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.
Anyone else frustrated with the CICO mantra?
Options
Replies
-
Yes, I also get frustrated with it. I get additionally frustrated with other people getting intensely pushy about it the moment you even remotely say there is something wrong with the dogmatic approach it has. I live with a scientist and she has many of the similar complaints that you have. She was also remarkably doubtful of my own methods when a few years ago I determined that CICO wasn't enough for me. I actually did more research on it than she did and I had to do a whole lot of my own homework and tests on my own body until I found something that actually did work for me. She later came to accept that I was right about my approach.
So as far as frustration goes, there is a personal frustration for both myself in that it didn't work for me. Additionally, when it didn't work, most people insisted that I was either doing it wrong or were adamant that I was lying about what I was writing down in my logs. The CICO community can be very supportive, but in this regard, remarkably toxic when it comes to people who have trouble with it. The latter frustration is on behalf of others. The frustration on behalf of others is compounded by other abusive perspectives on weight, such as hearing endless stories about women doing all that they could to get a diagnosis for their health problems and only being told that they should lose weight.
Scientifically speaking, weight loss approaches are pretty witchdoctor-y at this stage as it's actually not entirely well understood why we gain or lose weight, especially when it comes to differences between men, women, transgender folk and other genders who take HRT and have changes in their metabolism and chemical make-up. The latter two especially have next to no understanding, if any.
As far as treatment goes in medicine, most illnesses are diagnosed and prescribed a specific solution. When it comes to weight, it has one universal solution that is supposed to work for everybody and because of this, those who fall through the average do not get the proper help that they need. It does not make sense to me to think that one single solution is universal to all people. That is almost never the case for other health problems.
There is a graph posted in this thread that is a drastic oversimplification about the mathematics involved. Unfortunately, this simplistic outlook on the issue is only applicable to bodies which have healthy metabolisms to which counting calories is all that they need and ignores those who have other considerations to take in about their personal health queries. It also ignores aspects such as nutritional depletion in crops which have developed in places like the US over the decades, and this factors into malnutrition.
Calories are not nutrition. While there is a correlation between calorie-dense foods and low nutrition vs. calorie-depleted and higher nutrition and it's understandable to make note of fast foods in this instance, the point stands that conventional food has far less nutrition than it used to and this in itself causes malnutrition of a different kind than simply depending on fast food. If you are malnourished on a "healthy" diet, you're still going to feel inclined to eat more than what you probably need to. From the perspective of calories, there is only eating too much or too little in order to lose or gain weight and nutrition doesn't factor in. Nutrition should factor into food sciences when it comes to weight loss. To further back this up, let's consider the glycemic index. If you eat 2,000 calories of just table sugar, it isn't going to work. To think that only calories matter is drastically oversimplified. Our digestive system is not simply a black box that only observes inputs and outputs. Nutrients matter.
I can come up with more ways to talk about why calories are not the pinnacle of weight loss solutions.
Another point is how calories are measured. There are two ways. One is through a bomb calorimeter where they seal the food into a container, lower it into a pool of water, and then burn it and measure how long it takes to finish burning. The other method is a calculation by man named Atwater from the 19th century. While these methods provide us some insight into calories and how much energy food has, they are old and do not factor in other aspects of digestion. You can read more about it here: https://www.livescience.com/62808-how-calories-are-calculated.html
In the US and other countries, companies are required to label their products with nutritional facts as I am sure you are aware of. However, companies know that lower calorie labels sell better than higher ones, and as a result they bend their numbers in what ways they can. As a result of the above paragraph and this, calories are actually remarkably imprecise. But imprecise as they are, they are capable of giving us some guidance. However, the complaint that it is overdogmatized is legitimate.
On a personal note, I found other kinds of adjustment to my food intake which helped me in the past without needing to count calories, or calories were supplemented alongside what I did and they were far better than counting calories all by themselves. I had paths in life where I did not need to count calories at all because I adjusted my food accordingly to the guidelines of other techniques. The reason I am back to journaling was actually to start making sure I was eating enough, and balanced, rather than to restrict myself. I accept that the numbers that I have are imprecise, but put me somewhere near the ballpark of where I need to be, and that is what helps me for the time being until something better comes along.
Thank you for reading, I know this was a long post.
edited for clarification.10 -
Until we get precise with our meanings and thoughts... we will always disagree.
Calories in from an apple may be different depending on whether it is a green or red or ambrosia or fiji and whether it grew in my organic orchard watered by my dog or at a commercial apple factory and they will be absorbed in a different manner by me, by you, by the person whose IBS doesn't let them comfortably eat apples, by me today eating the apple on an empty stomach and by me tomorrow by eating the apple baked in the oven together with a mixture of fat infused starches in the form of a pie or boiled in a vat of oil at a fast food location.
AND ALL THIS DOESN'T MATTER for CICO.
Because CICO ultimately deals with the calories you actually absorbed and the calories you actually managed to spend.
THE REST (described above) IS MEASUREMENT ERRORS and uncertainties.
You are, conflating, the HOW DO I ACHIEVE the CICO balance I want to achieve (and what balance do I want to aim for)... with: what is necessary for me to lose weight.
Is it necessary for you to rub your belly twice sideways? Or is it necessary for you to achieve a negative caloric balance.
Once you accept that you need to achieve a negative caloric balance... then you can figure out how to do it.
Today I've eaten a generally speaking collection of **kitten** because I am waiting for something to finish on a computer screen at an inconvenient location
To wit:
A McD vanilla cone for about 300 Cal based on eye balled weight and experience with previous measurements.
A Clif bar for about 270 Cal (71g)
A 41.5g pack of Melba toast and 42g of whipped cream cheese
58.5g of popped "smartpop" by our friend Orville, for just about 200 Cal
3 cans of coke zero
About 70oz of black coffee.
No need to count. About 1100 Cal.
Usually I am active enough to spend into the high 2900's in terms of calories; but even totally inactive, on a day like today, due to age, size, and gender I would be above 1900, and closer to 2K than anything else.
Do you have much doubt that at this moment, assuming I don't go bonkers on my way back home, I am currently expending energy from my energy reserves? i.e. due to CICO, if I stop my intake at 1100 Cal I will lose energy reserves from my body when compared to what I had available yesterday?
Is there much doubt in anyone's mind, including my own, that if I were to repeat this on more than a couple of occasions that I *would* go bonkers on my way way back home?
And frankly, since I am at maintenance, that the chances of me not going bonkers on my back home today and ending with a 2500+ day are... ZIP, NADA, nil.
Which reinforces that this would be a **kitten** plan if I were trying to implement this type of eating to lose weight?
But why would the plan fail? Because CICO didn't work?
NO: the plan would fail because a whole bunch of *kitten* will be consumed on the way back home... which CICO will correctly indicate will result in a future increase in weight.
And it will fail because "my way of eating" (both food and caloric goal) would have been totally unsustainable for me.25 -
I really don't think everybody knows CICO at all. I didn't, until I learned it. There are a lot of threads here about apple cider vinegar and other nonsense. The weight loss industry is collectively making billions and it isn't by telling people they need to eat less than they use. To some degree that's because of people who don't know what to do to lose weight.27
-
...It's a calorie counting sight, filled with people who succeeded at weight loss with calorie counting. What the heck do you expect to be promoted exactly?
And no, it doesn't frustrate me. I'm 50+ down from obese to the middle of healthy BMI for my weight and height now, using nothing but calorie counting. I am DELIGHTED with it!19 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »You hear it all the time on diet plans, from your doctor, etc. But it's apparent simplicity is both misleading and unhelpful.
Yes, CICO is true(ish, there are exceptions) But that's answering the wrong question. The question of why someone is overweight is, given that most dieters already know this, why do some people eat too much?
I'm a scientist and I hate this CICO mantra being thrown around like it's something we haven't heard before. Its unhelpful. We don't tell alcoholics that they are alcoholics because they drink too much booze. The answer to the obesity crisis lies in answering the real question.
At an individual level, there are almost as many specific answers to that question as there are overweight humans. And people talk about those reasons here frequently, and more importantly about how to get over, around, though or otherwise past their personal reasons for eating too much.
There are probably some population-level social-trends answers to that question, at a higher level of generality, too. Over in the Debate section of the community, you'll find a raft of threads talking about that, i.e., questions like what caused the "obesity epidemic" and what should we do about it.
At a super general level, the answer might be that natural selection honed humans mostly through times of relative food scarcity, and vigorous physical challenges; and now we lucky developed-world folks find ourselves mostly in times of sedentary lifestyles and relative food abundance.
All of those answers, and more, are valid at the right level of abstraction (and pointless at the wrong level of abstraction).
If I didn't want to hear about CICO (or calorie counting), the last place I'd choose to hang out is the online Community associated with a calorie counting app, especially one in which - as others have said - it's pretty routine for people to demonstrate via their posts that they don't, in fact, understand how calorie balance works, or that it's the important foundation of individual weight management (whether we count those calories or not).
I'm not sure why this thread isn't in Debate.13 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I really don't think everybody knows CICO at all. I didn't, until I learned it. There are a lot of threads here about apple cider vinegar and other nonsense. The weight loss industry is collectively making billions and it isn't by telling people they need to eat less than they use. To some degree that's because of people who don't know what to do to lose weight.
This, too.
The real hang fire for me was that yeah, my food had calories on the back of the package, but. I didn't measure or weigh anything, I didn't know what my TDEE was, I just. Had no idea. Those calories and 'eat fewer' were way too abstract to be useful.
Plug in info to MFP and suddenly pieces started falling into place - and weight started coming off.16 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »@cmriverside did you read my post? I don't deny that CICO is true. I'm saying it's unhelpful to keep saying it to people over and over because we all know it. I don't have a solution, it's not my area of expertise. But the answer isn't to shrug our shoulders and dismiss the idea that it really is more complicated than that. We need more research. But you're wrong about where the problem lies. I refer to my alcoholic example again - telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit.
As an aside, a lot of medications cause weight gain, most often by increasing appetite. The opposite is also true - Saxenda for example works for weight loss partially by decreasing appetite. Hunger is part of the problem. Humans aren't designed to ignore it. It's why most diets fail.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
MerryFit519 wrote: »I believe which calories you feed yourself matter. (macros, keto, high-protein, low-fat..whichever fits your needs) I also believe "when" you feed matters. (yep, I'm an IF advocate) Studies show groups simply counting calories lose less than those who follow IF eating the same calories (metabolism differences) *Not sure I'm allowed to link to the studies? will do if I can.... but at the end of the day yep, cico, kinda. (but I'd rather eat 1500 calories and lose 2 pounds a week, than eat the same amount and lose 1 pound. the food I eat and when I eat can influence the rate of loss) I'm sure other factors weigh in, like genetics, where you started, etc. (without counting all calories in/out 4 days a week....and strictly counting them 3 days a week..I'm down 34 pounds in just less than 3 months...adding that bit for the user above asking for 'scientific solution' lol)
I wouldnt, actually.
I would rather lose at a slow and steady pace than think faster is better (although I think differences acheived by IF are minimal anyway, for same calorie intake) - and do so in a way that suits my eating style long term
3 months is a good start - but hardly long term.
and 3lb per week (34 in under 3 months) is too fast for nearly everybody
17 -
Not really. That mantra is freeing. It means I simply ate more than I burned and the solution was to eat less than I burned. No moral judgement, no baggage, no rigid rules. It meant I was free to tackle my own overeating issues my own way as long as it resulted in eating fewer calories than I burned. People know the mantra, but knowing and understanding the implications are two different things. You can see it clearly by looking at how widespread dieting trends and magical solutions are, people getting bogged down by details and trying to enforce too many unsustainable (unnecessary) rules.
The thing about overeating triggers and reasons, it's slightly (or significantly) different for different people, so a generalized approach or answer to the overeating problem is more harmful than helpful because it does not take into account the individual. CICO is the only general rule that applies to all, regardless of reasons, experiences, and mental baggage. Knowing that, and only that, without any extra rules attached, frees individuals to think within their own situation and troubleshoot their own problems coming up with their own strategies.11 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »You hear it all the time on diet plans, from your doctor, etc. But it's apparent simplicity is both misleading and unhelpful.
Yes, CICO is true(ish, there are exceptions) But that's answering the wrong question. The question of why someone is overweight is, given that most dieters already know this, why do some people eat too much?
I'm a scientist and I hate this CICO mantra being thrown around like it's something we haven't heard before. Its unhelpful. We don't tell alcoholics that they are alcoholics because they drink too much booze. The answer to the obesity crisis lies in answering the real question.
I disagree that everyone trying to lose, gain or maintain their weight has heard the "CICO mantra". Looking at the "women's"* magazines when I'm checking out at the grocery store, every issue has a screaming headline about "how to lose 10 pounds in 3 days and lose all your belly fat!!!".
None of these articles address the basic calories in vs calories out relationship, they present detox teas, supplements, super-restrictive diets and endless "never eat these 5 foods if you want to lose weight" articles. People come here desperate because they can't stick to a diet of soup and tea and want advice on how to not be hungry on an eating plan that at the core allows them 1000 calories a day.
*Don't get me started on "men's" magazines that promise "get ripped in 30 days doing these two exercises and taking this one really expensive supplement!!!"15 -
I'm OK with the CICO 'mantra.' What makes me cross are people who reply to a weight loss snag with a smug, 'You must not be accurately measuring your food' or a meal posting with, 'That sounds like a lot more that X amount of calories.'6
-
PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »Yes, I also get frustrated with it. I get additionally frustrated with other people getting intensely pushy about it the moment you even remotely say there is something wrong with the dogmatic approach it has. I live with a scientist and she has many of the similar complaints that you have. She was also remarkably doubtful of my own methods when a few years ago I determined that CICO wasn't enough for me. I actually did more research on it than she did and I had to do a whole lot of my own homework and tests on my own body until I found something that actually did work for me. She later came to accept that I was right about my approach.
So as far as frustration goes, there is a personal frustration for both myself in that it didn't work for me. Additionally, when it didn't work, most people insisted that I was either doing it wrong or were adamant that I was lying about what I was writing down in my logs. The CICO community can be very supportive, but in this regard, remarkably toxic when it comes to people who have trouble with it. The latter frustration is on behalf of others. The frustration on behalf of others is compounded by other abusive perspectives on weight, such as hearing endless stories about women doing all that they could to get a diagnosis for their health problems and only being told that they should lose weight.
Scientifically speaking, weight loss approaches are pretty witchdoctor-y at this stage as it's actually not entirely well understood why we gain or lose weight, especially when it comes to differences between men, women, transgender folk and other genders who take HRT and have changes in their metabolism and chemical make-up. The latter two especially have next to no understanding, if any.
As far as treatment goes in medicine, most illnesses are diagnosed and prescribed a specific solution. When it comes to weight, it has one universal solution that is supposed to work for everybody and because of this, those who fall through the average do not get the proper help that they need. It does not make sense to me to think that one single solution is universal to all people. That is almost never the case for other health problems.
There is a graph posted in this thread that is a drastic oversimplification about the mathematics involved. Unfortunately, this simplistic outlook on the issue is only applicable to bodies which have healthy metabolisms to which counting calories is all that they need and ignores those who have other considerations to take in about their personal health queries. It also ignores aspects such as nutritional depletion in crops which have developed in places like the US over the decades, and this factors into malnutrition.
Calories are not nutrition. While there is a correlation between calorie-dense foods and low nutrition vs. calorie-depleted and higher nutrition and it's understandable to make note of fast foods in this instance, the point stands that conventional food has far less nutrition than it used to and this in itself causes malnutrition of a different kind than simply depending on fast food. If you are malnourished on a "healthy" diet, you're still going to feel inclined to eat more than what you probably need to. From the perspective of calories, there is only eating too much or too little in order to lose or gain weight and nutrition doesn't factor in. Nutrition should factor into food sciences when it comes to weight loss. To further back this up, let's consider the glycemic index. If you eat 2,000 calories of just table sugar, it isn't going to work. To think that only calories matter is drastically oversimplified. Our digestive system is not simply a black box that only observes inputs and outputs. Nutrients matter.
I can come up with more ways to talk about why calories are not the pinnacle of weight loss solutions.
Another point is how calories are measured. There are two ways. One is through a bomb calorimeter where they seal the food into a container, lower it into a pool of water, and then burn it and measure how long it takes to finish burning. The other method is a calculation by man named Atwater from the 19th century. While these methods provide us some insight into calories and how much energy food has, they are old and do not factor in other aspects of digestion. You can read more about it here: https://www.livescience.com/62808-how-calories-are-calculated.html
In the US and other countries, companies are required to label their products with nutritional facts as I am sure you are aware of. However, companies know that lower calorie labels sell better than higher ones, and as a result they bend their numbers in what ways they can. As a result of the above paragraph and this, calories are actually remarkably imprecise. But imprecise as they are, they are capable of giving us some guidance. However, the complaint that it is overdogmatized is legitimate.
On a personal note, I found other kinds of adjustment to my food intake which helped me in the past without needing to count calories, or calories were supplemented alongside what I did and they were far better than counting calories all by themselves. I had paths in life where I did not need to count calories at all because I adjusted my food accordingly to the guidelines of other techniques. The reason I am back to journaling was actually to start making sure I was eating enough, and balanced, rather than to restrict myself. I accept that the numbers that I have are imprecise, but put me somewhere near the ballpark of where I need to be, and that is what helps me for the time being until something better comes along.
Thank you for reading, I know this was a long post.
edited for clarification.
Thank you.
And now, here comes nine or ten more disagree reacts on my profile just to prove the point.3 -
to prove what point exactly??
People sometimes disagree with posts provoking disagrees (it is rather passive aggressive) - but not sure exactly what point you would be interpreting as being disagreed with here?8 -
I'm OK with the CICO 'mantra.' What makes me cross are people who reply to a weight loss snag with a smug, 'You must not be accurately measuring your food' or a meal posting with, 'That sounds like a lot more that X amount of calories.'
I guess it depends how they say it.
That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
While we are on "things that annoy me" - mine is people appealing to authority of themselves ( I am a scientist so my post carries more weight...)
I know that wasnt you but it was in OP and I have seen similar in other posts on the forum.
13 -
paperpudding wrote: »
That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
You are right. I should have said 'presumptuous.' Sometimes people really do underestimate their calories, but it never sits well with me when someone automatically makes that pronouncement.
3 -
PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »Yes, I also get frustrated with it. I get additionally frustrated with other people getting intensely pushy about it the moment you even remotely say there is something wrong with the dogmatic approach it has. I live with a scientist and she has many of the similar complaints that you have. She was also remarkably doubtful of my own methods when a few years ago I determined that CICO wasn't enough for me. I actually did more research on it than she did and I had to do a whole lot of my own homework and tests on my own body until I found something that actually did work for me. She later came to accept that I was right about my approach.
So as far as frustration goes, there is a personal frustration for both myself in that it didn't work for me. Additionally, when it didn't work, most people insisted that I was either doing it wrong or were adamant that I was lying about what I was writing down in my logs. The CICO community can be very supportive, but in this regard, remarkably toxic when it comes to people who have trouble with it. The latter frustration is on behalf of others. The frustration on behalf of others is compounded by other abusive perspectives on weight, such as hearing endless stories about women doing all that they could to get a diagnosis for their health problems and only being told that they should lose weight.
Scientifically speaking, weight loss approaches are pretty witchdoctor-y at this stage as it's actually not entirely well understood why we gain or lose weight, especially when it comes to differences between men, women, transgender folk and other genders who take HRT and have changes in their metabolism and chemical make-up. The latter two especially have next to no understanding, if any.
As far as treatment goes in medicine, most illnesses are diagnosed and prescribed a specific solution. When it comes to weight, it has one universal solution that is supposed to work for everybody and because of this, those who fall through the average do not get the proper help that they need. It does not make sense to me to think that one single solution is universal to all people. That is almost never the case for other health problems.
There is a graph posted in this thread that is a drastic oversimplification about the mathematics involved. Unfortunately, this simplistic outlook on the issue is only applicable to bodies which have healthy metabolisms to which counting calories is all that they need and ignores those who have other considerations to take in about their personal health queries. It also ignores aspects such as nutritional depletion in crops which have developed in places like the US over the decades, and this factors into malnutrition.
Calories are not nutrition. While there is a correlation between calorie-dense foods and low nutrition vs. calorie-depleted and higher nutrition and it's understandable to make note of fast foods in this instance, the point stands that conventional food has far less nutrition than it used to and this in itself causes malnutrition of a different kind than simply depending on fast food. If you are malnourished on a "healthy" diet, you're still going to feel inclined to eat more than what you probably need to. From the perspective of calories, there is only eating too much or too little in order to lose or gain weight and nutrition doesn't factor in. Nutrition should factor into food sciences when it comes to weight loss. To further back this up, let's consider the glycemic index. If you eat 2,000 calories of just table sugar, it isn't going to work. To think that only calories matter is drastically oversimplified. Our digestive system is not simply a black box that only observes inputs and outputs. Nutrients matter.
I can come up with more ways to talk about why calories are not the pinnacle of weight loss solutions.
Another point is how calories are measured. There are two ways. One is through a bomb calorimeter where they seal the food into a container, lower it into a pool of water, and then burn it and measure how long it takes to finish burning. The other method is a calculation by man named Atwater from the 19th century. While these methods provide us some insight into calories and how much energy food has, they are old and do not factor in other aspects of digestion. You can read more about it here: https://www.livescience.com/62808-how-calories-are-calculated.html
In the US and other countries, companies are required to label their products with nutritional facts as I am sure you are aware of. However, companies know that lower calorie labels sell better than higher ones, and as a result they bend their numbers in what ways they can. As a result of the above paragraph and this, calories are actually remarkably imprecise. But imprecise as they are, they are capable of giving us some guidance. However, the complaint that it is overdogmatized is legitimate.
On a personal note, I found other kinds of adjustment to my food intake which helped me in the past without needing to count calories, or calories were supplemented alongside what I did and they were far better than counting calories all by themselves. I had paths in life where I did not need to count calories at all because I adjusted my food accordingly to the guidelines of other techniques. The reason I am back to journaling was actually to start making sure I was eating enough, and balanced, rather than to restrict myself. I accept that the numbers that I have are imprecise, but put me somewhere near the ballpark of where I need to be, and that is what helps me for the time being until something better comes along.
Thank you for reading, I know this was a long post.
edited for clarification.
There are absolutely some parts of diet culture that frustrate me, I just don't prescribe them specifically to CICO. And to an extent I think you should 'meet people where they are at' if you want to be supportive. Calories aren't literally the only thing that matters, but if you have to focus on one thing: that's what I focus on.
I absoutely do think some doctors will blame weight without investigating. I feel like that part has gotten better over the last decades, or maybe I just found the right doctor.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »
That often is the problem and people generally try to say so politely,, 'smug' seems in the perception to me.
You are right. I should have said 'presumptuous.' Sometimes people really do underestimate their calories, but it never sits well with me when someone automatically makes that pronouncement.
People who are obese have had a lifetime of learning to lie to themselves and others about food and some of them have gotten so good at it that they don’t even know they are doing it. When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
25 -
paperpudding wrote: »MerryFit519 wrote: »I believe which calories you feed yourself matter. (macros, keto, high-protein, low-fat..whichever fits your needs) I also believe "when" you feed matters. (yep, I'm an IF advocate) Studies show groups simply counting calories lose less than those who follow IF eating the same calories (metabolism differences) *Not sure I'm allowed to link to the studies? will do if I can.... but at the end of the day yep, cico, kinda. (but I'd rather eat 1500 calories and lose 2 pounds a week, than eat the same amount and lose 1 pound. the food I eat and when I eat can influence the rate of loss) I'm sure other factors weigh in, like genetics, where you started, etc. (without counting all calories in/out 4 days a week....and strictly counting them 3 days a week..I'm down 34 pounds in just less than 3 months...adding that bit for the user above asking for 'scientific solution' lol)
I wouldnt, actually.
I would rather lose at a slow and steady pace than think faster is better (although I think differences acheived by IF are minimal anyway, for same calorie intake) - and do so in a way that suits my eating style long term
3 months is a good start - but hardly long term.
and 3lb per week (34 in under 3 months) is too fast for nearly everybody
And that is perfectly awesome, for you. I truly believe everyone is different as are their macros, calories, timing, rate of loss, and ultimate goals (bmi score etc)
But I do wish it could be "ok" for me too, to have found something different from you and others that works for me without being "wrong" because I don't simply weigh/measure 7 days a week to hit a calorie number/macros. (the original topic of cico)
I didn't set out to lose 3 lbs a week but tracking nutrients and doing it with IF just sped it up beyond expectations, made me very happy with food again finally, and, freed me from being too obsessive (which drives me nuts personally)...and I look forward to the simplicity with zero feeling of missing out on anything.
As far as "3 months are a good start"..thank you! (though I know you didn't mean it as a compliment - you meant it as a slight to my success being short-term....) No worries though, kinda getting used to success from IF being downgraded, disagreed with etc..b/c If isn't "your" way.
4 -
If you're losing weight in a way that works for you and people on the internet don't approve, that's ok.12
-
rheddmobile wrote: »When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
Overwhelming, perhaps.
But that still leaves room for some who are in fact telling the truth.
I am good friends with one such person.
They’ve been on a medically supervised inpatient diet for about four years now. And while they have lost some, they haven’t lost anything near what would get them to a normal BMI. And no. They’re not sneaking food. For a variety of reasons that’s impossible in their case.
This person is native Hawaiian. Their genetics really, honest to Pete, is having a serious impact on their weight and health.
CICO is a good rule of thumb.
I’m never going to say that it isn’t.
But there are differences between people.
And I would like to see more emphasis on learning what those differences are, and how we can help people who are the outliers.3
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
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions