more weight gain.
It's more likely that the IR applies to the body's ability to clear the blood of excess glucose. That seems to suffer more a T2D's ability to gain weight.
2 -
CICO works for overweight people but once you're trying to achieve certain results it gets more complicated than that. If I want to keep my bf% below 12 it's next to impossible for me unless I keep carbs low. Not keto low but in the 100 gr range. Tweaks to my macros have always helped get past certain sticking points. If you're weight training heavy and intense and not getting enough protein you'll go catabolic instead of anabolic. Nitrogen isn't found in fats or carbs so they can't be converted into protein.
And IR also plays a role in muscle development. So food timing comes into play as well. I also train fasted and follow an IF regimen. That too has helped me reach goals and maintain body composition when just using CICO weren't effective at all.
I was also one of those people that made fun of the anti gluten crowd. Then, about 4 months ago I decided to experiment with eliminating gluten from my diet for the supposed anti inflammatory effect and I was really skeptical. No longer. eliminating gluten along with incorporating foods that were good for my gut biome have resulted in a major reduction in joint pain and a better overall feeling of well being. When i cheat and go overboard with a pizza or refined sugars my body definitely responds negatively and within 24 hours. Bloating and lethargy always follow.
I realize that my views are anecdotal and from personal experience though science is starting to back them up more and more. I also understand that I'm using advanced nutritional techniques in order to keep bf at 10, raise my personal best on a specific lift or knock some time off of the swim or run of my tri times. For someone 30 lbs overweight CICO will probably work just fine. For those of us trying to take it to the next level playing with the timing and macros of those calories can make a huge difference.15 -
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.18 -
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
9 -
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Know how I can tell you didn't read the links?
Or is this a case of "if the facts don't conform to the theory, the facts must be disregarded"?15 -
joeydahatt wrote: »CICO works for overweight people but once you're trying to achieve certain results it gets more complicated than that. If I want to keep my bf% below 12 it's next to impossible for me unless I keep carbs low. Not keto low but in the 100 gr range. Tweaks to my macros have always helped get past certain sticking points. If you're weight training heavy and intense and not getting enough protein you'll go catabolic instead of anabolic. Nitrogen isn't found in fats or carbs so they can't be converted into protein.
And IR also plays a role in muscle development. So food timing comes into play as well. I also train fasted and follow an IF regimen. That too has helped me reach goals and maintain body composition when just using CICO weren't effective at all.
I was also one of those people that made fun of the anti gluten crowd. Then, about 4 months ago I decided to experiment with eliminating gluten from my diet for the supposed anti inflammatory effect and I was really skeptical. No longer. eliminating gluten along with incorporating foods that were good for my gut biome have resulted in a major reduction in joint pain and a better overall feeling of well being. When i cheat and go overboard with a pizza or refined sugars my body definitely responds negatively and within 24 hours. Bloating and lethargy always follow.
I realize that my views are anecdotal and from personal experience though science is starting to back them up more and more. I also understand that I'm using advanced nutritional techniques in order to keep bf at 10, raise my personal best on a specific lift or knock some time off of the swim or run of my tri times. For someone 30 lbs overweight CICO will probably work just fine. For those of us trying to take it to the next level playing with the timing and macros of those calories can make a huge difference.
sold me
* shrug2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »Seriously, how do you live? You can't keep any appointments because the time on your clock isn't absolutely 100% perfectly correct always.
I don't know what to wear on a summer's day because I don't know the exact temperature.
I can't bake a cake because I don't know the exact quantities of the ingredients
I can't put furniture in my house because I don't know its exact dimensions
I can't stick to the speed limit because I don't know exactly how fast my car is going.
Surely people can see the difference between abstract scientific or mathematical exact measurements and real life applications.
11 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?13 -
Community Guidelines we have.... Read them you should.
They talk about attacking other users (Guideline 1) and trolling (Guideline 2)... Please take a look and keep them in mind when posting. (all of them, not just the first two).
May the odds be ever in your favor...
Em.3 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »IzzyFlower2018 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody who's defending the validity of CICO has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_balance
So you are now saying that the way we may develop our own energy balances 'have absolutely nothing to do with CICO itself'?
I think this issue in some recent posts are not so much about what is meaningful or not meaningful but how some are willing to verbally abuse others if they disagree.
If CICO was actually scientifically validated that proof would be posted by someone every time the subject comes up. While CICO as used by some here is a term without validated scientific meaning as often used here it is good to run up the number of posts counter.
Gonna drop this here
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.healthcarebusinesstech.com/nutritionist-loses-27-pounds-on-twinkie-and-oreo-diet-no-really/
And then this here
https://www.myoleanfitness.com/cico-evidence-based-truth/
https://www.itscico.com/
Then I am going to explain you what I read in your comment earlier which is why I ignored you the first go round ...
You said "I figured out my body combination" ... meaning you replaced 1000 calories of carbs with 500 calories of fat or protein or any combo there of ... doesn't matter... it was still CICO ...
It is the same reason people are 100lbs over weight and still severely malnourished.
If you eat medium cheese pizza, bag of Doritos, and liter of soda over an entire day you may feel like you didn't eat much.
Breakfast: 2 slices and 1/3 bag and 1/3 soda
Lunch: 3 slices and 1/3 bag and 1/3 soda
Dinner: 3 slices and 1/3 bag and 1/3 soda
no snacks
But you just ate 3800 calories and maybe minimal satiety plus apparently there is chemicals in these food which encourage hunger so you might even still feel hungry.
Then you replace those with ...
Breakfast: 2 cups of fruit, 5 egg omlet, and a waffled with 1/4 cup wip cream
Lunch: two BLT and avocado sandwiches with 3 cups of salad even with 1/4 cup ranch
Dinner: an 8 ounce steak with 3 cups of salad even with 1/4 cup ranch
Suddenly you are "eating more" and losing weight so CICO must be wrong .. only no.. because all of this is only about 3300 calories
And walla... more food, more satiety, BUT 500 LESS CALORIES a day / a deficit of 3500 a week ... always CICO
Hey Sis,I see you are new here! Welcome to the community! Wrong tree:)
Thanks1 -
I just really came back to see where we are on the whole gravity doesn’t always exist on earth theory ... or if we at least built one bookshelf ...4
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »IzzyFlower2018 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »For me, I get tired of hearing "its CICO, eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories MFP says you will lose weight"
I am not tired of hearing it because it is necessarily wrong. I get that CICO works. But people tend to simplify CICO too much. There are a lot of things that affect the CO portion of the equation. Individual metabolism, body composition just to name a few of the many.
More importantly, there is a lot more that goes into the CI portion. Just consume less calories is not that easy for some and for those who think its easy, they just assume everyone else is just too lazy to try. There are mental blocks, terrible relationships with food, habits, brain chemistry that goes into it. While some people can just eat one slice of pizza, that would be horrible advice for others as eating just 1 piece is a lot harder. CICO does not account for ones relationship to food. There are certain foods that I just cannot eat because it is a trigger for my eating disorder and will derail all my progress. I have to recognize that. But if I were to have a thread on here about how I am going to cut out pizza, I would get a bunch of responses from people telling me they cant imagine life without pizza and as long as it fits in your calories, eat the pizza. How is that helpful for me?
Again, CICO at its basics works but it is way over simplified for the execution of people with eating disorders, emotional eating, and other bad relationships with food.
I also feel like the MFP community bashes people's diets too much. Yes low carb, paleo, Atkins, OMAD diets are all ways for you to achieve CICO so who cares what path people choose? If carbs trigger over eating for someone so they go low carb to lose weight....who cares?? You dont need to throw CICO at them saying that they dont need to do low carb. I have recently changed to an IF eating pattern. Not necessary because I wanted to follow that diet but because I recognized that I was not actually hungry in the morning so eating when I was not hungry was not a habit I wants to pick up again. On the opposite end, I was always hungry at 3pm and I had no calories left over. So now my breakfast calories can be reused for 3pm. But again, looking at threads on IF, you get the MFP veterans constantly knocking it because all you need is CICO.
CICO is an energy balance issue. It has nothing....NOTHING....whatsoever to do with behavioral issues, mental illness, eating disorders, food relationships, etc. NOTHING. Nobody who's defending the validity of CICO has ever claimed that any of those things have anything to do with CICO, nor do those things have anything to do with the CI portion of the equation.
CICO is an acronym for "Calories In, Calories Out". It simplifies the law of energy balance, which has been scientifically validated over and over and over again. If you consume less calories than you expend, you will lose weight. How one arrives at that destination can be complicated and nuanced by all the things you're discussing, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with CICO itself. Nor do they modify, diminish or invalidate the law of energy balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_balance
So you are now saying that the way we may develop our own energy balances 'have absolutely nothing to do with CICO itself'?
I think this issue in some recent posts are not so much about what is meaningful or not meaningful but how some are willing to verbally abuse others if they disagree.
If CICO was actually scientifically validated that proof would be posted by someone every time the subject comes up. While CICO as used by some here is a term without validated scientific meaning as often used here it is good to run up the number of posts counter.
Gonna drop this here
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.healthcarebusinesstech.com/nutritionist-loses-27-pounds-on-twinkie-and-oreo-diet-no-really/
And then this here
https://www.myoleanfitness.com/cico-evidence-based-truth/
https://www.itscico.com/
Then I am going to explain you what I read in your comment earlier which is why I ignored you the first go round ...
You said "I figured out my body combination" ... meaning you replaced 1000 calories of carbs with 500 calories of fat or protein or any combo there of ... doesn't matter... it was still CICO ...
It is the same reason people are 100lbs over weight and still severely malnourished.
If you eat medium cheese pizza, bag of Doritos, and liter of soda over an entire day you may feel like you didn't eat much.
Breakfast: 2 slices and 1/3 bag and 1/3 soda
Lunch: 3 slices and 1/3 bag and 1/3 soda
Dinner: 3 slices and 1/3 bag and 1/3 soda
no snacks
But you just ate 3800 calories and maybe minimal satiety plus apparently there is chemicals in these food which encourage hunger so you might even still feel hungry.
Then you replace those with ...
Breakfast: 2 cups of fruit, 5 egg omlet, and a waffled with 1/4 cup wip cream
Lunch: two BLT and avocado sandwiches with 3 cups of salad even with 1/4 cup ranch
Dinner: an 8 ounce steak with 3 cups of salad even with 1/4 cup ranch
Suddenly you are "eating more" and losing weight so CICO must be wrong .. only no.. because all of this is only about 3300 calories
And walla... more food, more satiety, BUT 500 LESS CALORIES a day / a deficit of 3500 a week ... always CICO
Hey Sis,I see you are new here! Welcome to the community! Wrong tree:)
I was trying to think of a tactful way to say that.
Sometimes availing oneself of the options freely available through the forum software (e.g., say, the "Ignore User" function, just as a random example) is a highly useful strategy rather than taking the time to type a response to somebody who is hypothetically utterly convinced of their point of view and has hypothetically consistently demonstrated, over a period of years, that no amount of reason or actual scientific evidence will change it. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Off topic, but just a helpful tip for a new user, offered in the hopes that it will be accepted in the spirit it was given.
Appreciated2 -
Well off to the forum software to test a hypothesis
0 -
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.[/quote]
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?[/quote]
While I agree peer reviewed studies are a good place to start, they often are used to discredit empirical and anecdotal evidence. There is plenty of bias in peer reviewed research. Just look at the study published by DP Peters and SJ Ceci on the bias of peer reviewed research in psychological journals. They took previously published papers, changed the names and University affiliations of the authors and submitted them to the journals they were originally published in. Ninety percent were rejected on the basis of "serious methodological flaws" by the same publications that initially published them. Robbie Fox, the former long time editor of The Lancet had issues with taking peer reviewed research at face value. He often said that if he published the articles that were rejected instead of the approved ones no one would know the difference. He compared the process of publishing peer reviewed papers to taking all the submissions and throwing down the stairwell. The ones that made it to the bottom were published. And it's more complicated when it comes to nutrition because they often rely on observational studies instead of big, randomized studies. And the big randomized studies are mostly funded by the food and beverage industry. Marion Nestle of Food Politics identified 78 studies funded by the food industry and found 70 of them had results favorable to the industry sponsor. "In general," she wrote, "independently funded studies find correlations between sugary drinks and poor health, whereas those supported by the soda industry do not." While I, like Lyle McDonald, am not a nutritionist and rely on years of self study, I trust his conclusions about as equally as the peer reviewed research. Take it with a grain of salt, look for opposing studies, apply the theories that seem most logical to myself and make changes, continue to use them, or disregard them completely by virtue of my own personal experience.7 -
joeydahatt, all the more reason to utilize meta-analyses and the expertise of people like Alan Aragaon, Brad Shoenfeld, Eric Helms, James Krieger and Lyle McDonald (my person "go to" group. They are unbiased and well studied. They look at opposing points of view and demonstrate objectivity. They also list the studies their meta-analyses and article are based on. So, you can read them directly.7
-
joeydahatt, all the more reason to utilize meta-analyses and the expertise of people like Alan Aragaon, Brad Shoenfeld, Eric Helms, James Krieger and Lyle McDonald (my person "go to" group. They are unbiased and well studied. They look at opposing points of view and demonstrate objectivity. They also list the studies their meta-analyses and article are based on. So, you can read them directly.
^This. For nutrition, I'd also add Stephan Guyenet.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »joeydahatt, all the more reason to utilize meta-analyses and the expertise of people like Alan Aragaon, Brad Shoenfeld, Eric Helms, James Krieger and Lyle McDonald (my person "go to" group. They are unbiased and well studied. They look at opposing points of view and demonstrate objectivity. They also list the studies their meta-analyses and article are based on. So, you can read them directly.
^This. For nutrition, I'd also add Stephan Guyenet.
Thanks for the tip! I had not heard of him and I respect your opinion.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?
But that’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m suggesting others do (at least the peer reviewed stuff). I am confused by this comment.
My intent in posting has only been to try and introduce some of the basic science into the discussion. Mea culpa if that’s a problem on a debate forum. My mind is not made up on the issue, except I suppose it’s made up in that I believe peer reviewed research trumps anecdotal stories about what has worked for specific individuals. It’s how science works.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?
But that’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m suggesting others do (at least the peer reviewed stuff). I am confused by this comment.
My intent in posting has only been to try and introduce some of the basic science into the discussion. Mea culpa if that’s a problem on a debate forum. My mind is not made up on the issue, except I suppose it’s made up in that I believe peer reviewed research trumps anecdotal stories about what has worked for specific individuals. It’s how science works.
What everyone is saying is that there are numerous peer reviewed scientific sources linked in the articles you've decided aren't up to standard. They aren't anecdotal. They are merely articles that conveniently contain links to lots of scientific sources that all apply to what we're debating.12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »joeydahatt, all the more reason to utilize meta-analyses and the expertise of people like Alan Aragaon, Brad Shoenfeld, Eric Helms, James Krieger and Lyle McDonald (my person "go to" group. They are unbiased and well studied. They look at opposing points of view and demonstrate objectivity. They also list the studies their meta-analyses and article are based on. So, you can read them directly.
^This. For nutrition, I'd also add Stephan Guyenet.
Thanks for the tip! I had not heard of him and I respect your opinion.
A good start for an intro to him is his podcast with Danny Lennon.
sigmanutrition.com/episode166/5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?
But that’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m suggesting others do (at least the peer reviewed stuff). I am confused by this comment.
My intent in posting has only been to try and introduce some of the basic science into the discussion. Mea culpa if that’s a problem on a debate forum. My mind is not made up on the issue, except I suppose it’s made up in that I believe peer reviewed research trumps anecdotal stories about what has worked for specific individuals. It’s how science works.
I think if you look back through this thread, you'll find that the people who stick around are those posting, reading, and engaging with scientific studies. The people who've come into the thread with blogs or mocking 20 page studies haven't really stayed around long. It's like 39+ pages in you want to stop and talk about the standards of debate that we all thought we'd already agreed on by posting here.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?
But that’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m suggesting others do (at least the peer reviewed stuff). I am confused by this comment.
My intent in posting has only been to try and introduce some of the basic science into the discussion. Mea culpa if that’s a problem on a debate forum. My mind is not made up on the issue, except I suppose it’s made up in that I believe peer reviewed research trumps anecdotal stories about what has worked for specific individuals. It’s how science works.
What’s ironic is that the poster who provided the link to the studies is one of the most level headed, pro science, members on these boards. @AnvilHead thoroughly vets sources and is providing reliable, well researched, objective information to people from trusted resources in the industry. You are preaching to the choir, without even taking a minute to listen to what hymn they are singing already. Then you are condescendingly appealing to authority when you are arguing with people who have spent countless hours reading and researching the very studies that you claim to be advocating for... as if many of us have never heard of pubmed or the concept of peer reviewed scientific studies...
If you had bothered to read and understand the context Of this thread, at least half a dozen or so of the veterans here are trying to educate others who are falling for anecdotal n=1 stories as proof of a concept that science doesn’t actually support, and yet you’re dismissing the links provided here out of hand without taking the time to read them to realize they support the concept you say you’re trying to introduce.
You also really might want to take some time reading through the debate forums and getting a feel for the context and stances of the active participants before you start lecturing everyone about science and resources.24 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?
But that’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m suggesting others do (at least the peer reviewed stuff). I am confused by this comment.
My intent in posting has only been to try and introduce some of the basic science into the discussion. Mea culpa if that’s a problem on a debate forum. My mind is not made up on the issue, except I suppose it’s made up in that I believe peer reviewed research trumps anecdotal stories about what has worked for specific individuals. It’s how science works.
There are sources cited in the articles you are dismissing out of hand without reading. That's the problem.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.
Why don't you read them and go to the sources Lyle uses then instead of posturing?
But that’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m suggesting others do (at least the peer reviewed stuff). I am confused by this comment.
My intent in posting has only been to try and introduce some of the basic science into the discussion. Mea culpa if that’s a problem on a debate forum. My mind is not made up on the issue, except I suppose it’s made up in that I believe peer reviewed research trumps anecdotal stories about what has worked for specific individuals. It’s how science works.
I don't disagree. But there is no guarantee of accuracy or objectivity even in peer reviewed studies. Anecdotes are interesting but not evidence.
As I said above, I kind of see peer reviewed studies as for more valuable than the articles and blogs. I see meta-analyses as even more valuable and I have a group of people whose research based opinions I trust. So, one or 2 studies is interesting but I don't really take those to the bank.
7 -
A large person on 1200 cal may not be losing weight because their resting metabolism has slowed due to extreme calorie deprivation. So their CO has decreased. Telling them to eat less only aggravates the problem, it doesn’t help.
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=355017 -
RMR may slow down due to adaptive thermogenesis, but it won't stop entirely. And taking a 2-week maintenance break every 8 weeks or so generally helps to offset it.
That being said, a large person probably shouldn't be on 1200 cals to start with.7 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »RMR may slow down due to adaptive thermogenesis, but it won't stop entirely. And taking a 2-week maintenance break every 8 weeks or so generally helps to offset it.
That being said, a large person probably shouldn't be on 1200 cals to start with.
This. If a very large person is on 1200 and not losing, the odds are that it's poor logging even if the (extremely rare) person at 300 might have dropped TDEE to the point that 1200 is not a deficit (but I really don't believe something this extreme happens and have not seen any studies that demonstrate it -- and you'd of course need to show it is something that shows up in multiple studies). Like I said, one way to examine it is metabolic ward studies.
Another thing is that metabolic adaptation does not seem to occur immediately, no (and again if you want to argue otherwise claiming that one study showed that this happened to one person, who was self-reporting food, does not cut it -- it's an extreme claim contrary to other studies). Thus, if the person hasn't been losing at all, I think we have two choices: poor logging or thyroid issues (and even with the latter it's probably both).
Poor logging is actually a bunch of different things -- could be really good logging and regular unlogged binges. Could be good logging but shame about logging "cheats" or assumptions that "just a little" doesn't count or matter. Could be poor choice of entries. Lots of things. I think the evidence is that logging tends to be worse if the deficit is extreme (I think it becomes easier to binge or to start eating a bunch of unlogged things and rationalized it when you aren't eating enough and you often cut activity). Thus, that people often log better and do better with a rational deficit does not surprise me.
I would not tell someone 300 lb and eating 1200 and not losing to just cut calories, even though doctors often do (not because they think below 1200 is good, normally, but because they assume -- correctly, given studies -- that they aren't tracking welll/are wrong about their calories). What I would do is tell them to eat a reasonable calorie level for their weight, and then, once a good goal is set, track really really perfectly, even if it means reducing food choice to make it easier, for a few weeks (I'd have suggestions about increasing TDEE through walking too). Then, if they still aren't losing, go the the doctor or, ideally, a registered dietician with the log and use it to show you think there may be something medically wrong.
The claim that no, some obese people just may be unable to lose is not helpful (and likely to be latched only as an explanation by many to whom it does not apply in a self-defeating way), and I'm not sure what the posters insisting this is so want people to do (and again the claim is based only on anecdotes and one study involving one person who self-reported food, and no evidence that this is a thing that seems to be repeatable in other studies where food is monitored). Are we just supposed to say "oh, sorry, just weight loss isn't for you?" So far NOTHING has been linked to say the issue is "starvation mode" as some believe exist (if I don't pick the exact right calories I won't lose anything and my body will hold onto fat without losing first)* or is the claim that some will only lose with the right food choices (which has not been supported by anything posted here, although I think food choice helps with sustainability in various cases, a separate topic).
Finally, I'll say, as I did above, that at one point I did not believe I could lose weight. I knew about CICO but couldn't believe it would work for me. I tried it in part because I decided I wanted to be healthy and exercise plus eating a sensible amount of healthy food on a regular plan would allow me to get into shape and be healthy even if my weight stayed what it was (too high). Taking my mind's focus off weight I think made it a less stressful process and allowed me to focus on things I knew I could control (what I ate, what exercise I did, how much I moved). I think for some who have attitudes that it can't work, they are doomed to failure focusing on these things is positive (and in reality will result in weight loss). Telling them it doesn't matter, they are probably just unlucky and can't lose not only seems unhelpful, but unkind and not grounded in evidence (again, sorry, the results of the one woman isn't good enough given the mountains of evidence to the contrary).
*Of course there are many good reasons to have a sensible deficit not an extreme one and I don't think MFP regulars push extreme ones or eating below 1200 -- there are those who promote 1200 as ideal or even below as totally cool and fine (beyond for the rare person), but they aren't regulars and often get push back from regulars.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions