3 ms·

You're getting downvoted because, I assume, you didn't include the possibility of magic as a an explanation in your analysis. Rookie mistake in these threads.

You're getting downvoted because, I assume, you didn't include the possibility of magic as a an explanation in your analysis. Rookie mistake in these threads. While it may superficially seem like yours was the best explanation for lack of weight loss -- that OP made a simple error and over-estimated his caloric deficit (and further didn't adjust the deficit when receiving data to the contrary)-- what you need to account for are the "other factors" which currently exceeds our understanding of biology and physics. Using these 'other factors' it's possible to do everything right, and still not lose weight (through no fault of your own).

tsimionescu 5y ago
There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. It's not at all improbable that BMR can be affected significantly by dieting in some individuals, a priori. It could also be affected by other lifestyle changes that happened together with the dieting, such as medication.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Not really, but that doesn't mean CICO is actionable. > Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. That's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.)
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Oops, you're right, CICO theoretically accounts for BMR differences and appetite differences.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    > at's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.) That was basically my point. BMR can fluctuate making CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss. My example was real, it did happen to me. My calories in was meticulously recorded. Calories out is less accurate, but the calories burned in exercise were not dramatically inaccurate enough to explain the lack of progress. The only other factor outside my conscious control was BMR.
    - goostavos 5y ago
      > CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss Kinda reads like an embarrassing cope, tbh. Blaming mystical 'other factors' is stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. At the end of the day, CICO is all that matters. To deny this is to say that you have a metabolism not based on consuming external matter. Your lack of progress can entirely be explained by just making a plain, good old fashion error with your in/out expenditure. Something we all literally do. We don't need magic involved to explain it. Your body gave you data that you were wrong, but you ignored it, threw up your hands, and now blame "other factors." Want to lose weight? Use this One Weird Trick those dummy gym bros with no understanding of science have been using since forever. 1. Reduce your calories 2. monitor your weight 3. adjust 1. based on 2. Step 3 is the important bit you missed.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        Hardly. I did adjust…I added calories, and my weight loss resumed. And like I said, if my BMR was not normative for my age, weight, and activity level, it was the culprit. What you folks on here are referring as “mystical” and “magical” is not either. In fact the opposite. It’s evolution. Your body’s sympathetic nervous system evolved to react and adjust to help keep you alive during periods of stress. Starvation is a stressor, it’s ridiculous to think that our bodies simply shrug it off and keep operating business as usual. Once the stressor was removed the body decided to “resume normal processing” it became easier to lose weight. FWIW, I am not saying that a prolonged period of starvation would not result in weight loss, but I am saying your body on limited fuel will conserve the fuel it gets any way IT can.

tsimionescu 5y ago

There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. It's not at all improbable that BMR can be affected significantly by dieting in some individuals, a priori. It could also be affected by other lifestyle changes that happened together with the dieting, such as medication.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Not really, but that doesn't mean CICO is actionable. > Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. That's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.)
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Oops, you're right, CICO theoretically accounts for BMR differences and appetite differences.
- kcplate 5y ago
  > at's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.) That was basically my point. BMR can fluctuate making CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss. My example was real, it did happen to me. My calories in was meticulously recorded. Calories out is less accurate, but the calories burned in exercise were not dramatically inaccurate enough to explain the lack of progress. The only other factor outside my conscious control was BMR.
  - goostavos 5y ago
    > CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss Kinda reads like an embarrassing cope, tbh. Blaming mystical 'other factors' is stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. At the end of the day, CICO is all that matters. To deny this is to say that you have a metabolism not based on consuming external matter. Your lack of progress can entirely be explained by just making a plain, good old fashion error with your in/out expenditure. Something we all literally do. We don't need magic involved to explain it. Your body gave you data that you were wrong, but you ignored it, threw up your hands, and now blame "other factors." Want to lose weight? Use this One Weird Trick those dummy gym bros with no understanding of science have been using since forever. 1. Reduce your calories 2. monitor your weight 3. adjust 1. based on 2. Step 3 is the important bit you missed.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      Hardly. I did adjust…I added calories, and my weight loss resumed. And like I said, if my BMR was not normative for my age, weight, and activity level, it was the culprit. What you folks on here are referring as “mystical” and “magical” is not either. In fact the opposite. It’s evolution. Your body’s sympathetic nervous system evolved to react and adjust to help keep you alive during periods of stress. Starvation is a stressor, it’s ridiculous to think that our bodies simply shrug it off and keep operating business as usual. Once the stressor was removed the body decided to “resume normal processing” it became easier to lose weight. FWIW, I am not saying that a prolonged period of starvation would not result in weight loss, but I am saying your body on limited fuel will conserve the fuel it gets any way IT can.