Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Whatever it is I assume height is being used with some sort of population average to make assumptions about muscle content. Sort of like Height to weight gives you BMI which makes assumptions about your percent bodyfat based on population averages. I think people understand that, the question for me is more esoteric...does height itself matter at all for CO or is it just a corollary for something else like muscle content?
(P.S. Following is not debate/criticism of your comment - intended as casual follow-on conversation.)
I'd been wondering if this sub-conversation was taking into account the statistical nature of the standard CO estimates. I see that you, at least, were.
I haven't dug into the statistical underpinnings of the calorie estimation formulas at any level of detail (soooo boring!
) but have idly wondered to what extent "average" but suboptimal behavior skews the outcomes for people who are not as average.
That improbable 5'3" jacked 200-pound guy would get poor estimates from calculators, of course, and the reason would involve somehow the undeniable fact that most 5'3" 200-pound men are seriously fat so they drive the stats behind the formula.
So: Assumptions about % bodyfat are an example of this effect, commonness of unnecessary inactivity and muscle loss in older age groups are another. High incidence of repeated extreme but fairly brief yo-yo dieting in some subpopulations . . . I wonder? Etc.
I don't know - maybe someone does - whether the underlying sampling that results in the formulas starts with population-wide basic data then applies adjustments for subpopulations, or what. (I'm not wondering about the nature of the estimation formulas themselves - I'm wondering about logistics of the research underpinnings, how the formula is built up, where factors like this might be an influence. But I don't care enough to do the research. ). 0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Vegetables have carbohydrates.
Also, fruit is one of the foods highest in carbs by percentage, and yet few people claim to feel like garbage because they eat fruit. So yeah, I do think that's kind of unusual, although there are others who claim carbs in general make them feel bad.
Of course, most of the healthiest human diets (the blue zones) are reasonably high carb.
and high in fiber.
What does this have to do with you claiming that carbohydrates make you feel like garbage?
The main difference between eating bread and broccoli is the fiber. It is a lot about glucose spikes. It has also been shown that diets absent of fiber create breeding grounds for an unhealthy micro-biome. A lot of it comes down to inflammation.
Surely someone suggests in the yet unread 28 pages having a spoon of metamucil with their delicious bread to comply with his dietary rules, right? Surely. Otherwise, MFP, you're dead to me.
I love this, it's like you're playing the Top 10 hits for us. I'm over here going, oh yeah! I remember that one! Those were the days, when this thread was young and wild
It's actually causing me physical pain not to bump more of them. (I'm MFP-infamous for doing that on these kinds of threads.)
But that was then. This is now. This is the new and improved me. I'm trying to do better. I'm trying to be better.
But it's not easy.
Especially since this is day 4 (of scheduled 50ish days) of my Annual Summer Unfattening Adventure...and I'm hungry. So hungry. Fortunately, I'm starting from around 14% BF this time, so it won't be as long as has been necessary years ago. But still...hungry. So hungry.
But enough about me. Back to catching up. I need to knock out a few more pages before my commute.
Joffed!5 -
Per Steve Reeves
Presumes a male somewhere around 8% - 10% body fat
"Ideal muscular body weight for male by height"
5'5" 160lbs
5'6" 165lbs
5'7" 170lbs
5'8" 175lbs
5'9" 180lbs
5'10" 185lbs
5'11" 190lbs
6'0" 200lbs
6'1" 210lbs
6'2" 220lbs
6'3" 230lbs
6'4" 240lbs
6'5" 250lbs
Measurements:
Arm size = 252% of Wrist size
Calf size = 192% of Ankle size
Neck Size = 79% of Head size
Chest Size = 148% of Pelvis size
Waist size = 86% of Pelvis size
Thigh size = 175% of Knee size
The numbers for the "Grecian Ideal" (based on the Golden Ratio), as well as John McCallum's numbers are all close / similar.
Being too far from these numbers is considered to be not symmetrical and out of proportion.
But in my experience, the Resting Heart Rate has a greater impact on TDEE than 5 or 10 pounds of extra body fat.
I haven't seen any calculators that take RHR into account.
Of course there is a big difference between 5 pounds of extra fat vs 50 pounds of extra fat, so YMMV.
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson207.htm
That thought (the bolded) is a new idea to me. Can you comment further on why you believe that to be true?
(I'm not arguing or setting you up in any way by asking - I'm truly curious. My TDEE is higher than it "should" be (per most formulas); while I'm not obsessed to know why, it would be interesting to know more. My RHR is lower than typical for my demographic: Fitness-related, not genetic, AFAIK.)0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Whatever it is I assume height is being used with some sort of population average to make assumptions about muscle content. Sort of like Height to weight gives you BMI which makes assumptions about your percent bodyfat based on population averages. I think people understand that, the question for me is more esoteric...does height itself matter at all for CO or is it just a corollary for something else like muscle content?
(P.S. Following is not debate/criticism of your comment - intended as casual follow-on conversation.)
I'd been wondering if this sub-conversation was taking into account the statistical nature of the standard CO estimates. I see that you, at least, were.
I haven't dug into the statistical underpinnings of the calorie estimation formulas at any level of detail (soooo boring! ) but have idly wondered to what extent "average" but suboptimal behavior skews the outcomes for people who are not as average.
That improbable 5'3" jacked 200-pound guy would get poor estimates from calculators, of course, and the reason would involve somehow the undeniable fact that most 5'3" 200-pound men are seriously fat so they drive the stats behind the formula.
So: Assumptions about % bodyfat are an example of this effect, commonness of unnecessary inactivity and muscle loss in older age groups are another. High incidence of repeated extreme but fairly brief yo-yo dieting in some subpopulations . . . I wonder? Etc.
I don't know - maybe someone does - whether the underlying sampling that results in the formulas starts with population-wide basic data then applies adjustments for subpopulations, or what. (I'm not wondering about the nature of the estimation formulas themselves - I'm wondering about logistics of the research underpinnings, how the formula is built up, where factors like this might be an influence. But I don't care enough to do the research. ).
Yeah well to be honest science itself tends to be inferences drawn from statistical analysis of repeated measurements of a population.3 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?7 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Vegetables have carbohydrates.
Also, fruit is one of the foods highest in carbs by percentage, and yet few people claim to feel like garbage because they eat fruit. So yeah, I do think that's kind of unusual, although there are others who claim carbs in general make them feel bad.
Of course, most of the healthiest human diets (the blue zones) are reasonably high carb.
and high in fiber.
What does this have to do with you claiming that carbohydrates make you feel like garbage?
The main difference between eating bread and broccoli is the fiber. It is a lot about glucose spikes. It has also been shown that diets absent of fiber create breeding grounds for an unhealthy micro-biome. A lot of it comes down to inflammation.
Surely someone suggests in the yet unread 28 pages having a spoon of metamucil with their delicious bread to comply with his dietary rules, right? Surely. Otherwise, MFP, you're dead to me.
I love this, it's like you're playing the Top 10 hits for us. I'm over here going, oh yeah! I remember that one! Those were the days, when this thread was young and wild
I was going to say, “this is classic JOf but then I see that Jof already copped to it.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
You have 34 posts, and I'm pretty confident at least 10 of them are in debate threads complaining about the bad advice we give
While I get your point, I'm not sure post count has any reliable relationship with the quality of posts.
People with high post counts can provide really bad information, while those with low counts can provide good information.
Not sure what citing post count does to advance an argument. Seems more like a logical fallacy to cite post count.
A previous poster said that she wished people who complain about the advice we give, would spend some time volunteering their own wisdom in threads rather than just complaining about us. Her response, which I quoted, was "I do". I would think the number of posts she has is incredibly relevant to that assertion. If she was volunteering time offering advice to others, she would have more than 34 posts. But I get it, it's fun to just pop into a 30 page thread and criticize someone.
It's a lot easier to say "You're doing it wrong" than to try to do it yourself. I suppose this would be a better community if we all just stopped posting these CICO related responses and just let all the newbies debate whether ACV or Hydroxycut are the best way to lose weight.
Hey, OG Hyroxycut actually worked.
*when it didn’t kill them, that is.
(Nb4 and then it worked even more)8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
9 -
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.
I think the only reason people bash "diets" is that some people think they need to do that to lose weight, when it is just one way to have a deficit. So, it is more informing people that they don't have to follow that diet to lose weight. If one wants to follow a diet, go ahead, but don't think you have to to lose weight, unless it is for compliance with a deficit.
And even worse, start zealously preaching to others that they need to/should follow their diet of choice if they really want results/are serious about their health/etc.5 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
I think this is just a semantic misunderstanding.
CICO is basically the first law of thermodynamics stated in terms of calories, which are just a unit of measure for energy. I think you are talking about calorie counting and only considering calories in your diet, which is a strategy some employ to lose weight...it isn't CICO. The concept behind the idea of tracking calories is CICO, but that doesn't mean CICO is the same as calorie counting. Anymore than the concept behind the idea of lifting weights to gain strength is gravity, but that doesn't mean that gravity is the same as lifting weights. Gravity exists and influences your life whether or not you choose to lift weights, CICO exists and influences your life whether or not you choose to calorie count or pay attention to nutrients or vitamins.
First law:
Change in energy in a system is equal to the amount of energy supplied to the system minus the amount of energy the system expends.
Calories are a unit of measure for energy the same way kilograms are a unit of measure for mass and meters are a unit of measure for distance. So the first law could just be written as:
Change in energy in a system is equal to the amount of calories supplied to the system minus the amount of calories the system expends.
The system could be your body, which would mean it could be written as
Change in energy in your body is equal to the amount of calories supplied to your body minus the amount of calories your body expends
Now your body stores energy in the form of chemical energy in the form of chemical bonds between atoms in molecules. Specifically it stores it in glucose in the storage molecule glycogen and as fat in the storage molecule triglyceride which is stored in adipose tissue. As such the amount of energy in your body in those forms has a weight associated with it and if you use that energy you essentially are removing that weight and if you add energy you are essentially gaining weight. So then you can write it like this
Change in weight in your body is equal to the weight of the amount of calories supplied to your body minus the weight of the amount of calories your body expends.
But that is long and complicated to say so instead of saying calroies supplied to to your body lets say calories in and instead of amount of calories your body expends lets say calories out...we can abbreviate that CI and CO, then the statement becomes:
Change in weight in your body is equal to CICO.
That is just a fact of nature. CICO is the first law of thermodynamics which is why some people scrunch their face when people say they don't believe in CICO, or CICO isn't how they do things or CICO doesn't apply to them. If you choose to lose weight by trying to track and estimate the number of calories you take in versus the number of calories you expend then that concept is rooted in CICO but it isn't CICO itself, it is just calorie counting.12 -
I like the commercial they have on cable now where a gal says "if you see immediate results, you know you are on the right track". My thought was "for sure, if you've just had liposuction, you'd see immediate" results. People are still buying that stuff or they wouldn't be able to afford the commercials to sell more of their lies.1
-
abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
And do you think that’s inconsistent with what the OP, or others posting in the thread about what CICO means, are practicing?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Whatever it is I assume height is being used with some sort of population average to make assumptions about muscle content. Sort of like Height to weight gives you BMI which makes assumptions about your percent bodyfat based on population averages. I think people understand that, the question for me is more esoteric...does height itself matter at all for CO or is it just a corollary for something else like muscle content?
(P.S. Following is not debate/criticism of your comment - intended as casual follow-on conversation.)
I'd been wondering if this sub-conversation was taking into account the statistical nature of the standard CO estimates. I see that you, at least, were.
I haven't dug into the statistical underpinnings of the calorie estimation formulas at any level of detail (soooo boring! ) but have idly wondered to what extent "average" but suboptimal behavior skews the outcomes for people who are not as average.
That improbable 5'3" jacked 200-pound guy would get poor estimates from calculators, of course, and the reason would involve somehow the undeniable fact that most 5'3" 200-pound men are seriously fat so they drive the stats behind the formula.
My understanding is that the formula is skewed toward people with healthy body fat percentages, so it likely tends to overestimate calorie burn for people with obese levels of body fat. This is why when I started I estimated my body fat and then took a big range on either side and looked at the likely BMR/TDEE under the BF% model (Katch-McArdle) and compared it to MFP's numbers. It's also why I don't get too hung up on the fact that someone obese gets a TDEE of, say, 2200 on a calculator when only 5'3, chances are that person's real TDEE is lower.
Obviously, some people have higher than predicted TDEEs too, even taking body fat into account. This (again! and I know you agree) is why calculators are only a starting point, adjusting is needed, however you cut calories, if results aren't as planned, and having a lower or higher TDEE than a calculator says you should has zero to do with the merits of CICO.1 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.5 -
kendramnolan wrote: »New to MFP...started reading this earlier and my first thought was "wow, this escalated quickly" I only just found out that this is on a debate forum (didn't even know there was a debate forum)
I have no information to add to any of this, but thought I'd interject to say that having a debate forum is a great way for a newbie to get answers to questions from all perspectives.
MFP is now my fave app on my phone.
Welcome And yes, it's always good to check which forum a thread is in before drawing conclusions or replying. Can't tell you how many times I've almost posted in Chit Chat 
**shudder**9 -
So, CICO works, whether short or tall. As I said earlier, height does not matter, CICO does. Sheesh, peeps.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
3 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Read through the entirety of this thread itself, and any other CICO thread (and many keto threads) on MFP and you'll see that there are plenty of CICO deniers. Carbs make you fat. Insulin makes you fat. Not "eating clean" makes you fat. Not intermittent fasting makes you fat. Not enough exercise makes you fat. You can eat at a huge caloric surplus while doing keto and not gain weight because magical keto wizardry. And so on.
[ETA:] Just to further illustrate the point, here are four recent Debate threads in which people outright deny CICO, or completely misunderstand what it is (be prepared - strong woo ahead):
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10640612/cico-is-overrated-in-my-opinion/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10660811/calorie-in-calorie-out-method-is-outdated/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10589024/cals-are-not-created-equal-cico-isnt-the-whole-story/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10616219/dr-jason-fung-the-useless-concept-of-calories/p112 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Probably the easiest way to understand the OP is to read it. Helpfully, it's the very first post on the very first page.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Whatever it is I assume height is being used with some sort of population average to make assumptions about muscle content. Sort of like Height to weight gives you BMI which makes assumptions about your percent bodyfat based on population averages. I think people understand that, the question for me is more esoteric...does height itself matter at all for CO or is it just a corollary for something else like muscle content?
(P.S. Following is not debate/criticism of your comment - intended as casual follow-on conversation.)
I'd been wondering if this sub-conversation was taking into account the statistical nature of the standard CO estimates. I see that you, at least, were.
I haven't dug into the statistical underpinnings of the calorie estimation formulas at any level of detail (soooo boring! ) but have idly wondered to what extent "average" but suboptimal behavior skews the outcomes for people who are not as average.
That improbable 5'3" jacked 200-pound guy would get poor estimates from calculators, of course, and the reason would involve somehow the undeniable fact that most 5'3" 200-pound men are seriously fat so they drive the stats behind the formula.
My understanding is that the formula is skewed toward people with healthy body fat percentages, so it likely tends to overestimate calorie burn for people with obese levels of body fat. This is why when I started I estimated my body fat and then took a big range on either side and looked at the likely BMR/TDEE under the BF% model (Katch-McArdle) and compared it to MFP's numbers. It's also why I don't get too hung up on the fact that someone obese gets a TDEE of, say, 2200 on a calculator when only 5'3, chances are that person's real TDEE is lower.
Obviously, some people have higher than predicted TDEEs too, even taking body fat into account. This (again! and I know you agree) is why calculators are only a starting point, adjusting is needed, however you cut calories, if results aren't as planned, and having a lower or higher TDEE than a calculator says you should has zero to do with the merits of CICO.
Of course.
What I'm saying, I think, is that it would be interesting to have a better understanding of other things that skew the formula with respect to other differences in the underlying population, the limitations of the model - what the likely sources of variation are, where they enter the model (partly a function of the structure of the model), etc.
Just, y'know, not quite interesting enough to actually invest the effort in figuring it out.
I took my Nth college statistics class during summer semester. It was about something that amounted to estimating the error in the estimated error of the estimates of the characteristics of the population based on the data from the sample - statistics about statistics about statistics about samples of populations. It was summer. The sun was shining. It was lovely outside, as I could see through the big windows in my statistics class. I was maybe 20 years old. I dropped the class.
Apologies for the digression.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?
From listening to some of these CICO deniers talk, one would think that weight loss isn't even a possible thing. Just can't be done.
Now I need to figure out how I’ve intentionally (and predictably) lost weight by eating at what I calculated to be a certain calorie deficit by a combination of reducing consumption and increasing overall activity (but mostly the former) and intentionally (and predictably) gained weight by eating at what I calculated to be a certain calorie surplus by a combination of increasing consumption and reducing overall activity (but mostly the former). Maybe I got lucky and modified my hormones/chakra/chi/something just right each time to arrive accidentally at the intended (and expected) outcome? And have many times in the past 7+ years to arrive consistently at my weight goals.
10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Whatever it is I assume height is being used with some sort of population average to make assumptions about muscle content. Sort of like Height to weight gives you BMI which makes assumptions about your percent bodyfat based on population averages. I think people understand that, the question for me is more esoteric...does height itself matter at all for CO or is it just a corollary for something else like muscle content?
(P.S. Following is not debate/criticism of your comment - intended as casual follow-on conversation.)
I'd been wondering if this sub-conversation was taking into account the statistical nature of the standard CO estimates. I see that you, at least, were.
I haven't dug into the statistical underpinnings of the calorie estimation formulas at any level of detail (soooo boring! ) but have idly wondered to what extent "average" but suboptimal behavior skews the outcomes for people who are not as average.
That improbable 5'3" jacked 200-pound guy would get poor estimates from calculators, of course, and the reason would involve somehow the undeniable fact that most 5'3" 200-pound men are seriously fat so they drive the stats behind the formula.
My understanding is that the formula is skewed toward people with healthy body fat percentages, so it likely tends to overestimate calorie burn for people with obese levels of body fat. This is why when I started I estimated my body fat and then took a big range on either side and looked at the likely BMR/TDEE under the BF% model (Katch-McArdle) and compared it to MFP's numbers. It's also why I don't get too hung up on the fact that someone obese gets a TDEE of, say, 2200 on a calculator when only 5'3, chances are that person's real TDEE is lower.
Obviously, some people have higher than predicted TDEEs too, even taking body fat into account. This (again! and I know you agree) is why calculators are only a starting point, adjusting is needed, however you cut calories, if results aren't as planned, and having a lower or higher TDEE than a calculator says you should has zero to do with the merits of CICO.
Of course.
What I'm saying, I think, is that it would be interesting to have a better understanding of other things that skew the formula with respect to other differences in the underlying population, the limitations of the model - what the likely sources of variation are, where they enter the model (partly a function of the structure of the model), etc.
Just, y'know, not quite interesting enough to actually invest the effort in figuring it out.
I took my Nth college statistics class during summer semester. It was about something that amounted to estimating the error in the estimated error of the estimates of the characteristics of the population based on the data from the sample - statistics about statistics about statistics about samples of populations. It was summer. The sun was shining. It was lovely outside, as I could see through the big windows in my statistics class. I was maybe 20 years old. I dropped the class.
Apologies for the digression.
Yeah, that would be interesting.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Now I'm just wondering how I lost 40 Lbs and have managed to keep it off (except for winter weight) for 5 years. I'm also wondering how the hell I've lost 4 of my 10 Lbs of winter weight in the last month.
I see that you and I are now worried about the same thing.6 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
You seemed to think there was something you were referring to as "simply CICO" which was "not enough" for you, which is why I thought (and still think) you were referring to calorie counting.
Many people deny calories are what matter for weight loss. Just a few posts ago someone suggested that doing keto meant someone could eat way over their assumed maintenance level (or I think that was the point) and lose weight. Similarly, there are endless posts about "if I'm within my calories but eat a pizza or a donut, will I lose?" In those threads, there often are people who insist that in fact they CANNOT lose, even at a level they normally lose at (like 1200) if they eat ANY [insert food here]. So yeah, denying CICO is common.
There are also endless diet gurus claiming that calories don't matter. Most (not all) of them actually admit they do, but still say not to think about them, follow their program, but some actually insist that calories do not matter for weight loss (Taubes is trying to disprove that they do, I think, although he's struck out badly so far).
As for nutrition and health, obviously those are important, no one has said otherwise. Again, this idea that some focus only on calories and absolutely nothing else (not satiety, not how to make not going over calories easier) is kind of a strawman, don't you think? But what determines weight loss (or gain or maintenance) is calorie balance.
CICO is a shorthand for saying "calorie balance is what determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain."3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Vegetables have carbohydrates.
Also, fruit is one of the foods highest in carbs by percentage, and yet few people claim to feel like garbage because they eat fruit. So yeah, I do think that's kind of unusual, although there are others who claim carbs in general make them feel bad.
Of course, most of the healthiest human diets (the blue zones) are reasonably high carb.
and high in fiber.
What does this have to do with you claiming that carbohydrates make you feel like garbage?
The main difference between eating bread and broccoli is the fiber. It is a lot about glucose spikes. It has also been shown that diets absent of fiber create breeding grounds for an unhealthy micro-biome. A lot of it comes down to inflammation.
Surely someone suggests in the yet unread 28 pages having a spoon of metamucil with their delicious bread to comply with his dietary rules, right? Surely. Otherwise, MFP, you're dead to me.
I love this, it's like you're playing the Top 10 hits for us. I'm over here going, oh yeah! I remember that one! Those were the days, when this thread was young and wild
I was going to say, “this is classic JOf but then I see that Jof already copped to it.
#jofception8 -
Done.
#goldstarforme10 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »abbynormal52 wrote: »So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.
Why do you presume these things (CICO and achieving adequate nutrition) are mutually exclusive?
And what specifically is “not for you”? CICO?
Because simply CICO is not enough for me. I need to know what those calories are, what types of calories I need to achieve my goals. I don't deny it is about CICO, never have. I just take it a lot further.
Almost everyone does something other than just count calories, if that's what you mean by CICO. (Obviously, however, CICO does not mean "counting calories.")
This discussion is not actually about whether it's useful to do something other than just counting calories, as I really can't imagine someone not doing ANYTHING else, not caring about how they feel or hunger or whatever. I'm not even sure how JUST doing calorie counting would work in practice? You get up, start eating based on whim, log while doing it, and then stop eating when you hit goal? I can't imagine someone approaching it that way for more than a couple of days, and I wouldn't have tried that for even one, not how my mind works. That's why I find this assumption that if you think about something other than merely # of calories that CICO is not enough for you to be kind of puzzling.
Calories in Calories Out, do I have that right? I hadn't even heard of it as CICO until today. But I think that is what it means. I'd like to see where anyone ever "denied" that it is about calories in calories out first of all. And then, I would just add, if whoever posted "why do people deny" CICO would have had a pretty boring thread if everyone just said "I don't deny it", "I don't deny it".
Oh, and I never mentioned "counting" calories I don't think?? I mentioned nutrition, and types of calories and macros.
What is the OP about? Go ahead and explain it to me?
Sounds like you agree calories are what matter for weight loss. That’s great! I’m curious why you continue to bring up nutrition as if you are the only person who is concerned about that? You said “CICO isn’t enough for me” as if no one else is looking beyond energy at things like satiety and nutrients. Again, do you think CICO and focusing on obtaining adequate nutrition are mutually exclusive?9 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Done.
#goldstarforme
So why do you think people deny CICO then?8 -
yesterday, my best friend was again talking about when she lost weight (3 times, gained it all back) & how last time she stopped eating bread, ice cream & a few other things. She said it's the way to go. I told her it's because she ate less calories not because she stopped eating those things. She ought to know by now, I've been doing this for 2 yrs already. I told her I eat bread almost every day6
-
WinoGelato wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Done.
#goldstarforme
So why do you think people deny CICO then?
Yes. #conclusions6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions