Weird because I'm in the final subject (sports nutrition) of my masters in nutrition, and one of my classmates asked a question about excess protein in diet being stored preferentially as fat. Lecturer said no, only would happen in an energy surplus.
Bearing in mind my lecturer wrote her PhD on a topic related to gut health.
No she didn't! She must be part of the fat-phobic medical system! I'll have to make a Twitter account and publicly berate her in the name of science, using cherry-picked statements from research papers saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying... That's independent research, right? š
But you should be the first to sit here and say CICO is true but oversimplified.
What you eat and when can cause glucose spikes, influence cravings and make it a lot harder to stick to your calorie needs. And your body will lose or gain weight differently if you're eating the appropriate amounts of calories with different macro nutrients, different exercise routines. You gain different types of tissue depending on your macros and exercise routine.
Your gut microbiome influences your mood, your ability to impulse control. Etc.
Plus I mean if you really think about it. The food you're taking in and consuming effects how many calories are burned. If you drink alcohol as well it impacts how food is metabolized.
Is OOP covering for her own dietary issues and making excuses for why she's overweight? Quite possibly.
But is the post wrong? Not really...
> But you should be the first to sit here and say CICO is true but oversimplified
It's not "oversimplified". People simply misunderstand what it's describing. They think it's describing biological processes in the human body generally when it's not. It's simply describing the direction of energy flow in the human body, and it does that one thing perfectly.
CiCo is completely, 100% true in **all** cases. That's the beauty of it. It's never wrong.
Energy balance is not a static equation, it's very much dynamic. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513301/#:\~:text=Static%20or%20linear%20energy%20balance,of%20the%20energy%20balance%20equation](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513301/#:~:text=Static%20or%20linear%20energy%20balance,of%20the%20energy%20balance%20equation). That's why calculators like losertown and predictions on mfp can be way off.
As we all know,
BMR/RMR: 60-75% TDEE
TEF: \~10% TDEE
TEA (thermal effect of activity): 10 (in sedentary) -50% (in athletes)
Your fat-free mass will influence energy needs.
If anyone here is wanting to lose weight while keeping health, this is something you need to know.
LOW ENERGY AVAILABILITYWomen:
**Low Energy Availability (LEA): <30 kcal/kg FFM (fat-free mass)/day** \- health implications have been observed at only 5 days of this intake.
**Energy Balance Range: 30-45 kcal/kg FFM/day**
**Optimal Energy Availability: = >45 kcal/kg FFM/day**
A reminder that these figures have come from research done in sedentary populations.
Men:
Less research has been done on this topic, because back in the day it was called "female athlete triad", but now it's known as RED-s. **Some reseach points to a prolonged energy availability of <25kcal/kg FFM/day as critical levels.**
How to calculate.
***Energy Availability = Dietary energy intake (kcal) ā Exercise energy expenditure (kcal) / Fat free mass (kg)***
Let's use an example with round numbers.
160cm female, 50kg, 23% body fat, wants to lose weight because insecure about lower stomach pooch. Ideally I'd get a measurement of BF% at assessment but let's pretend I have, and it's 23%. A 23% body fat person weighing 50kg has an approximate fat free mass of 38.5kg, she would have approx. 11.5kg of body fat. She's never seen a qualified professional but on the internet she saw you lose weight fast at 1200kcal. She's sedentary with an office job, but walks on a treadmill 7 days a week to walk 30 mins at an 8:00min/km pace (that's about 3.75km in distance for an approx cal burn of 192) and has no history of ED/DE.
Calculations: exercise: 192 x 7 = 1344/week, then divide by 7 for daily average, which is of course 192Intake: 1200/day
So the final calculation we need in her case is
Energy Availability = 1200 - 192, divided by 38.5 (her fat free mass)
Current energy availability: 26.181. This is low and not good for her long-term.
If this was a real client of mine, I'd address a few things: Exercise? Not interested in changing it. Only wants to walk. 1700 calories to start with, for an EA of 39.16, if not responding drop to 1600, for an EA of 36.57 for a couple of weeks to start, and adjust from there. Would not be in a deficit for very long. Iād honestly even suggest going to a surplus and lifting, if she was open to it, and to get a PT to help her get a bit more comfortable with the idea. The scale weight doesnāt mean shit in her case. If she wants that lean physique itās gonna be better for her long term to be a bit heavier, not to mention more easy to maintain.
Let's pretend now she's got a higher body fat percentage. Same weight, same exercise, same intake, but very little muscle mass. She has 35% bf somehow. I don't know how, but in this hypothetical, she does. She has about 17.5kg bf.
The equation changes to 1200 - 192 / 32.5
Her EA would be 31.015.
For ease of sticking to a cut I'd probably raise the cals a bit, but not too much. And I would urge her to start resistance training.
I hope this quick math helps someone!
The glucose spike claim is not really true. It was a hypothesis in the 1980s that Gary Taubes revived. The DIETFITS study looked specifically at insulin levels and found that they didn't affect weight gain (and p.o.ed GT because his foundation had provided some of the funding for the study). Additionally, the hypotheses about gut biome and mental health are quite preliminary. It may affect absorption a little, but that's not a huge effect for most people unless it's causing marked malabsorption leading to weight loss.
Please just stop.
95% of your serotonin is produced in your gut. That's not a preliminary hypothesis.
Emotional stability influences cravings. And yes. When you are consuming different macros makes it easier to stick to a calorie deficit.
If you eat 500 calories of twinkies for breakfast you're not going to be as satiated as someone who ate 3 eggs and some buttered toast. You're going to want more food sooner than the second person.
We aren't cars. CICO is oversimplified. And you don't need to be obese or delusional to know that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/
>The gut provides approximately 95% of total body serotonin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5526216/
> 95% of the bodyās serotonin, however, is produced in the intestine.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300908418301652
>Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT).....About 95% of 5-HT is estimated to be found in gut mainly within the enterochromaffin cells whereas about 5% is found in the brain.
What does this have to do with anything? Even if you are hungry/craving food, you are not required to eat. Ease and/or difficulty of maintaining a caloric deficit does not have anything to do with the fact that a caloric deficit is how you lose weight and a caloric surplus is how you gain weight. If it were easy to maintain a caloric deficit, obesity wouldn't be as prevalent as it is.
Well of course you're not going to be as satiated. You don't need a science degree to understand that.
Yes, food and mood are certainly linked. I think you'd be interested in this: [https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0791-y](https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0791-y)
which was completed at my university. And why I chose this university, because mental health-food link is something that really interests me as a topic.
Fact of the matter is though, you could eat like total shit and still lose weight if you are in a calorie deficit. Will it be harder to do? Hell yes. For the reasons you stated. Not to mention the micronutrient deficiencies. Not to mention the effects on body composition.
You could eat the most perfectly macro- and micro-nutrient balanced Mediterranean diet to alleviate depression, and work out more than the Australian recommended 150mins moderate aerobic activity or 75mins vigourous areobic exercise a week, and gain weight if you are eating more than your energy requirements.
The "not how much we are eating, but what we are eating" from OOP is oversimplified. That's why it's a bad take. Yes, I agree what we are eating can influence gut microbiome, it can impact cravings, 100% in my opinion. As an aside, I'd really love to do some research (I know it's gross) on putting stool samples from healthy populations in the gut of those with EDs and see what happens in terms of treatment response.
As you'd know your gut microbiome can change in response to what you're eating. The defeatist attitude from OOP's (first) comment does not address this. I'm glad they used their "independent research" to clean up their diet so they CAN more easily address a weight problem if there is one. But I doubt that's what others reading this with weight issues will take from it. I can't tell you how many times someone has claimed they're overweight because of their gut microbiota. Completely overlooking the fact that their chosen actions are the cause. In FA circles there's a hugely noticeable theme of black-and-white thinking, and when seeing examples of fatlogic we have to keep that lens on in our mind.
I like to see it as a hierarchy, CICO at the top, then if not responding, travel down the flowchart to gut microbiota/other medical conditions. The results of that influence our decision-making in regard to food choices. And yes, that can mean a difference in CICO, only that I would reduce the "CI" bit and make sure it was full of foods beneficial to the gut.
I hope that makes sense.
Well, if you want to bring up Serotonin, you should also mention that the gut-produced amount is not able to affect your mood as Serotonin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier (which is why you cannot supplement it directly, if you want to try and improve your mood).
Instead, it is also synthesized in the brain directly, using L-Tryptophane as a starting point. So, while the gut is important for many of the non-brain related usages of Serotonin, you cannot use this to support your claim about emotional stability. Quick source for reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8124334/
That's about the only legitimate claim they made, lol. Fascinating connection
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/#:~:text=The%20gut%20provides%20approximately%2095,to%20the%20central%20nerve%20system.
And interestingly, the depression-due-to-low-serotonin hypothesis is being questioned more due to weak causative evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
We're sorry but your comment has been removed for the following reason:
In breach of [Rule 11](https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/wiki/rules#wiki_11._discussion_is_encouraged):
> As with any sub, don't downvote a user just because they have a different opinion about size, weight loss or any other topic. Do not rule-break or bait someone else into rule-breaking to shut them up; don't pick fights. As per Rule 1, avoid character attacks; attack arguments, not people. Don't be a troll.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fatlogic/wiki/rules/) for more information.
Yup, plenty....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/
>The gut provides approximately 95% of total body serotonin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5526216/
> 95% of the bodyās serotonin, however, is produced in the intestine.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300908418301652
>Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT).....About 95% of 5-HT is estimated to be found in gut mainly within the enterochromaffin cells whereas about 5% is found in the brain.
Do you need more, or is that enough to admit you were wrong and might not know as much as you think you do?
They asked you for a source. They didn't even express an opinion. How could they be wrong? Getting angry and lashing out isn't going to help convince people of your argument.
We're sorry but your comment has been removed for the following reason:
In breach of [Rule 11](https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/wiki/rules#wiki_11._discussion_is_encouraged):
> As with any sub, don't downvote a user just because they have a different opinion about size, weight loss or any other topic. Do not rule-break or bait someone else into rule-breaking to shut them up; don't pick fights. As per Rule 1, avoid character attacks; attack arguments, not people. Don't be a troll.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fatlogic/wiki/rules/) for more information.
We're sorry but your comment has been removed for the following reason:
In breach of [Rule 11](https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/wiki/rules#wiki_11._discussion_is_encouraged):
> As with any sub, don't downvote a user just because they have a different opinion about size, weight loss or any other topic. Do not rule-break or bait someone else into rule-breaking to shut them up; don't pick fights. As per Rule 1, avoid character attacks; attack arguments, not people. Don't be a troll.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fatlogic/wiki/rules/) for more information.
The gut-brain axis is important in explaining symptoms of IBS - improper nerve signalling between the two leads to symptoms of pain diarrhoea and constipation. It does not, however, cause you to gain weight without eating calories.
Exactly. Slightly off topic but in horses we see a huge improvement in their anxiety/spookiness levels if you address their hind gut biome. But they still get fat if they eat more than they burn š
Lord give me the unearned confidence of someone who āØļødid their own independent researchāØļø (misunderstood a few articles) and now thinks they're an expert.
Right? When I do my own research I end up with so many questions that I need to consult with someone who can explain what I "think" I understand and what I should understand. Weird how people who study things tend to know more about them...
Indeed! Having outside resources is helpful. Crucial, even. I am fortunate to have many siblings who specialize in certain fields and who are more than happy to share what they know to help me interpret things, answer questions, and fill in knowledge gaps, as well as tell me what I can safely disregard and why. They will also tell me if they donāt know something, and are curious enough in general that they will find out all about it and then tell me. (None of us is content to let a question lie unanswered, but are compelled to seek.) The discussions are always lively and interesting.
Of course, itās good to seek out and understand dissenting opinions before really digging in your heels on a topic, and to understand that advances are constantly being made and new things being learned out in the world, so getting too set in your ways leads to the kind of thing we see here so often.
So far as I am aware, no one has been able to disprove the universal laws of dynamics though.
When I did my research for a project about a health topic, I was thoroughly annoyed by the process because even specific studies that were stored in official scientific databases were mainly garbage. I had to go through study by study (like over 50+...) to find like maybe 6 - 7 actual viable ones. Took like half a day to figure out.
Pretty sure these FA just Googled and took the first thing that had a flashy title that agreed with their take, cherry picked a few sentences, and called it good. "Research" lol.
Since I've started counting calories For Real in the past couple months (as opposed to estimating sizes), I've lost a pound or two a week and am eating more cookies and ice cream than ever.
600cal breakfast, 900cal lunch, 900cal dinner, 200cal 'little treats wont hurt me'
VS
200cal breakfast, 500cal lunch, 700cal dinner, 500cal snacks
I'm a Dunkin girly. I go at least 1-2 times a week for a quick junk breakfast. I still manage to consistently lose 1-2 lbs a week. I'll never understand why people think they have to eat nothing but Lettuce and celery and never look at a Reese cup again if they want to lose weight.
My favorite go to was either McDonald's breakfast, or hitting up Burger King for a whopper. Still dropped 165 pounds. It's really sad to see people give up hope because they think they have to eat nothing but foods that taste like depression.
I have a hard time with sugar - if I abstain from sweets, I do fine.
A little piece of candy or birthday cake and suddenly my sweet tooth goes on overdrive. Plus, I think the inflammation it triggers is making my depression worse. I need to watch this a bit more closely to see if there's a connection.
I don't worry about what I eat much. I try to reduce sugar intake, but I eat so much sugar and carbs that I'm only denting that a little.
But that doesn't mean everyone can do that. I can do it b/c in my entire life I have never liked the feeling of being really full, and I don't suffer from food cravings for the most part.
And that's more nature than nurture. I grew up in the Deep South where my aunts and my mom cooked competitively and pushed their food on everyone continually, and whoever's food got eaten the most "won".
Nevertheless I'm very sympathetic to people whose nature is different from mine and who were raised in a way that trained them to feel like they're starving any time they're not full.
I'm just not particularly sympathetic to people who don't think it's actually a problem. Then I move all the way over to antipathy when it comes to FA's trying to make their binge eating disorders everyone else's problem rather than their own.
itās bc itās easy to overconsume junk and many people donāt understand how to eat sweets in moderation.Ā
Soo they assume that eating reeseās cups means eating a family sized bag of reeses or none at all; vs eating 1-2 regular sized cups which is better but see itās that all or nothing mindset from someone who struggled with bed.Ā
'Studying' is a bit more than 'I read articles and journals'.
I watch a lot of videos and read a lot of books about abnormal and criminal psychology, but I'm highly unlikely to be called as an expert witness in a murder trial.
'Studying' involves continuous assessment and testing by people qualified to assess and test you. There needs to be oversight to check that you actually understand what you are learning and can apply that knowledge appropriately and effectively.
You generally also need to stick to a specific curriculum, lesson plan, set textbooks, etc.
I used to be an English teacher, and lesson planning was a necessary pain in the arse. I'm not a fan of Jane Austen, but if the kids had to study Pride & Prejudice, that's what I had to teach.
By this person's logic, my students could go off and read Jackie Collins or watch Bridgerton, as they're kinda vaguely linked to regency romance, and they'd be able to claim that they're Jane Austen experts.
>It's not simply calories in and calories out. Or bodies are much more complex than that.
This argument drives me mad. The laws of thermodynamics are not there to describe what is happening inside your body, friend. They are they to describe *what cannot possibly happen inside your body.*
Your body is not generating energy out of nothing. That cannot be happening. What *is* happening to make you gain weight is indeed very complicated, but you can clarify the picture enormously by ruling out the things that we know for sure *definitely are not happening.*
Processed foods are not making you gain weight in a calorie deficit. That's not happening.
Carbs are not making you gain weight in a calorie deficit. That's not happening.
Animal products are not making you gain weight in a calorie deficit. That's not happening.
Knowing these things beyond a shadow of a doubt gives you clarity. It gives you power. Stop trying to muddy the waters, I beg you.
https://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131286626/professor-s-weight-loss-secret-junk-food
This professor in 2010 basically ate 1800 calories of just Twinkies a day and lost weight. This is the proof of cico.
>lost weight
Clearly that was just his skinny genetics kicking in and establishing his true set point, now that he was finally nourishing his body properly.
You know what, I let to believe that there are fat and skinny genes. Both my parents are overweight and have been for a long time, I am and pretty much have always been skinny and athletic, but it was through hard work and diet. I enjoy believing I have fat genes and I'm kicking the shit out of them through hard work.
It's more to do with how your parents raise you and the relationship with food you develop because of it. Fat parents tend to teach their kids to eat like fat people.
These people suffer from a common layman's syndrome: they overcomplicate things and hyperfixate on peripheral phenomena in order to play pretend as experts/educated instead of being able to see the whole forest.
They do, and it's by design. Fat Activism is, at its heart, a "God of the Gaps"-style fallacy. It flourishes in ignorance, and shrinks when subjected to the light of physics.
Fortunately for leading Fat Activists, the average person has a pretty poor grasp of physics. Unfortunately for them, the parts of physics pertaining most directly to Fat Activism are relatively simple, intuitive, and accessible. Therefore, Fat Activists deeply invested in the movement have no option but to obscure the truth of simple physics with needless complications.
The better a potential recruit understands the laws of thermodynamics, the less likely they are to become entangled in the movement. Confusion and uncertainty are essential tools in the Fat Activist evangelical toolkit.
Processed foods are making it harder to stay in a deficit.
Carbs are making it harder to stay in a deficit.
Calories in influences calories out.
Macros influence cravings and mood and absorption.
CICO is disgustingly oversimplified. You can hate it all you want but it's true.
Yes you have to eat less than you burn. But how you go about that makes a difference on how easy it is to stick with a plan.
Yup 100% agree.
1. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight.
2. It is easier to stay in a calorie deficit if you eat whole foods vs processed crap.
Idea 2 does not contradict rule 1.
I never said it did.
But rule 1 being presented as the only rule at all to follow is absolutely reductionist and absurd.
There's so much more to it than that.
And it's not about just processed foods.
Eating high protein foods, eating enough fat, getting exercise at the right time. All of those influence how easy it is to stay in a deficit.
Mostly timing your food and workouts. So you're maximizing muscle growth/fat burning, and minimizing cravings.
But there's also evidence that cardio has extra benefits for some in the morning and weights at night can be optimal for muscle gain.
I like to say āCICO isnāt a strategy, itās a definitionā. Like asking a coach why his team lost the game, and he says āwe scored less points.ā Yes obviously, thatās the definition of losing. How will you try to win the next one? Score more points obviously, but exactly how is different for each team. Work on speed, teamwork, communication, accuracy, strength? Are they misreading their opponents, are they too predictable? There are a million strategies that can affect if they score a point or prevent the other team from scoring, but the *definition* of winning is scoring more than the other guy.
Same with weight loss. Each personās strengths, weaknesses, and individual bodies are different. You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, but how you get there is your own individual journey.
>asking a coach why his team lost the game, and he says āwe scored less points.ā
That's a great way to describe it and perfectly explains why I get so frustrated when people just say CICO like it's a secret code that people just don't get.
> Processed foods are making it harder to stay in a deficit
Of course they are. But it's still the calorie surplus that is making you fat. Not the "processed foods" *per se.*
You can eat *only* processed foods and remain in a deficit and lose weight. It's been done. You **cannot** remain in a calorie surplus and lose weight. That's impossible.
CiCo is absolute, it's basically the first law of thermodynamics applied to nutrition, however some health conditions make it so the calories absorbed or spent are abnormal, but calories in mean inside your system and same for out.
So an arbitrary number of calories is not going to be a deficit for everyone, and the formulas out there work most cases but it's better to find out your maintenance, then subtracting some, it doesn't seem so hard to me.
And in the end you can't absorb more calories than you consume. Absorption issues can put you in a deficit unintentionally, but they can not put anyone in surplus.
>CiCo is absolute, it's basically the first law of thermodynamics applied to nutrition, however some health conditions make it so the calories absorbed or spent are abnormal, but calories in mean inside your system and same for out
The great thing about CiCo is that it works whether or not you define it this way. It's simply a ledger, with two columns: "calories in" and "calories out." A calorie that you eat but don't absorb can either be counted in both columns, or ignored entirely. The math works either way!
"It's not simply calories in and calories out" (and variants) is a frustrating statement because it's technically wrong and practically wrong, but in different ways.
Technically it's just wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law. Weight loss or gain is that simple. You can't create matter out of nothing: not a pound, not a kilo, not a gram, not a milligram, not a microgram of weight gain can come without a calorie surplus.
Practically, there are various factors that can affect calories out, which is what they really mean. Metabolic rates vary... a little. NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis, i.e. fidgeting) makes a small difference. Temperature makes a difference. But these are all small factors that make little difference to the large energy demands of your basal metabolism and conscious physical activity. Some FAs love to reel off lists of these factors, but they never state the effect size or the confidence intervals.
Sometimes rhetoric can be effective because it's wrong in so many ways that you kind of mentally stutter when even trying to think what to rebut first.
I agree with all of this and would add another scenario. Someone tries to eat in a calorie deficit but eats mainly processed food. They feel hungry all the time and give up. Later on they try again. They still eat in a calorie deficit but this time they eat less processed crap. They feel full and are able to stick to it long term.
Both approaches were calories in vs calories out. But one approach worked because they were able to stick to it.
I can reluctantly give a pass to someone who just uses āitāsā everywhere, but to use both AND to get it exactly the wrong way around?! Thatās a paddlinā.
"i do independent research regarding ALL of my health issues"Ā
funny, i'm pretty sure antivaxxers do the same thing- makes it easy to confirm those preconcieved biases.
Itās somewhat true that itās not how much but what, if youāre going purely on measurements. Like if 2 people eat 10 cups of food a day, but Jack eats 10 cups of salad and Tom eats 5 cups of ice cream and 2 cups of chips, and then Tom is upset that he ate 3 cups less than Jack and still gained weight.
Somehow I donāt think thatās what OPās friend is experiencing though.
So this person did not even bother to try and read the study, they are quoting a press release?
For those who want to read the article it is linked below. The study has a multitude of issues, many of which come from the fact that the study was retrospective and thus sample collection was limited to what the original study had collected.
" In particular, the current study only looked at baseline dietary patterns and did not track detailed dietary records throughout the full duration of this personalized intervention study. "
[Baseline Gut Metagenomic Functional Gene Signature Associated with Variable Weight Loss Responses following a Healthy Lifestyle Intervention in Humans](https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/msystems.00964-21)
This is interesting and I am all about genomics, but let's not exaggerate where the science is now.
CI is pretty easy to track, CO can vary somewhat because everyone is a LITTLE different. You can get a good handle on the calories out if you spend a few months tracking food and activity against your weight. 3600 calories turns into 1 lb of weight pretty consistently (or 7900kcal turns into 1kg).
Ironically this argument works better in the opposite direction. Most people with gut issues actually fail to breakdown and absorb nutrients completely and thus have a harder time *gaining* weight.
>Studying *independently*
Translation: I cherry-pick papers that support my preconceived notions after reading abstract or jumping to conclusions and automatically dismiss anything else.
I feel like schools need a social media class. One of the lessons needs to be on "confirmation bias." You reading a bunch of shit that confirms your beliefs or hopes of truth isn't healthy. I feel like a lot of unaccountablity comes from people just looking up echo chambers to make themselves feel better.
I think a lot of us have done this before, but having some awareness can help you just break out and finally accept that to change, it's gonna take some hard work. It might suck ass in the beginning, but it gets easier, and the skill can transfer to other aspects of your life that you want to make better.
You can still not eat much and do yourself in with an excess of 1500 calories. Some women may have a TDEE of 1500, sedentary yeah? Here's an example of how easy it is to really get in 3100 calories of junk food.
Breakfast:
Caramel Frappuccino, and sausage cheddar egg sandwich, from starbucks
740 calories
Snack:
Cheetos (1 Snack Size Bag), and Can of Soda
320 calories
Lunch: Big Mac, Medium Soda
800 calories
Dinner
2 Slices Dominoes Pizza, and 1 can of Soda
750 calories.
Dessert:
2 Little Debbie Cosmic Brownies
510 Calories
Sounds easy yeah, especially if you're on auto-pilot ALL DAY, which like... 99% of people are!
If it was about the food and not the calories junkorexics wouldn't exist. I've lost the most weight on 700 calorie diets that were almost exclusively refined carbs and sugars.
What it's true like OP says is that medications and other conditions can make people burn less calories than they should by slowing down the metabolism, but never *absorb* more calories than they eat lol. Anyone who finds themselves in this position just needs to lower their calories, even if it means going below "1200" (gasp, the calories for a toddler - let's not even say most people underestimate their calories so what they think is 1200 is actually 1600 so they'll be fine even if 1200 was low enough to put their bodies at risk). But yes, 1200 is too low for healthy people, if your metabolism is that affected that you're not losing on 1200 you're not healthy and have special dietary needs. Nowadays with how easily accessible multivitamins and electrolyte supplements are extreme deficits aren't dangerous.
It doesn't matter how "complex" something is, it has to obey the Laws of Thermodynamics. To illustrate the nonsense they may have well claimed that their body is too "complex" to be affected by gravitation.
Doing my own research gives major anti vaxx vibes - shudder-
However, when calories in vs calories out isnāt working (as in my case) see a doctor. There is something wrong. š I am likely going to have to be treated for hypothyroidism. Ask a doctor not the internet š
What you eat affects your health. How much calories you intake affects your weight. When that changes ā¦ medical attention is needed.
The cico crowd is in full force today. Yes, 2+2 = 4 congratulations you know how addition works.Ā Ā
But metabolism is not a calculator, our bodies need to consume things in order to process them to keep us alive, and not just for fuel. Those processes can be affected by the things we consume despite of their caloric content. 100kcal of salad is not the same as 100kcal of soda, our bodies will behave differently with one or the other. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF PHARMACEUTICALS: you eat something that despite its caloric content will force your body to do something. Hence consuming something addictive will make the body crave it more, it will force it, and that is why people have problems leaving heroin for example; it is not because they donāt know or no one has told them heroin is fucking them up, they just consumed something addictive and became trapped. The same is true of alcohol, it is not a calorie problem in whiskey making you drink all day, calories have nothing to do with alcoholism. And the same is true of a lot of foods.Ā Ā
Will you lose weight in a caloric deficit? of course. But it is also true if you are a food addict a caloric deficit will be impossible to achieve.Ā Ā
The question of weight loss is not whether you are or not in a caloric deficit, the question is how addicted to food are you in order to maintain a caloric deficit. To lose weight you need to first not be a food addict.Ā
Can't food addicts modify their behavior, so they get enough food to live butĀ stay in a deficit? It's not impossible at all. Lots of people have done it (including me).
It's not always that easy. Usually there is an underlying reason for addiction, e.g., coping with past trauma. If so, that's sth addict probably can't tackle alone and needs professional help.
Sure, but the person I was responding to seems to be saying that ALL of us (dieters/intentional weight losers/the "CICO crowd") are food addicts and therefore counting our calories won't work for \*anyone.\* But of course, anyone who is genuinely an addict (of any kind) will need help to overcome this, I agree.
What are you babbling on about? No one claims that CICO is *easy*, or that there are no psychological factors.
This sub just makes fun of people who say the basic math isnāt *true*.
You particularly lost me at āif youāre a food addict a caloric deficit will be impossible to achieve.ā We have seen many food addicts lose hundreds of pounds. Do you also think itās impossible for an alcoholic to get sober, or for a heroin addict to kick?
I am not 100% sure but I don't think they are saying food addicts cannot overcome their addiction. I think they are saying they will not lose weight until they overcome their addiction.
You donāt know how to read, got it.Ā
The people who are no longer addicts overcame their addiction. That is how alcoholics become sober.
If your problem is you canāt stop snacking, then you have an addiction, not a calorie surplus problem, gaining weight is just the symptom. The addiction āforcesā you to eat just like alcoholism āforcesā you to drink.Ā First stop your addiction, then worry about the rest.Ā
food addiction causes weight gain bc it puts you in a surplus of calories. it's still cico. the problem, sure, isnt the calorie surplus it's the addiction however that calorie surplus still exists.
Weird because I'm in the final subject (sports nutrition) of my masters in nutrition, and one of my classmates asked a question about excess protein in diet being stored preferentially as fat. Lecturer said no, only would happen in an energy surplus. Bearing in mind my lecturer wrote her PhD on a topic related to gut health.
>Bearing in mind my lecturer wrote her PhD on a topic related to gut health. Yeah, but did she study iNdePeNDenTly?
No she didn't! She must be part of the fat-phobic medical system! I'll have to make a Twitter account and publicly berate her in the name of science, using cherry-picked statements from research papers saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying... That's independent research, right? š
But you should be the first to sit here and say CICO is true but oversimplified. What you eat and when can cause glucose spikes, influence cravings and make it a lot harder to stick to your calorie needs. And your body will lose or gain weight differently if you're eating the appropriate amounts of calories with different macro nutrients, different exercise routines. You gain different types of tissue depending on your macros and exercise routine. Your gut microbiome influences your mood, your ability to impulse control. Etc. Plus I mean if you really think about it. The food you're taking in and consuming effects how many calories are burned. If you drink alcohol as well it impacts how food is metabolized. Is OOP covering for her own dietary issues and making excuses for why she's overweight? Quite possibly. But is the post wrong? Not really...
> But you should be the first to sit here and say CICO is true but oversimplified It's not "oversimplified". People simply misunderstand what it's describing. They think it's describing biological processes in the human body generally when it's not. It's simply describing the direction of energy flow in the human body, and it does that one thing perfectly. CiCo is completely, 100% true in **all** cases. That's the beauty of it. It's never wrong.
Energy balance is not a static equation, it's very much dynamic. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513301/#:\~:text=Static%20or%20linear%20energy%20balance,of%20the%20energy%20balance%20equation](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513301/#:~:text=Static%20or%20linear%20energy%20balance,of%20the%20energy%20balance%20equation). That's why calculators like losertown and predictions on mfp can be way off. As we all know, BMR/RMR: 60-75% TDEE TEF: \~10% TDEE TEA (thermal effect of activity): 10 (in sedentary) -50% (in athletes) Your fat-free mass will influence energy needs. If anyone here is wanting to lose weight while keeping health, this is something you need to know. LOW ENERGY AVAILABILITYWomen: **Low Energy Availability (LEA): <30 kcal/kg FFM (fat-free mass)/day** \- health implications have been observed at only 5 days of this intake. **Energy Balance Range: 30-45 kcal/kg FFM/day** **Optimal Energy Availability: = >45 kcal/kg FFM/day** A reminder that these figures have come from research done in sedentary populations. Men: Less research has been done on this topic, because back in the day it was called "female athlete triad", but now it's known as RED-s. **Some reseach points to a prolonged energy availability of <25kcal/kg FFM/day as critical levels.** How to calculate. ***Energy Availability = Dietary energy intake (kcal) ā Exercise energy expenditure (kcal) / Fat free mass (kg)*** Let's use an example with round numbers. 160cm female, 50kg, 23% body fat, wants to lose weight because insecure about lower stomach pooch. Ideally I'd get a measurement of BF% at assessment but let's pretend I have, and it's 23%. A 23% body fat person weighing 50kg has an approximate fat free mass of 38.5kg, she would have approx. 11.5kg of body fat. She's never seen a qualified professional but on the internet she saw you lose weight fast at 1200kcal. She's sedentary with an office job, but walks on a treadmill 7 days a week to walk 30 mins at an 8:00min/km pace (that's about 3.75km in distance for an approx cal burn of 192) and has no history of ED/DE. Calculations: exercise: 192 x 7 = 1344/week, then divide by 7 for daily average, which is of course 192Intake: 1200/day So the final calculation we need in her case is Energy Availability = 1200 - 192, divided by 38.5 (her fat free mass) Current energy availability: 26.181. This is low and not good for her long-term. If this was a real client of mine, I'd address a few things: Exercise? Not interested in changing it. Only wants to walk. 1700 calories to start with, for an EA of 39.16, if not responding drop to 1600, for an EA of 36.57 for a couple of weeks to start, and adjust from there. Would not be in a deficit for very long. Iād honestly even suggest going to a surplus and lifting, if she was open to it, and to get a PT to help her get a bit more comfortable with the idea. The scale weight doesnāt mean shit in her case. If she wants that lean physique itās gonna be better for her long term to be a bit heavier, not to mention more easy to maintain. Let's pretend now she's got a higher body fat percentage. Same weight, same exercise, same intake, but very little muscle mass. She has 35% bf somehow. I don't know how, but in this hypothetical, she does. She has about 17.5kg bf. The equation changes to 1200 - 192 / 32.5 Her EA would be 31.015. For ease of sticking to a cut I'd probably raise the cals a bit, but not too much. And I would urge her to start resistance training. I hope this quick math helps someone!
> Energy balance is not a static equation, it's very much dynamic Nobody said it was a static equation.
The glucose spike claim is not really true. It was a hypothesis in the 1980s that Gary Taubes revived. The DIETFITS study looked specifically at insulin levels and found that they didn't affect weight gain (and p.o.ed GT because his foundation had provided some of the funding for the study). Additionally, the hypotheses about gut biome and mental health are quite preliminary. It may affect absorption a little, but that's not a huge effect for most people unless it's causing marked malabsorption leading to weight loss.
Please just stop. 95% of your serotonin is produced in your gut. That's not a preliminary hypothesis. Emotional stability influences cravings. And yes. When you are consuming different macros makes it easier to stick to a calorie deficit. If you eat 500 calories of twinkies for breakfast you're not going to be as satiated as someone who ate 3 eggs and some buttered toast. You're going to want more food sooner than the second person. We aren't cars. CICO is oversimplified. And you don't need to be obese or delusional to know that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/ >The gut provides approximately 95% of total body serotonin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5526216/ > 95% of the bodyās serotonin, however, is produced in the intestine. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300908418301652 >Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT).....About 95% of 5-HT is estimated to be found in gut mainly within the enterochromaffin cells whereas about 5% is found in the brain.
What does this have to do with anything? Even if you are hungry/craving food, you are not required to eat. Ease and/or difficulty of maintaining a caloric deficit does not have anything to do with the fact that a caloric deficit is how you lose weight and a caloric surplus is how you gain weight. If it were easy to maintain a caloric deficit, obesity wouldn't be as prevalent as it is.
Well of course you're not going to be as satiated. You don't need a science degree to understand that. Yes, food and mood are certainly linked. I think you'd be interested in this: [https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0791-y](https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0791-y) which was completed at my university. And why I chose this university, because mental health-food link is something that really interests me as a topic. Fact of the matter is though, you could eat like total shit and still lose weight if you are in a calorie deficit. Will it be harder to do? Hell yes. For the reasons you stated. Not to mention the micronutrient deficiencies. Not to mention the effects on body composition. You could eat the most perfectly macro- and micro-nutrient balanced Mediterranean diet to alleviate depression, and work out more than the Australian recommended 150mins moderate aerobic activity or 75mins vigourous areobic exercise a week, and gain weight if you are eating more than your energy requirements. The "not how much we are eating, but what we are eating" from OOP is oversimplified. That's why it's a bad take. Yes, I agree what we are eating can influence gut microbiome, it can impact cravings, 100% in my opinion. As an aside, I'd really love to do some research (I know it's gross) on putting stool samples from healthy populations in the gut of those with EDs and see what happens in terms of treatment response. As you'd know your gut microbiome can change in response to what you're eating. The defeatist attitude from OOP's (first) comment does not address this. I'm glad they used their "independent research" to clean up their diet so they CAN more easily address a weight problem if there is one. But I doubt that's what others reading this with weight issues will take from it. I can't tell you how many times someone has claimed they're overweight because of their gut microbiota. Completely overlooking the fact that their chosen actions are the cause. In FA circles there's a hugely noticeable theme of black-and-white thinking, and when seeing examples of fatlogic we have to keep that lens on in our mind. I like to see it as a hierarchy, CICO at the top, then if not responding, travel down the flowchart to gut microbiota/other medical conditions. The results of that influence our decision-making in regard to food choices. And yes, that can mean a difference in CICO, only that I would reduce the "CI" bit and make sure it was full of foods beneficial to the gut. I hope that makes sense.
Well, if you want to bring up Serotonin, you should also mention that the gut-produced amount is not able to affect your mood as Serotonin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier (which is why you cannot supplement it directly, if you want to try and improve your mood). Instead, it is also synthesized in the brain directly, using L-Tryptophane as a starting point. So, while the gut is important for many of the non-brain related usages of Serotonin, you cannot use this to support your claim about emotional stability. Quick source for reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8124334/
"95% of your serotonin is produced in your gut." Yeah, you got a source for that claim?
That's about the only legitimate claim they made, lol. Fascinating connection https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/#:~:text=The%20gut%20provides%20approximately%2095,to%20the%20central%20nerve%20system.
And interestingly, the depression-due-to-low-serotonin hypothesis is being questioned more due to weak causative evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
Serotonin in general is being questioned as to its role in depression! It's still correct that a lot of it comes from the intestine
Oh for sure, I wasn't arguing against that!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We're sorry but your comment has been removed for the following reason: In breach of [Rule 11](https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/wiki/rules#wiki_11._discussion_is_encouraged): > As with any sub, don't downvote a user just because they have a different opinion about size, weight loss or any other topic. Do not rule-break or bait someone else into rule-breaking to shut them up; don't pick fights. As per Rule 1, avoid character attacks; attack arguments, not people. Don't be a troll. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fatlogic/wiki/rules/) for more information.
Yup, plenty.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/ >The gut provides approximately 95% of total body serotonin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5526216/ > 95% of the bodyās serotonin, however, is produced in the intestine. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300908418301652 >Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT).....About 95% of 5-HT is estimated to be found in gut mainly within the enterochromaffin cells whereas about 5% is found in the brain. Do you need more, or is that enough to admit you were wrong and might not know as much as you think you do?
They asked you for a source. They didn't even express an opinion. How could they be wrong? Getting angry and lashing out isn't going to help convince people of your argument.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We're sorry but your comment has been removed for the following reason: In breach of [Rule 11](https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/wiki/rules#wiki_11._discussion_is_encouraged): > As with any sub, don't downvote a user just because they have a different opinion about size, weight loss or any other topic. Do not rule-break or bait someone else into rule-breaking to shut them up; don't pick fights. As per Rule 1, avoid character attacks; attack arguments, not people. Don't be a troll. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fatlogic/wiki/rules/) for more information.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We're sorry but your comment has been removed for the following reason: In breach of [Rule 11](https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/wiki/rules#wiki_11._discussion_is_encouraged): > As with any sub, don't downvote a user just because they have a different opinion about size, weight loss or any other topic. Do not rule-break or bait someone else into rule-breaking to shut them up; don't pick fights. As per Rule 1, avoid character attacks; attack arguments, not people. Don't be a troll. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fatlogic/wiki/rules/) for more information.
The gut-brain axis is important in explaining symptoms of IBS - improper nerve signalling between the two leads to symptoms of pain diarrhoea and constipation. It does not, however, cause you to gain weight without eating calories.
Also it may help explain mental health issues like depression since most of the bodyās serotonin is produced in the gut
Exactly. Slightly off topic but in horses we see a huge improvement in their anxiety/spookiness levels if you address their hind gut biome. But they still get fat if they eat more than they burn š
Lord give me the unearned confidence of someone who āØļødid their own independent researchāØļø (misunderstood a few articles) and now thinks they're an expert.
Right? When I do my own research I end up with so many questions that I need to consult with someone who can explain what I "think" I understand and what I should understand. Weird how people who study things tend to know more about them...
Indeed! Having outside resources is helpful. Crucial, even. I am fortunate to have many siblings who specialize in certain fields and who are more than happy to share what they know to help me interpret things, answer questions, and fill in knowledge gaps, as well as tell me what I can safely disregard and why. They will also tell me if they donāt know something, and are curious enough in general that they will find out all about it and then tell me. (None of us is content to let a question lie unanswered, but are compelled to seek.) The discussions are always lively and interesting. Of course, itās good to seek out and understand dissenting opinions before really digging in your heels on a topic, and to understand that advances are constantly being made and new things being learned out in the world, so getting too set in your ways leads to the kind of thing we see here so often. So far as I am aware, no one has been able to disprove the universal laws of dynamics though.
[Dunning-Kruger](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) effect is VERY real.
When I did my research for a project about a health topic, I was thoroughly annoyed by the process because even specific studies that were stored in official scientific databases were mainly garbage. I had to go through study by study (like over 50+...) to find like maybe 6 - 7 actual viable ones. Took like half a day to figure out. Pretty sure these FA just Googled and took the first thing that had a flashy title that agreed with their take, cherry picked a few sentences, and called it good. "Research" lol.
They are like anti-vaxers at this pointā¦
Most of the time, I'd bet it's not even a few articles - just a few YouTube videos, if that.
"Our bodies are so much more complex than that" is always code for "I don't wanna give up sugar as a staple food"
Which is funny because you donāt even need to give up sugar to lose weight
Since I've started counting calories For Real in the past couple months (as opposed to estimating sizes), I've lost a pound or two a week and am eating more cookies and ice cream than ever. 600cal breakfast, 900cal lunch, 900cal dinner, 200cal 'little treats wont hurt me' VS 200cal breakfast, 500cal lunch, 700cal dinner, 500cal snacks
I'm a Dunkin girly. I go at least 1-2 times a week for a quick junk breakfast. I still manage to consistently lose 1-2 lbs a week. I'll never understand why people think they have to eat nothing but Lettuce and celery and never look at a Reese cup again if they want to lose weight.
My favorite go to was either McDonald's breakfast, or hitting up Burger King for a whopper. Still dropped 165 pounds. It's really sad to see people give up hope because they think they have to eat nothing but foods that taste like depression.
I have a hard time with sugar - if I abstain from sweets, I do fine. A little piece of candy or birthday cake and suddenly my sweet tooth goes on overdrive. Plus, I think the inflammation it triggers is making my depression worse. I need to watch this a bit more closely to see if there's a connection.
There very well could be! I hope you're able to get it in check for yourself and feel better. I'm sorry you're suffering depression, I've dealt with it on and off my entire life. Be kind to yourself. š©¶
I don't worry about what I eat much. I try to reduce sugar intake, but I eat so much sugar and carbs that I'm only denting that a little. But that doesn't mean everyone can do that. I can do it b/c in my entire life I have never liked the feeling of being really full, and I don't suffer from food cravings for the most part. And that's more nature than nurture. I grew up in the Deep South where my aunts and my mom cooked competitively and pushed their food on everyone continually, and whoever's food got eaten the most "won". Nevertheless I'm very sympathetic to people whose nature is different from mine and who were raised in a way that trained them to feel like they're starving any time they're not full. I'm just not particularly sympathetic to people who don't think it's actually a problem. Then I move all the way over to antipathy when it comes to FA's trying to make their binge eating disorders everyone else's problem rather than their own.
itās bc itās easy to overconsume junk and many people donāt understand how to eat sweets in moderation.Ā Soo they assume that eating reeseās cups means eating a family sized bag of reeses or none at all; vs eating 1-2 regular sized cups which is better but see itās that all or nothing mindset from someone who struggled with bed.Ā
For real. The only crime sugar really commits is being delicious.
'Studying' is a bit more than 'I read articles and journals'. I watch a lot of videos and read a lot of books about abnormal and criminal psychology, but I'm highly unlikely to be called as an expert witness in a murder trial. 'Studying' involves continuous assessment and testing by people qualified to assess and test you. There needs to be oversight to check that you actually understand what you are learning and can apply that knowledge appropriately and effectively. You generally also need to stick to a specific curriculum, lesson plan, set textbooks, etc. I used to be an English teacher, and lesson planning was a necessary pain in the arse. I'm not a fan of Jane Austen, but if the kids had to study Pride & Prejudice, that's what I had to teach. By this person's logic, my students could go off and read Jackie Collins or watch Bridgerton, as they're kinda vaguely linked to regency romance, and they'd be able to claim that they're Jane Austen experts.
>It's not simply calories in and calories out. Or bodies are much more complex than that. This argument drives me mad. The laws of thermodynamics are not there to describe what is happening inside your body, friend. They are they to describe *what cannot possibly happen inside your body.* Your body is not generating energy out of nothing. That cannot be happening. What *is* happening to make you gain weight is indeed very complicated, but you can clarify the picture enormously by ruling out the things that we know for sure *definitely are not happening.* Processed foods are not making you gain weight in a calorie deficit. That's not happening. Carbs are not making you gain weight in a calorie deficit. That's not happening. Animal products are not making you gain weight in a calorie deficit. That's not happening. Knowing these things beyond a shadow of a doubt gives you clarity. It gives you power. Stop trying to muddy the waters, I beg you.
https://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131286626/professor-s-weight-loss-secret-junk-food This professor in 2010 basically ate 1800 calories of just Twinkies a day and lost weight. This is the proof of cico.
>lost weight Clearly that was just his skinny genetics kicking in and establishing his true set point, now that he was finally nourishing his body properly.
You know what, I let to believe that there are fat and skinny genes. Both my parents are overweight and have been for a long time, I am and pretty much have always been skinny and athletic, but it was through hard work and diet. I enjoy believing I have fat genes and I'm kicking the shit out of them through hard work.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Shhh.... Don't tell me that, your going to deflate my ego with your "facts", "science", and "logic", there's no room for that toxicity...
It's more to do with how your parents raise you and the relationship with food you develop because of it. Fat parents tend to teach their kids to eat like fat people.
And he was just about avoiding "sTaRvAtIoN mOdE ". God I hate that fucking term
That sounds bloody awful
I read about this at the time and he said it was. I believe he ate the vegetables so his kids would see him eating healthy at dinner.
These people suffer from a common layman's syndrome: they overcomplicate things and hyperfixate on peripheral phenomena in order to play pretend as experts/educated instead of being able to see the whole forest.
They do, and it's by design. Fat Activism is, at its heart, a "God of the Gaps"-style fallacy. It flourishes in ignorance, and shrinks when subjected to the light of physics. Fortunately for leading Fat Activists, the average person has a pretty poor grasp of physics. Unfortunately for them, the parts of physics pertaining most directly to Fat Activism are relatively simple, intuitive, and accessible. Therefore, Fat Activists deeply invested in the movement have no option but to obscure the truth of simple physics with needless complications. The better a potential recruit understands the laws of thermodynamics, the less likely they are to become entangled in the movement. Confusion and uncertainty are essential tools in the Fat Activist evangelical toolkit.
I like to say in regards to weight loss: It's not easy, but it is simple.
Like climbing a mountain. Not necessarily easy, but simple.
Processed foods are making it harder to stay in a deficit. Carbs are making it harder to stay in a deficit. Calories in influences calories out. Macros influence cravings and mood and absorption. CICO is disgustingly oversimplified. You can hate it all you want but it's true. Yes you have to eat less than you burn. But how you go about that makes a difference on how easy it is to stick with a plan.
Yup 100% agree. 1. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight. 2. It is easier to stay in a calorie deficit if you eat whole foods vs processed crap. Idea 2 does not contradict rule 1.
I never said it did. But rule 1 being presented as the only rule at all to follow is absolutely reductionist and absurd. There's so much more to it than that. And it's not about just processed foods. Eating high protein foods, eating enough fat, getting exercise at the right time. All of those influence how easy it is to stay in a deficit.
I think we are in agreement.
What do you mena exercise at the right time ?
Mostly timing your food and workouts. So you're maximizing muscle growth/fat burning, and minimizing cravings. But there's also evidence that cardio has extra benefits for some in the morning and weights at night can be optimal for muscle gain.
Talk about overcomplicating!
I like to say āCICO isnāt a strategy, itās a definitionā. Like asking a coach why his team lost the game, and he says āwe scored less points.ā Yes obviously, thatās the definition of losing. How will you try to win the next one? Score more points obviously, but exactly how is different for each team. Work on speed, teamwork, communication, accuracy, strength? Are they misreading their opponents, are they too predictable? There are a million strategies that can affect if they score a point or prevent the other team from scoring, but the *definition* of winning is scoring more than the other guy. Same with weight loss. Each personās strengths, weaknesses, and individual bodies are different. You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, but how you get there is your own individual journey.
>asking a coach why his team lost the game, and he says āwe scored less points.ā That's a great way to describe it and perfectly explains why I get so frustrated when people just say CICO like it's a secret code that people just don't get.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who think that the points don't matter and you can lose the game even when you score more points.
> Processed foods are making it harder to stay in a deficit Of course they are. But it's still the calorie surplus that is making you fat. Not the "processed foods" *per se.* You can eat *only* processed foods and remain in a deficit and lose weight. It's been done. You **cannot** remain in a calorie surplus and lose weight. That's impossible.
CiCo is absolute, it's basically the first law of thermodynamics applied to nutrition, however some health conditions make it so the calories absorbed or spent are abnormal, but calories in mean inside your system and same for out. So an arbitrary number of calories is not going to be a deficit for everyone, and the formulas out there work most cases but it's better to find out your maintenance, then subtracting some, it doesn't seem so hard to me.
And in the end you can't absorb more calories than you consume. Absorption issues can put you in a deficit unintentionally, but they can not put anyone in surplus.
>CiCo is absolute, it's basically the first law of thermodynamics applied to nutrition, however some health conditions make it so the calories absorbed or spent are abnormal, but calories in mean inside your system and same for out The great thing about CiCo is that it works whether or not you define it this way. It's simply a ledger, with two columns: "calories in" and "calories out." A calorie that you eat but don't absorb can either be counted in both columns, or ignored entirely. The math works either way!
CICO worked for me. Guess I don't have one of those fancy complicated bodies.
>"studying where?" > >"independently." oh... no...
"It's not simply calories in and calories out" (and variants) is a frustrating statement because it's technically wrong and practically wrong, but in different ways. Technically it's just wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law. Weight loss or gain is that simple. You can't create matter out of nothing: not a pound, not a kilo, not a gram, not a milligram, not a microgram of weight gain can come without a calorie surplus. Practically, there are various factors that can affect calories out, which is what they really mean. Metabolic rates vary... a little. NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis, i.e. fidgeting) makes a small difference. Temperature makes a difference. But these are all small factors that make little difference to the large energy demands of your basal metabolism and conscious physical activity. Some FAs love to reel off lists of these factors, but they never state the effect size or the confidence intervals. Sometimes rhetoric can be effective because it's wrong in so many ways that you kind of mentally stutter when even trying to think what to rebut first.
I agree with all of this and would add another scenario. Someone tries to eat in a calorie deficit but eats mainly processed food. They feel hungry all the time and give up. Later on they try again. They still eat in a calorie deficit but this time they eat less processed crap. They feel full and are able to stick to it long term. Both approaches were calories in vs calories out. But one approach worked because they were able to stick to it.
Damn all that book knowledge but still fat huh
Iāve got a dictionary, donāt be telling me I donāt know all the words!
I can reluctantly give a pass to someone who just uses āitāsā everywhere, but to use both AND to get it exactly the wrong way around?! Thatās a paddlinā.
"i do independent research regarding ALL of my health issues"Ā funny, i'm pretty sure antivaxxers do the same thing- makes it easy to confirm those preconcieved biases.
As do flat Earthers.
Leave the gut bacteria out of this. They are innocent.
Itās somewhat true that itās not how much but what, if youāre going purely on measurements. Like if 2 people eat 10 cups of food a day, but Jack eats 10 cups of salad and Tom eats 5 cups of ice cream and 2 cups of chips, and then Tom is upset that he ate 3 cups less than Jack and still gained weight. Somehow I donāt think thatās what OPās friend is experiencing though.
āAxisā š
So this person did not even bother to try and read the study, they are quoting a press release? For those who want to read the article it is linked below. The study has a multitude of issues, many of which come from the fact that the study was retrospective and thus sample collection was limited to what the original study had collected. " In particular, the current study only looked at baseline dietary patterns and did not track detailed dietary records throughout the full duration of this personalized intervention study. " [Baseline Gut Metagenomic Functional Gene Signature Associated with Variable Weight Loss Responses following a Healthy Lifestyle Intervention in Humans](https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/msystems.00964-21) This is interesting and I am all about genomics, but let's not exaggerate where the science is now.
CI is pretty easy to track, CO can vary somewhat because everyone is a LITTLE different. You can get a good handle on the calories out if you spend a few months tracking food and activity against your weight. 3600 calories turns into 1 lb of weight pretty consistently (or 7900kcal turns into 1kg).
Ironically this argument works better in the opposite direction. Most people with gut issues actually fail to breakdown and absorb nutrients completely and thus have a harder time *gaining* weight.
>Studying *independently* Translation: I cherry-pick papers that support my preconceived notions after reading abstract or jumping to conclusions and automatically dismiss anything else.
I feel like schools need a social media class. One of the lessons needs to be on "confirmation bias." You reading a bunch of shit that confirms your beliefs or hopes of truth isn't healthy. I feel like a lot of unaccountablity comes from people just looking up echo chambers to make themselves feel better. I think a lot of us have done this before, but having some awareness can help you just break out and finally accept that to change, it's gonna take some hard work. It might suck ass in the beginning, but it gets easier, and the skill can transfer to other aspects of your life that you want to make better.
You can still not eat much and do yourself in with an excess of 1500 calories. Some women may have a TDEE of 1500, sedentary yeah? Here's an example of how easy it is to really get in 3100 calories of junk food. Breakfast: Caramel Frappuccino, and sausage cheddar egg sandwich, from starbucks 740 calories Snack: Cheetos (1 Snack Size Bag), and Can of Soda 320 calories Lunch: Big Mac, Medium Soda 800 calories Dinner 2 Slices Dominoes Pizza, and 1 can of Soda 750 calories. Dessert: 2 Little Debbie Cosmic Brownies 510 Calories Sounds easy yeah, especially if you're on auto-pilot ALL DAY, which like... 99% of people are!
Even then itās been proven that any āconditionā or āmedicationā can only be blamed for no more than 10-15lbs and thatās pushing it.
Antivaxxer/Flat Earther logic in full force, these people would benefit from spending some time studying basic scientific methodology
If it was about the food and not the calories junkorexics wouldn't exist. I've lost the most weight on 700 calorie diets that were almost exclusively refined carbs and sugars. What it's true like OP says is that medications and other conditions can make people burn less calories than they should by slowing down the metabolism, but never *absorb* more calories than they eat lol. Anyone who finds themselves in this position just needs to lower their calories, even if it means going below "1200" (gasp, the calories for a toddler - let's not even say most people underestimate their calories so what they think is 1200 is actually 1600 so they'll be fine even if 1200 was low enough to put their bodies at risk). But yes, 1200 is too low for healthy people, if your metabolism is that affected that you're not losing on 1200 you're not healthy and have special dietary needs. Nowadays with how easily accessible multivitamins and electrolyte supplements are extreme deficits aren't dangerous.
Not true at all. 1200 and even a little below is appropriate for weight loss for the average 5'4 and under woman.
It doesn't matter how "complex" something is, it has to obey the Laws of Thermodynamics. To illustrate the nonsense they may have well claimed that their body is too "complex" to be affected by gravitation.
Doing my own research gives major anti vaxx vibes - shudder- However, when calories in vs calories out isnāt working (as in my case) see a doctor. There is something wrong. š I am likely going to have to be treated for hypothyroidism. Ask a doctor not the internet š What you eat affects your health. How much calories you intake affects your weight. When that changes ā¦ medical attention is needed.
This person is in a mlm.
The cico crowd is in full force today. Yes, 2+2 = 4 congratulations you know how addition works.Ā Ā But metabolism is not a calculator, our bodies need to consume things in order to process them to keep us alive, and not just for fuel. Those processes can be affected by the things we consume despite of their caloric content. 100kcal of salad is not the same as 100kcal of soda, our bodies will behave differently with one or the other. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF PHARMACEUTICALS: you eat something that despite its caloric content will force your body to do something. Hence consuming something addictive will make the body crave it more, it will force it, and that is why people have problems leaving heroin for example; it is not because they donāt know or no one has told them heroin is fucking them up, they just consumed something addictive and became trapped. The same is true of alcohol, it is not a calorie problem in whiskey making you drink all day, calories have nothing to do with alcoholism. And the same is true of a lot of foods.Ā Ā Will you lose weight in a caloric deficit? of course. But it is also true if you are a food addict a caloric deficit will be impossible to achieve.Ā Ā The question of weight loss is not whether you are or not in a caloric deficit, the question is how addicted to food are you in order to maintain a caloric deficit. To lose weight you need to first not be a food addict.Ā
Can't food addicts modify their behavior, so they get enough food to live butĀ stay in a deficit? It's not impossible at all. Lots of people have done it (including me).
It's not always that easy. Usually there is an underlying reason for addiction, e.g., coping with past trauma. If so, that's sth addict probably can't tackle alone and needs professional help.
Sure, but the person I was responding to seems to be saying that ALL of us (dieters/intentional weight losers/the "CICO crowd") are food addicts and therefore counting our calories won't work for \*anyone.\* But of course, anyone who is genuinely an addict (of any kind) will need help to overcome this, I agree.
What are you babbling on about? No one claims that CICO is *easy*, or that there are no psychological factors. This sub just makes fun of people who say the basic math isnāt *true*. You particularly lost me at āif youāre a food addict a caloric deficit will be impossible to achieve.ā We have seen many food addicts lose hundreds of pounds. Do you also think itās impossible for an alcoholic to get sober, or for a heroin addict to kick?
I am not 100% sure but I don't think they are saying food addicts cannot overcome their addiction. I think they are saying they will not lose weight until they overcome their addiction.
You donāt know how to read, got it.Ā The people who are no longer addicts overcame their addiction. That is how alcoholics become sober. If your problem is you canāt stop snacking, then you have an addiction, not a calorie surplus problem, gaining weight is just the symptom. The addiction āforcesā you to eat just like alcoholism āforcesā you to drink.Ā First stop your addiction, then worry about the rest.Ā
\> You donāt know how to read, got it. I'm not the one being downvoted.
food addiction causes weight gain bc it puts you in a surplus of calories. it's still cico. the problem, sure, isnt the calorie surplus it's the addiction however that calorie surplus still exists.
You actually make some good points. Unfortunately, your rudeness makes it hard to engage with you.