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
-
neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers
And I haven't got a clue where you're going/what you mean with that reply, sorry!
(My point: as an example of how many people don't really understand CICO, many people think their metabolism is ´shot´ from a certain age, 40 for example, but in reality they're just not realising that their CO has gone down and they should adjust their CI accordingly, or become more active again)2 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers
And I haven't got a clue where you're going/what you mean with that reply, sorry!
(My point: as an example of how many people don't really understand CICO, many people think their metabolism is ´shot´ from a certain age, 40 for example, but in reality they're just not realising that their CO has gone down and they should adjust their CI accordingly, or become more active again)
Do metabolism slow down when a person is 40?
https://nbcnews.com/health/health-news/metabolism-adulthood-does-not-slow-commonly-believed-study-finds-n1276650
Researchers found that metabolism peaks around age 1, when babies burn calories 50 percent faster than adults, and then gradually declines roughly 3 percent a year until around age 20. From there, metabolism plateaus until about age 60, when it starts to slowly decline again
Here's the study from this editorial.
https://science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017
Harvard.
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-2021100826132 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers
And I haven't got a clue where you're going/what you mean with that reply, sorry!
(My point: as an example of how many people don't really understand CICO, many people think their metabolism is ´shot´ from a certain age, 40 for example, but in reality they're just not realising that their CO has gone down and they should adjust their CI accordingly, or become more active again)
Do metabolism slow down when a person is 40?
https://nbcnews.com/health/health-news/metabolism-adulthood-does-not-slow-commonly-believed-study-finds-n1276650
Researchers found that metabolism peaks around age 1, when babies burn calories 50 percent faster than adults, and then gradually declines roughly 3 percent a year until around age 20. From there, metabolism plateaus until about age 60, when it starts to slowly decline again
Here's the study from this editorial.
https://science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017
Harvard.
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
That's the point that @lietchi is making. People believe their metabolism is shot at 40. What has actually happened in most cases is that their NEAT has subtly and gradually decreased year after year, and - if they haven't remained active enough through exercise or physical job - they've lost muscle mass so their RMR/BMR is ever so slightly lower, but more importantly moving is harder and less fun, contributing to a NEAT down-spiral.
This - that metabolism dies young - is not an uncommon perception, among folks newly joining MFP. Even the decline after 60 is fairly gradual . . . but much overestimated commonly.3 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers
And I haven't got a clue where you're going/what you mean with that reply, sorry!
(My point: as an example of how many people don't really understand CICO, many people think their metabolism is ´shot´ from a certain age, 40 for example, but in reality they're just not realising that their CO has gone down and they should adjust their CI accordingly, or become more active again)
Do metabolism slow down when a person is 40?
https://nbcnews.com/health/health-news/metabolism-adulthood-does-not-slow-commonly-believed-study-finds-n1276650
Researchers found that metabolism peaks around age 1, when babies burn calories 50 percent faster than adults, and then gradually declines roughly 3 percent a year until around age 20. From there, metabolism plateaus until about age 60, when it starts to slowly decline again
Here's the study from this editorial.
https://science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017
Harvard.
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
That's the point that @lietchi is making. People believe their metabolism is shot at 40. What has actually happened in most cases is that their NEAT has subtly and gradually decreased year after year, and - if they haven't remained active enough through exercise or physical job - they've lost muscle mass so their RMR/BMR is ever so slightly lower, but more importantly moving is harder and less fun, contributing to a NEAT down-spiral.
This - that metabolism dies young - is not an uncommon perception, among folks newly joining MFP. Even the decline after 60 is fairly gradual . . . but much overestimated commonly.
There's no shortage of excuses why people don't lose weight, and this place is the perfect example. If counting calories was successful for the vast majority of people, which it isn't, I would factor that in my opinion. And in my opinion calorie counting is no different that taking metformin for diabetes, yeah it reduces blood glucose but it doesn't address the cause, so I look elsewhere. Does this mean I don't believe or understand CICO or calorie counting, no. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Children know they need to eat less food in order to be less fat. If an adult doesn't understand that and got fat because they didn't understand CICO, that would make a good SNL skit lol. Cheers
Given a lot of the stuff I see the threads... well.... I'll just leave it at that.
Which implies there are enough people that don't understand that consuming too much food causes weight gain and that CICO is totally a foreign concept to them that needs to be explained ad nauseum so they do understand. Interesting.
I have been following this thread and this statement, for me, sums up what is the truth of it. Denial is the only explanation I can come up with why people cannot get, accept, understand, or want to know this basic truth.
When I am asked how I lost my weight and if I am on this diet or that and then answer that I just count calories they always seem disappointed and the conversations ends.2 -
Buckeyebabe7l7 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Children know they need to eat less food in order to be less fat. If an adult doesn't understand that and got fat because they didn't understand CICO, that would make a good SNL skit lol. Cheers
Given a lot of the stuff I see the threads... well.... I'll just leave it at that.
Which implies there are enough people that don't understand that consuming too much food causes weight gain and that CICO is totally a foreign concept to them that needs to be explained ad nauseum so they do understand. Interesting.
I have been following this thread and this statement, for me, sums up what is the truth of it. Denial is the only explanation I can come up with why people cannot get, accept, understand, or want to know this basic truth.
When I am asked how I lost my weight and if I am on this diet or that and then answer that I just count calories they always seem disappointed and the conversations ends.
Denial would be a logical conclusion for sure and I agree with you. I see that excuse here every single day, it's a good one. EDIT: I'm also glad counting works for you, sincerely. Cheers.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers
And I haven't got a clue where you're going/what you mean with that reply, sorry!
(My point: as an example of how many people don't really understand CICO, many people think their metabolism is ´shot´ from a certain age, 40 for example, but in reality they're just not realising that their CO has gone down and they should adjust their CI accordingly, or become more active again)
Do metabolism slow down when a person is 40?
https://nbcnews.com/health/health-news/metabolism-adulthood-does-not-slow-commonly-believed-study-finds-n1276650
Researchers found that metabolism peaks around age 1, when babies burn calories 50 percent faster than adults, and then gradually declines roughly 3 percent a year until around age 20. From there, metabolism plateaus until about age 60, when it starts to slowly decline again
Here's the study from this editorial.
https://science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017
Harvard.
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
That's the point that @lietchi is making. People believe their metabolism is shot at 40. What has actually happened in most cases is that their NEAT has subtly and gradually decreased year after year, and - if they haven't remained active enough through exercise or physical job - they've lost muscle mass so their RMR/BMR is ever so slightly lower, but more importantly moving is harder and less fun, contributing to a NEAT down-spiral.
This - that metabolism dies young - is not an uncommon perception, among folks newly joining MFP. Even the decline after 60 is fairly gradual . . . but much overestimated commonly.
There's no shortage of excuses why people don't lose weight, and this place is the perfect example. If counting calories was successful for the vast majority of people, which it isn't, I would factor that in my opinion. And in my opinion calorie counting is no different that taking metformin for diabetes, yeah it reduces blood glucose but it doesn't address the cause, so I look elsewhere. Does this mean I don't believe or understand CICO or calorie counting, no. Cheers
Calorie counting is hardly unique in that. Most things fail for most people, when it comes to weight loss.5 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers
And I haven't got a clue where you're going/what you mean with that reply, sorry!
(My point: as an example of how many people don't really understand CICO, many people think their metabolism is ´shot´ from a certain age, 40 for example, but in reality they're just not realising that their CO has gone down and they should adjust their CI accordingly, or become more active again)
Do metabolism slow down when a person is 40?
https://nbcnews.com/health/health-news/metabolism-adulthood-does-not-slow-commonly-believed-study-finds-n1276650
Researchers found that metabolism peaks around age 1, when babies burn calories 50 percent faster than adults, and then gradually declines roughly 3 percent a year until around age 20. From there, metabolism plateaus until about age 60, when it starts to slowly decline again
Here's the study from this editorial.
https://science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017
Harvard.
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
That's the point that @lietchi is making. People believe their metabolism is shot at 40. What has actually happened in most cases is that their NEAT has subtly and gradually decreased year after year, and - if they haven't remained active enough through exercise or physical job - they've lost muscle mass so their RMR/BMR is ever so slightly lower, but more importantly moving is harder and less fun, contributing to a NEAT down-spiral.
This - that metabolism dies young - is not an uncommon perception, among folks newly joining MFP. Even the decline after 60 is fairly gradual . . . but much overestimated commonly.
There's no shortage of excuses why people don't lose weight, and this place is the perfect example. If counting calories was successful for the vast majority of people, which it isn't, I would factor that in my opinion. And in my opinion calorie counting is no different that taking metformin for diabetes, yeah it reduces blood glucose but it doesn't address the cause, so I look elsewhere. Does this mean I don't believe or understand CICO or calorie counting, no. Cheers
Calorie counting is hardly unique in that. Most things fail for most people, when it comes to weight loss.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Already one very frequent example that isn't really an SNL skit: people getting older and not understanding how they could get fatter without changing how much they eat ('my metabolism must be broken,...'). And totally not realising that they are way less active than when they were younger (same CI, lower CO)
Good point, but it might be a little more complicated than understanding how weight is gained or lost. Probably not eating as much as when they were young which is ironic, as people reach these ages their nutrition goes down, their caloric intake goes down, while the requirements for that nutrition is higher than when they were young. Basically nutrition is lacking, sarcopenia is very prevalent, protein intake is low, just falling can be a death sentence, too many convenient processed foods, exercise is absent from the vast majority of elderly people and I agree it's no laughing matter, especially in some care homes.
You've jumped to elderly from the word older, but I was thinking of people as young as 35-40 coming here talking about how 'it's not like when they were younger' 🙂
Yeah but 35-40 is young, isn't it......lol. Cheers
I would agree, but doesn't stop some people from thinking their metabolism is shot at 40!
Yep for sure, there'll always be outliers and personal experiences where most any argument can sit. When we get to the majority of the population, then we have a usable hypothesis. Cheers
And I haven't got a clue where you're going/what you mean with that reply, sorry!
(My point: as an example of how many people don't really understand CICO, many people think their metabolism is ´shot´ from a certain age, 40 for example, but in reality they're just not realising that their CO has gone down and they should adjust their CI accordingly, or become more active again)
Do metabolism slow down when a person is 40?
https://nbcnews.com/health/health-news/metabolism-adulthood-does-not-slow-commonly-believed-study-finds-n1276650
Researchers found that metabolism peaks around age 1, when babies burn calories 50 percent faster than adults, and then gradually declines roughly 3 percent a year until around age 20. From there, metabolism plateaus until about age 60, when it starts to slowly decline again
Here's the study from this editorial.
https://science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017
Harvard.
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
That's the point that @lietchi is making. People believe their metabolism is shot at 40. What has actually happened in most cases is that their NEAT has subtly and gradually decreased year after year, and - if they haven't remained active enough through exercise or physical job - they've lost muscle mass so their RMR/BMR is ever so slightly lower, but more importantly moving is harder and less fun, contributing to a NEAT down-spiral.
This - that metabolism dies young - is not an uncommon perception, among folks newly joining MFP. Even the decline after 60 is fairly gradual . . . but much overestimated commonly.
There's no shortage of excuses why people don't lose weight, and this place is the perfect example. If counting calories was successful for the vast majority of people, which it isn't, I would factor that in my opinion. And in my opinion calorie counting is no different that taking metformin for diabetes, yeah it reduces blood glucose but it doesn't address the cause, so I look elsewhere. Does this mean I don't believe or understand CICO or calorie counting, no. Cheers
Calorie counting is hardly unique in that. Most things fail for most people, when it comes to weight loss.
I agree with that, for sure. It's one of the basic tenants that I base my inquiring mind on, so to speak. Does our body/mind not like it when we lose weight, even a few lbs.? That keeps me occupied, thinking about it, and it's definitely part of the solution. Anyway, I agree it's tough to maintain a lower weight.0 -
Everyday I get many of the teens and 20 year olds (mostly boys) asking me how they look and their progress. My answer most of the time is that it's good that they're here and keep working at it.
"You aren't impressed?"................I shake my head and tell them that at their age, it's not too hard to get into shape, have lower body fat and look good. You want to impress me? Let me see you at 40 and see if you kept it up.
Seeing people in here 50+ and keeping in good shape impresses me.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
I think we all (mostly) can agree CICO is a real truth. How we interpret it and how we integrate that truth is subjective and up for debate and that is what we are debating.1
-
We on this forum and in this section (debate tends to be longer term posters) may well understand this - but it isnt everywhere.
many many times on forum have seen questions/comments about not eating after x time, keto, IF, ACV, raspberry ketones, eating clean etc etc not phrased as tools or adjuncts to CICO but as ways, in themselves, of losing weight - which to me suggests such people do not understand or at least not fully, CICO and that it applies to everyone.
Calorie counting on the other hand is a tool to control your CICO - it doesn't apply to everyone
Important to differentiate which we mean when posting not lump them as one and the same thing.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »We on this forum and in this section (debate tends to be longer term posters) may well understand this - but it isnt everywhere.
many many times on forum have seen questions/comments about not eating after x time, keto, IF, ACV, raspberry ketones, eating clean etc etc not phrased as tools or adjuncts to CICO but as ways, in themselves, of losing weight - which to me suggests such people do not understand or at least not fully, CICO and that it applies to everyone.
Calorie counting on the other hand is a tool to control your CICO - it doesn't apply to everyone
Important to differentiate which we mean when posting not lump them as one and the same thing.
Your missing the largest demographic here, the people that count calories, that are also complaining of not losing weight. Cheers
EDIT: shortened post.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »We on this forum and in this section (debate tends to be longer term posters) may well understand this - but it isnt everywhere.
many many times on forum have seen questions/comments about not eating after x time, keto, IF, ACV, raspberry ketones, eating clean etc etc not phrased as tools or adjuncts to CICO but as ways, in themselves, of losing weight - which to me suggests such people do not understand or at least not fully, CICO and that it applies to everyone.
Calorie counting on the other hand is a tool to control your CICO - it doesn't apply to everyone
Important to differentiate which we mean when posting not lump them as one and the same thing.
I hope I was not the purpose of this post. It is late and I am tired. If it was I am not mad or upset. I just want to say I agree completely and I am not advocating calorie counting for all....just saying what worked for me. It is just a tool and there are many. I want to say CICO is a truth. Calorie counting is a way to try and achieve a deficit. There are many ways to achieve that deficit if trying to lose weight. But I do want to advocate for calorie counting because it did work for me and, when accurate, is very effective. 😊0 -
Buckeyebabe7l7 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »We on this forum and in this section (debate tends to be longer term posters) may well understand this - but it isnt everywhere.
many many times on forum have seen questions/comments about not eating after x time, keto, IF, ACV, raspberry ketones, eating clean etc etc not phrased as tools or adjuncts to CICO but as ways, in themselves, of losing weight - which to me suggests such people do not understand or at least not fully, CICO and that it applies to everyone.
Calorie counting on the other hand is a tool to control your CICO - it doesn't apply to everyone
Important to differentiate which we mean when posting not lump them as one and the same thing.
I hope I was not the purpose of this post. It is late and I am tired. If it was I am not mad or upset. I just want to say I agree completely and I am not advocating calorie counting for all....just saying what worked for me. It is just a tool and there are many. I want to say CICO is a truth. Calorie counting is a way to try and achieve a deficit. There are many ways to achieve that deficit if trying to lose weight. But I do want to advocate for calorie counting because it did work for me and, when accurate, is very effective. 😊
I agree entirely with your above post but No, my post want aimed at you.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »We on this forum and in this section (debate tends to be longer term posters) may well understand this - but it isnt everywhere.
many many times on forum have seen questions/comments about not eating after x time, keto, IF, ACV, raspberry ketones, eating clean etc etc not phrased as tools or adjuncts to CICO but as ways, in themselves, of losing weight - which to me suggests such people do not understand or at least not fully, CICO and that it applies to everyone.
Calorie counting on the other hand is a tool to control your CICO - it doesn't apply to everyone
Important to differentiate which we mean when posting not lump them as one and the same thing.
Your missing the largest demographic here, the people that count calories, that are also complaining of not losing weight. Cheers
EDIT: shortened post.
I'm not sure what your point is here - people counting calories inaccurately or unsuccessfully doesn't change the point that is important to differentiate between CICO and calories counting,not lump them as one and the same.
Not sure why you are trying to make that simple point complicated.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »We on this forum and in this section (debate tends to be longer term posters) may well understand this - but it isnt everywhere.
many many times on forum have seen questions/comments about not eating after x time, keto, IF, ACV, raspberry ketones, eating clean etc etc not phrased as tools or adjuncts to CICO but as ways, in themselves, of losing weight - which to me suggests such people do not understand or at least not fully, CICO and that it applies to everyone.
Calorie counting on the other hand is a tool to control your CICO - it doesn't apply to everyone
Important to differentiate which we mean when posting not lump them as one and the same thing.
Your missing the largest demographic here, the people that count calories, that are also complaining of not losing weight. Cheers
EDIT: shortened post.
I'm not sure what your point is here - people counting calories inaccurately or unsuccessfully doesn't change the point that is important to differentiate between CICO and calories counting,not lump them as one and the same.
Not sure why you are trying to make that simple point complicated.
Let me make it clearer for you. You inferred that what you see are people that talk about other weight loss strategies like IF, keto as examples complain they aren't losing weight and you say it's because they don't really follow or understand CICO, yet when looking at the totality of people complaining on these forums not losing weight are actually the calorie counters, the largest group. Therefore with that logic the people that count calories also don't understand CICO. Your argument is well, we should still differentiate the two, ok, sure, lets do that, now what.0 -
Now nothing. Or anything.
My simple point about differentiating the 2 and not lumping them as one and the same is just that.
I'm not sure why that isnt clear or you are trying to twist that into some other statement.
Seems to be a stalemate so not interacting further with you on this
Bye.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions