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.
Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
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 -
The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. CICO says it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you eat the correct number of calories for your activity level. This claim is based on the physics first law of thermodynamics which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system. CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is automatically stored as fat. Again, this is easy and simple to understand, but it isn't how the body works. For one, the body is not a closed system. Second, energy and fat storage are processes that, like every other process in the body, are tightly regulated by hormones. If you take two plates of food with equal calories, say, a plate of cookies and a plate of salmon cooked in olive oil, the body will not process them the same way. The cookies will raise insulin a lot, the salmon will not. Too much insulin over time will cause insulin resistance and insulin resistance will cause weight gain.
The Harvard Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II) are among the largest prospective investigations into the risk factors for major chronic diseases in women. It has been called one of the most significant studies ever conducted on the health of women. Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the information provided by 238,000 nurse-participants over 40+ years has allowed NHS to produce important advances in medical practice and dietary guidelines.
The analysis examined how an array of factors influenced weight gain or loss. The average participant gained 3.35 pounds every four years, for a total weight gain of 16.8 pounds over 20 years. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said this in an interview: “This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach. What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating."
40 -
Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. CICO says it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you eat the correct number of calories for your activity level. This claim is based on the physics first law of thermodynamics which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system. CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is automatically stored as fat. Again, this is easy and simple to understand, but it isn't how the body works. For one, the body is not a closed system. Second, energy and fat storage are processes that, like every other process in the body, are tightly regulated by hormones. If you take two plates of food with equal calories, say, a plate of cookies and a plate of salmon cooked in olive oil, the body will not process them the same way. The cookies will raise insulin a lot, the salmon will not. Too much insulin over time will cause insulin resistance and insulin resistance will cause weight gain.
The Harvard Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II) are among the largest prospective investigations into the risk factors for major chronic diseases in women. It has been called one of the most significant studies ever conducted on the health of women. Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the information provided by 238,000 nurse-participants over 40+ years has allowed NHS to produce important advances in medical practice and dietary guidelines.
The analysis examined how an array of factors influenced weight gain or loss. The average participant gained 3.35 pounds every four years, for a total weight gain of 16.8 pounds over 20 years. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said this in an interview: “This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach. What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating."
1. Might be helpful to read the thread before you jump in. Much of what you claim has already been discussed.
2. You seem to be another who is misusing CICO. It doesn’t mean eat anything you want in moderation. It is not synonymous with counting calories. It is a fundamental energy balance that if you take in less than you burn, you will lose weight. It does not have anything to do with nutritional properties of food.
3. If CICO isn’t responsible for weight loss, weight gain, what do you believe is?
4. So those of us who have lost weight and kept it off using the principles of CICO to determine and manipulate our energy balance to achieve goals are what... wrong? I didn’t lose weight? I’m not really wearing a size 4 instead of a size 10?33 -
there is no mention whatsoever in that study of how participants tracked their food consumption...
from the study specifically:
Total energy intake is not well estimated from dietary questionnaires, nor does it reflect energy balance, which is necessarily codetermined by energy expenditure. Thus, weight change is the best population metric of energy imbalance and at least partly captures energy intake after adjustment for determinants of expenditure (e.g., age, body-mass index, and physical activity).
which negates your entire argument -21 -
Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. CICO says it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you eat the correct number of calories for your activity level. This claim is based on the physics first law of thermodynamics which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system. CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is automatically stored as fat. Again, this is easy and simple to understand, but it isn't how the body works. For one, the body is not a closed system. Second, energy and fat storage are processes that, like every other process in the body, are tightly regulated by hormones. If you take two plates of food with equal calories, say, a plate of cookies and a plate of salmon cooked in olive oil, the body will not process them the same way. The cookies will raise insulin a lot, the salmon will not. Too much insulin over time will cause insulin resistance and insulin resistance will cause weight gain.
The Harvard Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II) are among the largest prospective investigations into the risk factors for major chronic diseases in women. It has been called one of the most significant studies ever conducted on the health of women. Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the information provided by 238,000 nurse-participants over 40+ years has allowed NHS to produce important advances in medical practice and dietary guidelines.
The analysis examined how an array of factors influenced weight gain or loss. The average participant gained 3.35 pounds every four years, for a total weight gain of 16.8 pounds over 20 years. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said this in an interview: “This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach. What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating."
This is your third post in this thread. You might want to read the responses rather than jumping in, spewing the same nonsense, and flouncing off.16 -
Wow. 40 pages of this:
and this:
...
13 -
Some of the ish coming from Harvard has been suspect or possibly taken out of context. I'd have to know more about the Mozzafarian quote to know for sure which one is at play here.
I know this much:
An epidemiologist who would give a quote implying that you could get causative findings from a cohort study isn't worth listening to.
Furthermore, that has nothing to do with what CICO means and spare me the insulin nonsense theory that's been falsified.16 -
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.
Which is why you will see people encouraged to partner with a doctor or other medical professional once the obvious issues of inaccurate estimation of calories in/out, logging issues, "cheat days," etc have been addressed and eliminated.
We just don't automatically jump to "You must have a defective board" when someone posts "Hey, I have a question about how to put a bookshelf together."11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Some of the ish coming from Harvard has been suspect or possibly taken out of context. I'd have to know more about the Mozzafarian quote to know for sure which one is at play here.
I know this much:
An epidemiologist who would give a quote implying that you could get causative findings from a cohort study isn't worth listening to.
Furthermore, that has nothing to do with what CICO means and spare me the insulin nonsense theory that's been falsified.
And it's important to note that just because a doctor/researcher says a study shows something, doesn't mean the study actually shows that. Especially when they're being interviewed and are either trying to garner publicity or raise money. A sound study can still lead to facepalm statements from the researchers involved.9 -
Hermesonly wrote: »The biggest problem with CICO is that it doesn't work. Despite admonitions from doctors, nutritionists, and public health officials since 1975 to eat less and move more, obesity has actually tripled. . . . .
This is like saying that safer sex doesn't work because people still get STDs despite advice from professionals to practice safer sex or that budgets don't work because people are still getting into debt despite professionals telling us we shouldn't spend more money than we have.
Yes, we are told to eat less and move more. But without understanding how many of us *actually apply* that advice and how effectively, it's impossible to use that as evidence that CICO doesn't work.
People can ignore good advice. People ignore good advice all the time.26
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions