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 ?
Options
Replies
-
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
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions