Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Options
Replies
-
nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
My guess is that with carbs you didn't see quick results so you gave up too soon and you switched to cutting carbs and voila, you saw an immediate scale loss because you dropped water weight so you stuck with it. Carbs don't create extra energy from thin air and they don't slow your metabolism. Please understand, you're wrong.
I know this is different from the CICO law, and I get what you're saying. But how long would you follow an eating plan that isn't getting you the results you desire... 6 months, a year, 2 years, 10 years? That would be insane. I switched to gluten-free/low carb on my endocrinologist's, my personal trainer's, and my nutrition coach's advice, and I've been losing a consistent 2 lbs per week for about 10 weeks now. I didn't have a huge water weight loss the first week, motivating me to continue, because I was already limiting my calories and exercising prior to the switch, so I didn't have a lot of extra water weight. I just wasn't getting enough of a result (1 lb per month with carbs vs. 8 lbs per month without). It would take me years to get the same results I can get in 6 months by not eating carbs. Why would I (or anyone else) want to do that?!?15 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Go to work and this *babysloth* thread blows up!garystrickland357 wrote: »I just want to say this thread makes me feel so much better about my daily struggle. I teach high school physics. If y'all have this much trouble explaining this concept to adults, think about teaching concepts to adolescent, distracted students, lol.
I have found that most people see a "calorie" as being very food specific. They don't get that you can express the energy contained in gasoline in terms of calories - or joules. The units of joules are kg*(m/s)^2 - N*m - work... It has NOTHING to do with the nutritional content of the item containing the calories. We can pour a glass of gasoline with 250 Calories - I think we all know it would be unwise to consume it.
Sometimes well known ideas are the most misunderstood. For example, Newton's Laws are something some of my students struggle with. Why? Because they have a deeply ingrained mental model that is WRONG - they just think they understand. Getting them to unlearn - and reconstruct a new mental model is challenging for many. Some are just unwilling to admit they misunderstand - they would rather not commit the effort to change their thinking. I see the same thing going on here.
Kudos to those here that patiently try to help folks understand.
Thank you for this post. I was just wondering about the calories in fuel. Unfortunately the cost of gas here has gone up that I'm fairly certain I can't afford to add it to my diet.
Just for chuckles and grins, here are some items with their potential energy expressed in Calories:
*note* Calories in food are "big C" calories = calories*1,000. Food Calories (1 kilocalorie) contain 1,000 calories. More confusion...
1 gallon of gasoline = 31,000 Calories (A 4 oz juice glass of gasoline would contain about 970 Calories)
AA Battery = .24 Calories
generic candy bar = 239 Calories
Pound of Uranium-235 = 8.8*10^9 Calories
Source: https://ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf
I think one time I did the math and found out daily caloric need isn't too far off from the energy usage of a 100 watt lightbulb (incandescent).
As for chemical energy density (as opposed to nuclear energy density with your uranium example) you can't get more energy dense than burning hydrocarbon in an oxygen atmosphere which is why fats and gasoline are such a good energy storage molecules.5 -
annaskiski wrote: »Reposting this from the other thread:
This has two major implications. The first is that scale weight will go down faster if skeletal muscle LBM is lost due to the differences in how much energy it contains. I actually strongly suspect that the reason that many rapid weight loss centers recommend against exercise as it limits the loss of LBM while dieting. By deliberately allowing LBM loss to occur, the number on the scale will drop more quickly than if muscle were not lost even if body composition is not improving as much as it should be. If that approach is combined with a low-carbohydrate diet, the weight losses that are achieved can be extremely large due to the amount of water loss that will occur. The number on the scale will drop rapidly although the changes that are actually occurring are irrelevant (water) or negative (LBM loss).
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 2915-2920). Lyle McDonald.
Ah, good point. People often forget that the ~3500 calories deficit needed to lose a pound is for fat and not the ~600 (right?) calories to lose a pound of muscle.
So again, not a violation of CICO, but a consideration.4 -
singingflutelady wrote: »It appears to me that there needs to be more emphasis on vetting sources on the education system as it is a skill that seems to be lacking in some of the posts.
This youtube video says you're wrong:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs5 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
It is really difficult for me to believe that we actually fundamentally disagree here and aren't just talking past one another.
Would you agree with this:
It can be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories you get (calories your body actually gets from ingesting a given food). That different people might get a different number of effective calories received from the same foods. It can also be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories your body is using, as different people may get a different number of effective calories expended from the same activities. No current methods for estimating this are 100% accurate and the estimates are largely based on population averages that are unlikely to apply exactly the same to everyone. Me eating a bag of bread and going for a run might end up with a very different calorie surplus/deficit than you eating that exact same bag of bread and going for that exact same run. That said, if you have the actual accurate effective calorie intake and expenditure for a given person then you can from that calculate the amount of caloric surplus or deficit they are in. That if they are in caloric surplus over time they will gain weight by putting on fat and if they are in caloric deficit that they will lose weight by losing fat. That this weight loss might be masked by other factors such as water retention but overall over time the amount of fat you lose is directly related to your calorie intake and expenditure.
Is there anything there you disagree with? If not then our difference of opinion is just semantic. You think people who "believe in CICO" believe that all foods that list calories on their box give that exact number of effective calories when anyone eats them and that the amount of calories burned on your treadmill is 100% accurate where when I say I "believe in CICO" I just mean that if we are able to somehow someway get an actually accurate estimate of our calorie intake and calorie expenditure (like the actual value not what is written on a box) then that could be used to calculate the weight we would be gaining or losing. As in accordance to the first law of thermodynamics.
If you eat 2000 "written on the box" calories of bread or 2000 "written on the box" calories of chicken and you gain weight with the bread but not with the chicken (and I mean fat weight not water weight) all that means is that the way your body digests and processes the bread you are getting more effective calories from it (say 1800) than when your body processes the chicken (say 1300). It doesn't mean that CICO somehow doesn't apply. The amount of fat your body retains or gets rid of is, I hope rather obviously, tied to the total energy you actually get from foods minus the total energy you actually expend in your daily activity. Do you really have a fundamental problem with that concept?
Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.
Yeah except can you actually point to anyone saying that? I've heard lots of people say that the only factor governing weight loss is CICO...I'd agree with that. I haven't seen anyone here saying "eat like me and exercise like me and you will lose weight" which I would disagree with, I see people saying if you are accurately able to track your calories then you can predict your weightloss and manage it. Pretty sure that is all that has been said here, can you point to a single quote from anyone saying what you claim people are saying....because honestly I think that is a strawman and more what you are hearing rather than what is actually being said. Again...semantics.11 -
Strictly speaking (at a biochemical level) there is truth to the comment that "all calories are not equal". Some combinations of fat, carb, protein (I can't remember the combination) have slight reduction in "effective" calories to their theoretical value.
That said for most of us.... including me... CICO is close enough and will allow weight loss.
Fats, carbs, and proteins are macronutrients.
You know what macronutrients are? They aren't calories.13 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.
There have been countless metabolic ward studies proving that fat loss comes down to CICO. That weight loss is exactly the same given equal protein and calories intakes. Not one has found a special person that has trouble losing fat because of carbs. Why do you believe that you're the exception? If you just happen to be 1 in 7 billion, you could be famous. I don't know who you should contact but you definitely should!
I think you have it there... "fat loss" is the same. They may lose less scale weight due to bloating and water retention from having issues with carbs/gluten, and think that refutes CICO, when in fact it does not. Scale weight changes do not show the full picture of muscle retention and fat loss. CICO is a fact for fat loss.
and fat gain...9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
It is really difficult for me to believe that we actually fundamentally disagree here and aren't just talking past one another.
Would you agree with this:
It can be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories you get (calories your body actually gets from ingesting a given food). That different people might get a different number of effective calories received from the same foods. It can also be really difficult to know exactly how many effective calories your body is using, as different people may get a different number of effective calories expended from the same activities. No current methods for estimating this are 100% accurate and the estimates are largely based on population averages that are unlikely to apply exactly the same to everyone. Me eating a bag of bread and going for a run might end up with a very different calorie surplus/deficit than you eating that exact same bag of bread and going for that exact same run. That said, if you have the actual accurate effective calorie intake and expenditure for a given person then you can from that calculate the amount of caloric surplus or deficit they are in. That if they are in caloric surplus over time they will gain weight by putting on fat and if they are in caloric deficit that they will lose weight by losing fat. That this weight loss might be masked by other factors such as water retention but overall over time the amount of fat you lose is directly related to your calorie intake and expenditure.
Is there anything there you disagree with? If not then our difference of opinion is just semantic. You think people who "believe in CICO" believe that all foods that list calories on their box give that exact number of effective calories when anyone eats them and that the amount of calories burned on your treadmill is 100% accurate where when I say I "believe in CICO" I just mean that if we are able to somehow someway get an actually accurate estimate of our calorie intake and calorie expenditure (like the actual value not what is written on a box) then that could be used to calculate the weight we would be gaining or losing. As in accordance to the first law of thermodynamics.
If you eat 2000 "written on the box" calories of bread or 2000 "written on the box" calories of chicken and you gain weight with the bread but not with the chicken (and I mean fat weight not water weight) all that means is that the way your body digests and processes the bread you are getting more effective calories from it (say 1800) than when your body processes the chicken (say 1300). It doesn't mean that CICO somehow doesn't apply. The amount of fat your body retains or gets rid of is, I hope rather obviously, tied to the total energy you actually get from foods minus the total energy you actually expend in your daily activity. Do you really have a fundamental problem with that concept?
Sure, I can agree with all of this. The problem comes in when someone has a difficult time losing weight, and someone else smugly says to her, "It's just CICO. You must be doing it wrong. Eat like me and exercise like me and you'll lose weight." That's not how it works for everyone, and the assumption is that the person must be eating more than they claim, or eating the wrong things, or that they're not exercising as much as they claim. It's extremely frustrating when that's not the case.
Yeah except can you actually point to anyone saying that? I've heard lots of people say that the only factor governing weight loss is CICO...I'd agree with that. I haven't seen anyone here saying "eat like me and exercise like me and you will lose weight" which I would disagree with, I see people saying if you are accurately able to track your calories then you can predict your weightloss and manage it. Pretty sure that is all that has been said here, can you point to a single quote from anyone saying what you claim people are saying....because honestly I think that is a strawman and more what you are hearing rather than what is actually being said. Again...semantics.
I apologize. I wasn't referring to people on this thread saying that. I was referring to people I encounter, mostly at the gym.9 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
My guess is that with carbs you didn't see quick results so you gave up too soon and you switched to cutting carbs and voila, you saw an immediate scale loss because you dropped water weight so you stuck with it. Carbs don't create extra energy from thin air and they don't slow your metabolism. Please understand, you're wrong.
I know this is different from the CICO law, and I get what you're saying. But how long would you follow an eating plan that isn't getting you the results you desire... 6 months, a year, 2 years, 10 years? That would be insane. I switched to gluten-free/low carb on my endocrinologist's, my personal trainer's, and my nutrition coach's advice, and I've been losing a consistent 2 lbs per week for about 10 weeks now. I didn't have a huge water weight loss the first week, motivating me to continue, because I was already limiting my calories and exercising prior to the switch, so I didn't have a lot of extra water weight. I just wasn't getting enough of a result (1 lb per month with carbs vs. 8 lbs per month without). It would take me years to get the same results I can get in 6 months by not eating carbs. Why would I (or anyone else) want to do that?!?
If it's working the way you say it is working it is because you are eating less. My wife has always had success going low carb because fat and protein are very satiating for her. This blunts her appetite causing her to eat less...12 -
What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.
And this is not to say that it won't work for others. Just not for the reason some of them think it does...6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.
And this is not to say that it won't work for others. Just not for the reason some of them think it does...
Oh, absolutely. And the reason it will work for them is why it works for your wife. It will blunt their appetites/they find the food satiating.
I apparently didn't, and the source material I was using relied too much on the power of that happening to the detriment of mentioning calorie management.
7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.
And this is not to say that it won't work for others. Just not for the reason some of them think it does...
Oh, absolutely. And the reason it will work for them is why it works for your wife. It will blunt their appetites/they find the food satiating.
I apparently didn't, and the source material I was using relied too much on the power of that happening to the detriment of mentioning calorie management.
Same for me. I find carbs more satiating then fat so well uh, no low carbing for me...6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.
And this is not to say that it won't work for others. Just not for the reason some of them think it does...
Oh, absolutely. And the reason it will work for them is why it works for your wife. It will blunt their appetites/they find the food satiating.
I apparently didn't, and the source material I was using relied too much on the power of that happening to the detriment of mentioning calorie management.
Same for me. I find carbs more satiating then fat so well uh, no low carbing for me...
Unacceptable, you two. Low carbing is the one true way to lose weight. Fall in line or else!
7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.
And this is not to say that it won't work for others. Just not for the reason some of them think it does...
Oh, absolutely. And the reason it will work for them is why it works for your wife. It will blunt their appetites/they find the food satiating.
I apparently didn't, and the source material I was using relied too much on the power of that happening to the detriment of mentioning calorie management.
Same for me. I find carbs more satiating then fat so well uh, no low carbing for me...
Oh, thank heaven! I'm not alone!7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.
And this is not to say that it won't work for others. Just not for the reason some of them think it does...
Oh, absolutely. And the reason it will work for them is why it works for your wife. It will blunt their appetites/they find the food satiating.
I apparently didn't, and the source material I was using relied too much on the power of that happening to the detriment of mentioning calorie management.
Same for me. I find carbs more satiating then fat so well uh, no low carbing for me...
Unacceptable, you two. Low carbing is the one true way to lose weight. Fall in line or else!
Haha4 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's especially disconcerting about this thread is that there seems to be two groups of CICO dissenters
1. Are conflating CICO with calorie counting, say we are being pedantic insisting there's a difference, and insisting everyone understands that calories determine weight loss, they just want health/nutrition/macros to be considered as well.
And
2. Who are insisting that calories do not determine weight loss if you are eating the right foods.
The second one is what gets me.
Shall I start talking about my ten years low carbing? Initially, I lost weight. And then, as I felt hungry (wut? I was supposed to feel satiated and have in tune hunger signals and no cravings), I ate. And started gaining weight back.
All on low carb.
BTW, at no point did I ever drop below 150 pounds on a 5'3" frame. (This was in the years before I started to shrink to my current height.) This was still overweight, obviously. Low carbing wasn't some magical solution for me.
And this is not to say that it won't work for others. Just not for the reason some of them think it does...
Oh, absolutely. And the reason it will work for them is why it works for your wife. It will blunt their appetites/they find the food satiating.
I apparently didn't, and the source material I was using relied too much on the power of that happening to the detriment of mentioning calorie management.
Same for me. I find carbs more satiating then fat so well uh, no low carbing for me...
Oh, thank heaven! I'm not alone!
3 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
My guess is that with carbs you didn't see quick results so you gave up too soon and you switched to cutting carbs and voila, you saw an immediate scale loss because you dropped water weight so you stuck with it. Carbs don't create extra energy from thin air and they don't slow your metabolism. Please understand, you're wrong.
I know this is different from the CICO law, and I get what you're saying. But how long would you follow an eating plan that isn't getting you the results you desire... 6 months, a year, 2 years, 10 years? That would be insane. I switched to gluten-free/low carb on my endocrinologist's, my personal trainer's, and my nutrition coach's advice, and I've been losing a consistent 2 lbs per week for about 10 weeks now. I didn't have a huge water weight loss the first week, motivating me to continue, because I was already limiting my calories and exercising prior to the switch, so I didn't have a lot of extra water weight. I just wasn't getting enough of a result (1 lb per month with carbs vs. 8 lbs per month without). It would take me years to get the same results I can get in 6 months by not eating carbs. Why would I (or anyone else) want to do that?!?
It's not all about "results" if your expectations aren't aligned with reality. There's a steep learning curve involved for a lot of people, and some people need to make adjustments to see results, and some people need to learn things about water weight and learn patience and maybe involve things like trending apps to see results.
The further point being...
Weight/fat loss is just a step on a path that includes a lifetime of weight management. Restrictive eating plans aren't suitable for most people to follow for a lifetime unless they're a medical necessity because motivation to sustain them wanes over the long haul.
I know something about this. I low carbed for ten years, after all.
Learning, really learning to manage my weight through calorie management and learning that I manage my appetite through macro balance (which are two separate issues) and food selection, I have the tools necessary to continue on a forward path. I have pretty much maintained a significant weight loss for two years now. I've never had sustained success before, because I was always seeking fixes that pointed to reasons that weren't wholly sound.
Your reasons aren't wholly sound and won't stand the test of time.12 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »If there's no debate, and the people arguing with me are 100% correct, then why does this thread even exist, and why does it cause so much controversy?
The goals are not mutual. One side seeks success - reviews objective evidence and adjusts behavior accordingly to attain a defined goal.
The other side fears success and devotes tremendous energy and resources developing excuses.6 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many doctors, scientists, trainers, nutritionists, etc. that you cite. They are all the wrong ones... especially if they've heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of appealing to authorities, try finding a single study that controls for calories and protein intake that shows an advantage to low carb diets.
I'll wait
Why? If I find a study, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I find an expert, you'll say it's the wrong one. If I tell you my personal experience, you'll say I'm wrong. I know that I lost weight by creating a calorie deficit, but I've also created a calorie deficit by following a diet that included a lot of carbs, and guess what! I didn't lose weight. I also know that I probably just didn't know how to calculate calories, but now suddenly, when I switched to a low carb diet, I magically know how to calculate calories. It's so odd how that happened.
My guess is that with carbs you didn't see quick results so you gave up too soon and you switched to cutting carbs and voila, you saw an immediate scale loss because you dropped water weight so you stuck with it. Carbs don't create extra energy from thin air and they don't slow your metabolism. Please understand, you're wrong.
I know this is different from the CICO law, and I get what you're saying. But how long would you follow an eating plan that isn't getting you the results you desire... 6 months, a year, 2 years, 10 years? That would be insane. I switched to gluten-free/low carb on my endocrinologist's, my personal trainer's, and my nutrition coach's advice, and I've been losing a consistent 2 lbs per week for about 10 weeks now. I didn't have a huge water weight loss the first week, motivating me to continue, because I was already limiting my calories and exercising prior to the switch, so I didn't have a lot of extra water weight. I just wasn't getting enough of a result (1 lb per month with carbs vs. 8 lbs per month without). It would take me years to get the same results I can get in 6 months by not eating carbs. Why would I (or anyone else) want to do that?!?
If it's working the way you say it is working it is because you are eating less. My wife has always had success going low carb because fat and protein are very satiating for her. This blunts her appetite causing her to eat less...
You may be right. So why would I want to eat the same number of calories, include carbs, and feel hungry all the time? If fat and protein are more satiating to me, and carbs are more satiating to you, then there's nothing wrong with that.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions