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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »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.
Who do you feel is telling you that you shouldn't follow the low carb plan that is working for you? Who here is suggesting you need to eat more carbs? You keep saying that you aren't telling others how to eat, but you seem to think that others are telling you that, and I'm just not seeing it, nor would I believe that any of the veteran posters on this thread would suggest that someone needs to eat in a certain way. I do, however, see a very enthusiastic keto proponent trying to tell the rest of us that WE are deluded by modern medicine and we are the ones who will be regretting our choices if we don't immediately switch to this way of eating...
For example?PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Love,
ShillForBigPharma
cc: FakeFoodIndustry
When are those big pharma and fake food industry checks supposed to arrive? I've accepted that a calorie deficit results in weight loss for a few years now and I haven't seen one dollar yet.
If only that were true...7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »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.
Who do you feel is telling you that you shouldn't follow the low carb plan that is working for you? Who here is suggesting you need to eat more carbs? You keep saying that you aren't telling others how to eat, but you seem to think that others are telling you that, and I'm just not seeing it, nor would I believe that any of the veteran posters on this thread would suggest that someone needs to eat in a certain way. I do, however, see a very enthusiastic keto proponent trying to tell the rest of us that WE are deluded by modern medicine and we are the ones who will be regretting our choices if we don't immediately switch to this way of eating...
For example?PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Love,
ShillForBigPharma
cc: FakeFoodIndustry
When are those big pharma and fake food industry checks supposed to arrive? I've accepted that a calorie deficit results in weight loss for a few years now and I haven't seen one dollar yet.
I don't even want the cash money.
I'd settle for a sponsorship in delicious foods.
(Are you listening, Sweetgreen or Chipotle? Hook me up!)11 -
PaulChasinDreams 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.
Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Gee, I'm 67 and have ideal blood pressure, no diabetes or organ damage and my doctor called my lipid panel perfect after my last physical. I don't do keto. I must be doing it wrong.
Either that or you are very confused and like to fear monger over nothing.15 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Fixed...23 -
janejellyroll wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »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.
Who do you feel is telling you that you shouldn't follow the low carb plan that is working for you? Who here is suggesting you need to eat more carbs? You keep saying that you aren't telling others how to eat, but you seem to think that others are telling you that, and I'm just not seeing it, nor would I believe that any of the veteran posters on this thread would suggest that someone needs to eat in a certain way. I do, however, see a very enthusiastic keto proponent trying to tell the rest of us that WE are deluded by modern medicine and we are the ones who will be regretting our choices if we don't immediately switch to this way of eating...
For example?PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Love,
ShillForBigPharma
cc: FakeFoodIndustry
When are those big pharma and fake food industry checks supposed to arrive? I've accepted that a calorie deficit results in weight loss for a few years now and I haven't seen one dollar yet.
Log in to your shill accounts on bigpharma.com and fakefood.com and make sure they have your correct address and check routing information. I'm sure your back payments due are in six figures by now, you're missing out!
(posted by phone, at the dealership getting a 'bigpharma/fakefood' wrap done on my new Cadillac, bought entirely with shill money)14 -
I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.25 -
nellypurcelly 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.
I think the more recent information is different from the old Atkins method, for example. I could never sit around eating bacon and pork rinds all day like people used to. I closely monitor my calories, and I try to get a good percentage of my fats from high quality plant sources. I really am trying to find/develop something for myself that is both effective and sustainable for me, not just for the short term. I'm very happy for you that you've found something that is both effective and sustainable for you.
Food choices, sustainability, satiety, adherence, etc., while they're topics worthy of discussion in themselves, have nothing to do with the original topic, which is the inviolable, scientifically proven fact that calories, and calories alone, govern weight management. If you consume less of them than you expend, you lose weight; how one accomplishes that deficit can vary widely from person to person, but no foods, supplements, macro combinations, diet, way of eating, journey, eating schedule or anything else modifies, supersedes or nullifies the law of energy balance. There is no "metabolic advantage" to a ketogenic diet, intermittent fasting, or any other permutation of how calories are consumed or expended (this has been scientifically proven as well).9 -
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.
I thought we kept mean people threads to Fridays.8 -
I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
BRAVO!5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »nellypurcelly wrote: »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.
Who do you feel is telling you that you shouldn't follow the low carb plan that is working for you? Who here is suggesting you need to eat more carbs? You keep saying that you aren't telling others how to eat, but you seem to think that others are telling you that, and I'm just not seeing it, nor would I believe that any of the veteran posters on this thread would suggest that someone needs to eat in a certain way. I do, however, see a very enthusiastic keto proponent trying to tell the rest of us that WE are deluded by modern medicine and we are the ones who will be regretting our choices if we don't immediately switch to this way of eating...
There always seem to be three kinds of people in this thread.
A: CICO is what matters for weight loss, which is great news because you can choose whatever diet plan you like and tweak it in a dozen different ways to find what suits you as long as you get dat calorie deficit.
B: CICO didn't work for me because I have to eat low carb.
C: CICO will kill you all, you fools! It is worthless and you will get health problems and die earlier than the rest of us. See the light! Outdated science! CAPS LOCK! INSULTS!
I note that the people who fall into camp B are more likely to side with camp C than camp A. I wonder why that is.13 -
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.
You're siding with the guy who's thrown around more insults and made more prescriptive demands about what kind of diet everyone must follow than anyone else in this 62-page thread combined.16 -
I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
I posed essentially that question in this thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10661296/keto-bodybuilders
Strangely enough, nobody seemed to have a good answer for it.8 -
There are so many ways to look at energy balance, but calories are always the scientific measurement. It's a pain, people don't want to deal with it. They want other ways to wrap their heads around the problem, if they want to deal with the problem at all.5
-
diannethegeek 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.
You're siding with the guy who's thrown around more insults and made more prescriptive demands about what kind of diet everyone must follow than anyone else in this 62-page thread combined.
Confirmation bias at its finest.6 -
I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
Brilliant.
Need that Awesome button back.5 -
californiagirl2012 wrote: »There are so many ways to look at energy balance, but calories are always the scientific measurement. It's a pain, people don't want to deal with it. They want other ways to wrap their heads around the problem, if they want to deal with the problem at all.
(ZOMG, CA girl!!! You’re still here too? I haven't seen you on the forums in years. (But that could be because I’ve been mostly away from the forums for years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )3 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »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.
Of course not.
But that's not what you're saying.6 -
I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
I've had versions of this conversation with vegans who claim it is impossible to gain weight while being vegan.
Me: "So what you're saying is that it's not suitable for children or anybody who wants to gain muscle weight?"
Them: "What?"
Me: "Well, if it's impossible to gain weight on a vegan diet, then it would be deadly for children. Children need to gain weight. And bodybuilders and others looking to gain muscle need to gain weight to meet their goals. So you're arguing that eating animal products is mandatory for children and required to meet certain fitness goals?"
Them: " ..."19 -
nellypurcelly 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.
I think the more recent information is different from the old Atkins method, for example. I could never sit around eating bacon and pork rinds all day like people used to. I closely monitor my calories, and I try to get a good percentage of my fats from high quality plant sources. I really am trying to find/develop something for myself that is both effective and sustainable for me, not just for the short term. I'm very happy for you that you've found something that is both effective and sustainable for you.
I used the old Atkins materials but where you get the idea that it promoted eating bacon and pork rinds all day from is some weird meme or something, because it's not the source.
I ate meat and low starch vegetables and counted the carbs in the vegetables. That's it. I never went anywhere near a pork rind and bacon was pretty expensive, not very filling, and we didn't buy it. If I wanted something with my eggs, it was more likely to be avocado.7 -
nellypurcelly wrote: »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.
There is nothing wrong with that. What is unlikely is that you ate the same number of calories. But honestly, who cares right? All that matters is that it's working, you are happy and you are healthy...
^This. I do think it's great that low carbing is satiating for you @nellypurcelly, and it's because of that you'll likely find it sustainable.
I do hope you wrap your head a bit more firmly around the facts, though, because fast weight loss, especially if you have a lot to lose, doesn't continue -- especially towards the end. You're only ten weeks in and are very excited by your results after what appears to have been a period of some frustration. Most long-term success stories around these parts who have used low carb have a firm grasp of all the ways the scale can be impacted by things like sleep, salt, training, and monthly female hormone fluctuations). They know the difference between fat and water weight on the scale.6 -
I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
Of course it's carbs. Because insulin makes you fat. Everyone knows that. Taubes tells them so. It has to be true.
That's why everyone who is obese is obese. It's all insulin. Wake up sheeple!!!14 -
PaulChasinDreams 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.
Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Gee, I'm 67 and have ideal blood pressure, no diabetes or organ damage and my doctor called my lipid panel perfect after my last physical. I don't do keto. I must be doing it wrong.
Either that or you are very confused and like to fear monger over nothing.
Exact same stats down to the age, except I'm female. People keep suggesting I cut carbs since I'm post-menopausal, because hormones (or lack of). Hahahaha - no.9 -
PaulChasinDreams 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.
Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Gee, I'm 67 and have ideal blood pressure, no diabetes or organ damage and my doctor called my lipid panel perfect after my last physical. I don't do keto. I must be doing it wrong.
Either that or you are very confused and like to fear monger over nothing.
Exact same stats down to the age, except I'm female. People keep suggesting I cut carbs since I'm post-menopausal, because hormones (or lack of). Hahahaha - no.
Male, 47 with similar results. I had ideal health markers my entire life until I essentially stopped working out, did not adjust my caloric intake, and put on 70 lbs over 14 years. Not surprising to any rational mind my health markers moved from ideal into higher risk zones - BP, HR, cholesterol, etc. Since starting MFP, logging my intake and activity and functioning within a budget I have lost 60 lbs, regained a good deal of muscle, and my markers have all returned to optimal.13 -
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
Awesome! I've been looking for ways to trim my food budget. This is helpful. I will take batteries off my list (I wonder how much this changes if it's a drained battery, because I could just eat those after they are spent - still not great when looking at cost per calorie though). Gasoline might not be too bad. It's over $5/gallon here, but it won't take much to hit my daily target. I wonder what uranium tastes like?deannalfisher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Why does it trigger people when others reference a method based upon a law with the same name as the law? CICO is literally the acronym for calories in - calories out, which is literally what you track when you count calories. Calorie counting is commonly referred to as the CICO Diet, so if you understand the context of the post, why is that so upsetting?
the only people I know who mix up CICO and calorie counting are those that say if you follow IIFYM you eat only twinkies (hyperbole, but you get the point)
People who don't understand the concept of IIFYM could be a whole 'nother separate thread. And it would probably chase its tail just as many times as CICO threads do.
It means I only eat protein, right?????
But it's just for guys who want to get jacked up and take steroids.
Nah, bruh....IIFYM obvi means you just eat whatever you wanna eat. Stuff your pie hole with donuts, pizza, candy, sugar, booze, whatevs.
Because "If It FITS YOUR MACROS" obviously isn't what the acronym stands for or anything. And it's not like your macros (if done properly) should add up to your calorie goal. Nope nope. Nosiree.
If It Fits Your Mouth. Come on now...
well I failed epically last night -my burger was definitely wayyy bigger than my mouth - and it also just plain sucked! I can't believe I wasted valuable calories on that crap
You're good, you made it bite size, so it fit, just took a little more work to do it. It is sad that you didn't enjoy it though.2 -
PaulChasinDreams 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.
Lol yup exactly. It's laughable really. They have nothing else to say but that. Starting to wonder how many of these trolls are paid by big pharma, and the fake food industry lol. Seems pretty obvious to me they can't all be that naive and uninformed. Just have to hope people have minds of their own and do their own research cause some of the info going on here on this thread is scary horrible. Keep on plugging away on those diets people thinking you can eat any calorie you want...we'll see you later looking for help with your high blood sugar, diabetes, organ damage and high cholesterol lol. Way to go!!
Gee, I'm 67 and have ideal blood pressure, no diabetes or organ damage and my doctor called my lipid panel perfect after my last physical. I don't do keto. I must be doing it wrong.
Either that or you are very confused and like to fear monger over nothing.
Exact same stats down to the age, except I'm female. People keep suggesting I cut carbs since I'm post-menopausal, because hormones (or lack of). Hahahaha - no.
Wait, the carb fairy was supposed to come and take potatoes away when menopause happened? I'm glad she didn't get the memo in my case.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
I've had versions of this conversation with vegans who claim it is impossible to gain weight while being vegan.
Me: "So what you're saying is that it's not suitable for children or anybody who wants to gain muscle weight?"
Them: "What?"
Me: "Well, if it's impossible to gain weight on a vegan diet, then it would be deadly for children. Children need to gain weight. And bodybuilders and others looking to gain muscle need to gain weight to meet their goals. So you're arguing that eating animal products is mandatory for children and required to meet certain fitness goals?"
Them: " ..."
You are one of my favorite people here
7 -
@nutmegoreo
You just have to watch your macros closely. Think of gasoline as more analogous to carbs and diesel being more like fat. If you're looking for something meatier, use straight unrefined crude. Yeah, dead batteries are a bit like that cheese that stayed in the drawer too long...
As far as the Uranium - it tastes a little sweeter than Plutonium, with a hint of mercury.
7 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
I've had versions of this conversation with vegans who claim it is impossible to gain weight while being vegan.
Me: "So what you're saying is that it's not suitable for children or anybody who wants to gain muscle weight?"
Them: "What?"
Me: "Well, if it's impossible to gain weight on a vegan diet, then it would be deadly for children. Children need to gain weight. And bodybuilders and others looking to gain muscle need to gain weight to meet their goals. So you're arguing that eating animal products is mandatory for children and required to meet certain fitness goals?"
Them: " ..."
You are one of my favorite people here
Aw, thanks!3 -
If your goals have a fitness component, you will care more about getting your bang for the buck in nutrition per calorie.
I exercise as part of my weight loss plan and fitness goals. With that factor in the weight loss equation, I need a good energy source. So I care about the nutrition component of the calories I take in.
To go on and on about all calories are created equally on a health and fitness form seems ironic. That is like saying all inches are created equally, and then that there is no difference in an inch of steel and an inch of wood. An inch is an inch, right?
Eat less and burn more. But do yourself a favor and eat food that supports the “burn more” aspect of your fitness plan.
18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm going to turn things around and ask for those who aren't fans of CICO .. in particular @PaulChasinDreams who linked all those articles there.
Instead of weight loss... how about weight gain? How do I do that without increasing calories? Can I just eat 3 protein shakes per day and gain 15 lbs over time? Or just some carbs/sugar/junk and gain? Will that lead to actual gain without being in a surplus? So all those bodybuilders that have to make gainer shakes to reach 6K cals per day, we could spare them by just giving them some carbs? So it only works in one direction then? I am curious if anyone has an answer for me.
I've had versions of this conversation with vegans who claim it is impossible to gain weight while being vegan.
Me: "So what you're saying is that it's not suitable for children or anybody who wants to gain muscle weight?"
Them: "What?"
Me: "Well, if it's impossible to gain weight on a vegan diet, then it would be deadly for children. Children need to gain weight. And bodybuilders and others looking to gain muscle need to gain weight to meet their goals. So you're arguing that eating animal products is mandatory for children and required to meet certain fitness goals?"
Them: " ..."
You are one of my favorite people here
Aw, thanks!
And you have the best first name (if it is the one in your user name) though you do spell it wrong
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions