You wrote a lot here, but I just wanted to link to this prior discussion on Tildes on this topic for people who might be curious
Your body is not the only game in town. What it mean is that gut microbes play a part. Recent study - which was, granted, small - fed people highly processed easy-to-digest foods, and fed other people minimally processed harder-to-digest foods. Long story short, the easy stuff went into the body, whereas the harder stuff went more into the bacteria in the gut biome. It wasn't a huge difference, but it was a marked difference.
I don’t know, anecdotally CICO has been the only thing that ever made sense in my weight loss journey. I eat less, I lose weight. I eat more, I get fat. What I eat never seemed to matter, just...
I don’t know, anecdotally CICO has been the only thing that ever made sense in my weight loss journey. I eat less, I lose weight. I eat more, I get fat.
What I eat never seemed to matter, just pure CICO whether that was fast food or health food.
I've read the study they mentioned and it was also linked to in this other commend. The thing is, there was indeed a difference in calories "lost" depending on the food eaten, but the difference...
I've read the study they mentioned and it was also linked to in this other commend. The thing is, there was indeed a difference in calories "lost" depending on the food eaten, but the difference was between 5% for the worst diet and 10% with the best.
All in all it is true that there are other factors than just CICO at play (for another example I know someone with an thyroid condition that causes their body to periodically deposit too much water, thus causing weight gain), but for most people focusing on CICO is the easiest way to influence their weight. Obviously it works best if combined with other strategies.
Pro-tip with Cronometer: if you can, stick to the NCCDB and USDA results where possible. That’ll get you the best, most thorough info. The custom (user) database CRDB is all over the place in...
Pro-tip with Cronometer: if you can, stick to the NCCDB and USDA results where possible. That’ll get you the best, most thorough info. The custom (user) database CRDB is all over the place in terms of accuracy and completeness, same as MyFitnessPal’s mountain of garbage entries.
If MyFitnessPal’s online searchable food database is showing all of the data they track, it’s got a few micronutrients, but is far less comprehensive than Cronometer
If MyFitnessPal’s online searchable food database is showing all of the data they track, it’s got a few micronutrients, but is far less comprehensive than Cronometer
I absolutely understand what you are talking about regarding hunger being ever-present with sugar in your diet. I started intentionally losing weight about 2 1/2 months ago and one of the main...
I absolutely understand what you are talking about regarding hunger being ever-present with sugar in your diet.
I started intentionally losing weight about 2 1/2 months ago and one of the main things (other than logging calories) was to remove practically all added sugar from my intake.
Holy shit, I never experienced this difference before. Hunger is now this mild thing that I can shrug at. It used to be insistent, I used to need to eat right then when I was hungry. Now? Now it's more along the lines of just being information - 'your body requests food in the next few hours, please add food when convenient, thank you'.
I LOVE that change. I'm also no longer an unintentional asshole when hungry.
I never thought of it as a bad thing - because I never thought of it at all since I'd never felt differently as far as I could remember. It was just normal. It also led to me having difficulty...
I never thought of it as a bad thing - because I never thought of it at all since I'd never felt differently as far as I could remember. It was just normal. It also led to me having difficulty understanding how people did diets: 'do they feel hungry like this all the time? I definitely couldn't do that!'.
Having felt this difference, I would not wish to go back.
Eating sugar now is kind of a hilarious experience of doing crack and suffering for it. I had cake on my birthday and was sent home with more - it was disturbing how much of a I-WANT-IT reaction I had when I smelled that sugar, and how shitty I felt an hour afterwards. By that point I had gone a month and a half without added sugar and my body had acclimated - eating a couple slices of cake (which would previously not have been a problem) showed me what sugar was doing to me since I finally had a non-sugar chunk of time to compare to.
sends an Internet hug I find that you'll get a lot of leeway on Tildes when it comes to comments that have a lot of thought put into them? People on here really recognize when a comment is written...
sends an Internet hug
I find that you'll get a lot of leeway on Tildes when it comes to comments that have a lot of thought put into them? People on here really recognize when a comment is written with care and kindness, especially when it comes from a personal, experiential sort of place. With comments like yours, I find that the responses from other Tildes folk become less about A Debate To Win and more about connecting with each other over varied perspectives. So, you're generally not going to get heated replies looking to jump down your throat. :>
Yea the back and forth doesn't get my cortisol up like on reddit. It's not reactionary. People comment because they want to connect with others and share something in good faith, not because...
Yea the back and forth doesn't get my cortisol up like on reddit. It's not reactionary. People comment because they want to connect with others and share something in good faith, not because they're trying to get one over on somebody. I've had to re-program myself over the years here.
This is really crazy now that I think about it, but I turned off comment replies in my reddit inbox a few years ago when I noticed how much anxiety I got from receiving rude comments on reddit...
This is really crazy now that I think about it, but I turned off comment replies in my reddit inbox a few years ago when I noticed how much anxiety I got from receiving rude comments on reddit (or, I admit that sometimes I was guilty of picking a fight here and there, because reddit tends to be irritating.) I really dislike arguing with anyone, I just want to have civil discussions.
So, for a few years I've been essentially rambling into the void making comments on reddit, only reading the replies every couple of months or so. I had completely removed the actual discussion aspect... After a while I wonder why I'm even making comments anymore.
Seriously, that Harvard article that was bought and paid for by the sugar industry touting "fat is bad" and recommending fat free diets contributed significantly to the obesity problem of America....
Seriously, that Harvard article that was bought and paid for by the sugar industry touting "fat is bad" and recommending fat free diets contributed significantly to the obesity problem of America. It's been disproven so many times, and I think it was bought for ~$50k only, but still we see "fat free" and "low-fat" being pushed.
I would love it if we could get a better model of metabolism. For me the standard stuff you get from the MyFitnessPal app works pretty well. But I trust people when they say it doesn’t work for...
I would love it if we could get a better model of metabolism. For me the standard stuff you get from the MyFitnessPal app works pretty well. But I trust people when they say it doesn’t work for them. Some might be tracking wrong but really it can’t be as simple as a handful of parameters.
Everywhere I look puts tamales at between 150-300 calories each, depending on which protein is used. So if you had 12, that would be waaaaay more than 1300 calories.
Everywhere I look puts tamales at between 150-300 calories each, depending on which protein is used. So if you had 12, that would be waaaaay more than 1300 calories.
Are the Calorie Counts on Food Labels Accurate? [Discover 2019] Just something to keep in mind
The calories listed on labels come straight from the manufacturers — and are regulated by the FDA. But the agency allows for a 20 percent margin of error. Because of this, the caloric content is often higher than labeled, yet still within FDA limits.
I saw a you tube video once where scientists and some obese people were talking One person said that it is hard dieting and the scientists agreed dieting is hard, but you have to look at it...
I saw a you tube video once where scientists and some obese people were talking
One person said that it is hard dieting and the scientists agreed dieting is hard, but you have to look at it scientifically. If calories out isn't greater than calories in you will gain weight. Thats the calculation.
If you aren't going to diet then exercise. If you aren't going to exercise, diet. Ideally do both.
I was obese, morbidly. But that calculation spoke to me. It was easy to understand. In two years I lost 7 stone (roughly 100 pounds). It wasn't easy but saying no rather than yes was.
I think people just underestimate how incredibly hard it is to change human habits — that’s why sticking to a diet is insanely hard and requires huge will power. It’s especially hard when your...
I think people just underestimate how incredibly hard it is to change human habits — that’s why sticking to a diet is insanely hard and requires huge will power. It’s especially hard when your body tells you to eat more, so you not only have to fight your mind, but often your body as well.
It also doesn’t help that there are countless pseudoscientific bullshit articles circling around the internet and it is very hard to navigate to trustful information.
Whenever people talk about this topic and CICO in general, it usually rubs me the wrong way. CICO is the be all and end all of losing weight. Nutrition, vitamin, a balanced diet etc don't mean...
Whenever people talk about this topic and CICO in general, it usually rubs me the wrong way. CICO is the be all and end all of losing weight. Nutrition, vitamin, a balanced diet etc don't mean anything in that context, and people use that to complicate the matter more and find excuses as to why they're not losing weight and why they're overeating.
If your energy intake is consistently less than what you use up, you will lose weight. There's a reason why everybody was abnormally skinny in labour camps. There is no way around basic thermodynamics. Energy in < energy out -> weight loss. Whether that's healthy or sustainable is a completely different question.
yes and no, in the end, you just have to stick with it long enough for it to become a habbit.
You make a very good point. Losing weight isn't the hard part, it's keeping that weight off. Everybody can eat 500-1000 calories less than they burn for a few weeks and lose those 5 kilos (10 lbs), but it's not sustainable. They aren't feeling well, and it's not their lifestyle, so eventually they gain that weight back.
...and the topic is so much more complex since lots of different factors come into play, like your gut bacteria, bioavailability, amount of muscle mass and potential health issues that alter your metabiolism in one way or another....and then there is all the things we maybe not even know about yet ...
While this generally might be true, the reality is that the vast majority of obese people, who should lose weight because it's a health risk, don't have to worry about any of this at all. All they need to do is eat food that's large in volume and filling, which makes consuming less calories than what they're burning much much easier. The sad truth is, most people have very little knowledge about food, and there are countless old wives' tales out there spreading misinformation.
What nearly killed it for me was when my body just got into a kind of balance where no more weight loss was happening, despite a calorie deficit and keeping the level of activity that worked for...
What nearly killed it for me was when my body just got into a kind of balance where no more weight loss was happening, despite a calorie deficit and keeping the level of activity that worked for the previous 10 Kg... Over 3 months now of basically just going +1 Kg. Finally seeing some movement in the past few days, thankfully
I'm ambivalent towards this article. I appreciate the adamant defense against misleading/predatory health claims and trends. Calling out "high protein" being misinterpreted as healthy,...
Exemplary
I'm ambivalent towards this article. I appreciate the adamant defense against misleading/predatory health claims and trends. Calling out "high protein" being misinterpreted as healthy, demystifying halo foods... I completely understand the value of teaching people to see through marketing and myths and stuff. I just don't agree with how the author presented this information.
In my opinion, many modern writers and creators in health and fitness miss the mark in how they present this, mostly correct, information. They "fight fire with fire":
Many persistent food myths are expressed in a way that's intended to scare or discourage the listener: "If you eat too much bread, you will get fat". In a similar direction, health food marketing is often misleading: "High protein to keep you full longer (but the 250 calorie granola bar has 10g of protein; this is a literal example from the linked article)". But the typical response to these claims is to rebuff them in a tone that is also intended to scare or discourage: "Actually, CICO is the way, and if you don't track your calories, you're just eating too much". "Don't eat the 250kcal/10P granola bar, eat the 180kcal/20P protein bar".
Posts like these tend to spit information at the reader, who, on the one hand, now knows how to track calories and what kinds of foods to avoid, but on the other hand, may become deathly terrified of eating foods they now know to be "bad". My belief is that by issuing information in the form of counter-propaganda, you encourage a lot of people to replace an ignorant, unhealthy relationship-with-food with a scientifically informed but still unhealthy relationship-with-food.
Much of my commentary comes from personal experience. I've battled a strange relationship with food for, I dunno, 20 years? And of course, considering hard facts "or else" becomes way more important when there's any form of medical risk involved.
But I digress: I think a more effective way to educate people about health, fitness, and food choices is to start with behavior change, not information overload. If the goal is to lose weight, then don't scare the person into doing it. Help them understand the behaviors that prevent them from doing it, and introduce patterns and information that help change those behaviors.
There's a whole other mental and non-thermodynamics component to weight loss that people who aren't me are more qualified to speak about. But my point: This information can be helpful, but presentation is important. Scaring and shaming people into losing weight can work. But is it sustainable, or mentally beneficial? There's a lot more to consider than just owning the folk myths and talking about science.
I’m honestly disgusted by some of these comments. Some of you know what’s up. The exemplary post at the top is full of good information, for instance. But a lot of these comments seem to be...
Exemplary
I’m honestly disgusted by some of these comments.
Some of you know what’s up. The exemplary post at the top is full of good information, for instance. But a lot of these comments seem to be written in a very judgemental position about people you have met, and the advice you espouse is very unhelpful.
I know for the most part that you’re not trying to hurt anyone, and your advice is well meaning, but I also think that some of these are not coming from a place of compassion.
So as someone who has tried just about every diet out there before getting into something that works, let me give you some very personal reasons why this advice is not helpful.
For the many people spouting CICO I recommend reading the top reply once again since they did a great job explaining the scientific reasons why it’s an incomplete model. But from a real world implementation I can tell you that calorie-counting without serious education about the stuff that makes you satisfied is like going through life at the “hell” difficulty. It can easily mean hunger at all times. The entire point of the article is that people are terrible at estimating calories. Nobody is walking around carrying scales and measuring spoons.
There seems to be a common thought - written or not - that if you are dieting, that you should be hungry. This is what sets most dieters to failure. It’s true that we can resist urges, but when they are bodily functions there will always be limits to your ability to resist. Imagine you put your hand on a hot stove range; how long do you think you could resist moving your hand? Hunger is not as urgent as pain, but it still must be obeyed eventually. Completely ignoring the compulsion aspect, people who wait to eat until they are extremely hungry are far more likely to overeat.
The other common misconception is that exercise is the CICO key to losing weight. While exercise is important for countless reasons, it is far from being a solution to weight problems. Did you not read in the article how much those starvation experiment people had to run to get their total calories down? The calories you lose from exercise are paltry, and often intense exercise can make you more hungry. And of course there are some people who are severely limited in their ability to do such extreme exercises in the first place.
This gets said quite a lot but it seems that people still don’t get it: there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all diet. Different bodies need different nutrition. If you are a healthy weight by eating intuitively, don’t just assume that “common sense eating” is something that works for everyone - if it did nobody would be fat. And frankly none of us here who are not currently licensed and practicing dietitians are qualified to dictate dietary advice to anyone. Frankly, in my experience dietitians generally don’t dictate things as much as they say “give this a chance and see if it works for you.”
Somewhat related - I have been on a GLP-1 agonist (tirzepatide / Mounjaro) since January, which has been eye-opening. I am just genuinely not as hungry as I used to be. I thought people were...
There seems to be a common thought - written or not - that if you are dieting, that you should be hungry.
Somewhat related - I have been on a GLP-1 agonist (tirzepatide / Mounjaro) since January, which has been eye-opening. I am just genuinely not as hungry as I used to be. I thought people were exaggerating, but it was almost like a light switch turned off my "food noise." It's glorious, and I've finally lost weight (60 pounds and counting).
Christ. There is good info here but between this and the automatic insult to the reader I almost gave up because of how insufferable this voice is.
I’m supposed to write an epigrammatic lead here–but I can’t be bothered. So let’s just pretend I did. Oh, and let’s also pretend it was funny and you laughed.
Christ. There is good info here but between this and the automatic insult to the reader I almost gave up because of how insufferable this voice is.
Been reading through the comments waiting sometime to mention this. I was also quite turned off by the reference to “testicular fortitude.” I understand the frustration that can come out in trying...
Been reading through the comments waiting sometime to mention this. I was also quite turned off by the reference to “testicular fortitude.” I understand the frustration that can come out in trying to cut through all the BS that exists in this space but being rude and misogynist aren’t necessary.
Men and females, the whole thing reeks of bro science.
A 200lb man dieting on 2500 calories per day and overeating by 300 calories is only an increase of 13%, versus a 120 lb female dieting on 1100 calories and overeating by 300 calories, that’s a 27% increase.
Men and females, the whole thing reeks of bro science.
If you try to log less than 1400 calories a day in my fitness pal it will refuse to chart it. 1100 calories a day for an adult (assuming we're talking about a human female) is less a diet, and...
If you try to log less than 1400 calories a day in my fitness pal it will refuse to chart it. 1100 calories a day for an adult (assuming we're talking about a human female) is less a diet, and more anorexia. 2' tall toddlers require 1300 calories per day. The starvation experiment he mentioned earlier was 1560 calories per day.
Yes, the math checks out. Starve yourself to lose weight, one weird trick and all that.
My issue was primarily the 'men and females' phrasing tho, not the math.
Really? I use loseit and it warns you if you try putting in less than 1200, but it does so anyway. I usually eat less than 1000 a day and I'm not on any special diet
Really? I use loseit and it warns you if you try putting in less than 1200, but it does so anyway.
I usually eat less than 1000 a day and I'm not on any special diet
I'm always frustrated by people who bring up "the laws of thermodynamics" when they talk about caloric needs and fat creation. Our bodies are built to maintain homeostasis. They have numerous...
I'm always frustrated by people who bring up "the laws of thermodynamics" when they talk about caloric needs and fat creation. Our bodies are built to maintain homeostasis. They have numerous tools to do this, including increasing or decreasing body temperature, dedicating more or less calories to brain function, up-regulating and down-regulating the immune system, stopping the menstrual cycle or sperm production... There are reasons that if you don't eat, you feel unwell. Even on a day-to-day basis, our bodies do not use the same amount of calories.
The extent that any of that happens also varies from person to person. You could put two women of the same height and weight on the same scientifically measured diet, and it's possible one of their bodies would stop their menstrual cycle and the other wouldn't.
Here is a meta-analysis of people's resting metabolic rate varying as much as 15-20%
Another thing that significantly varies from person to person is how much of various hormones they produce. One of those hormones is ghrelin, which causes the feeling we associate with hunger. If your body secretes more gherlin, you will almost certainly weigh more (src).
To some extent, but the inter-day variability will average on. In the end, restricting what you eat is the only lever you have. Variability in metabolic rate can make the estimates on what range...
To some extent, but the inter-day variability will average on. In the end, restricting what you eat is the only lever you have. Variability in metabolic rate can make the estimates on what range of calories you should be eating, but in the end, that doesn't really matter. Count the amount of calories you're eating, start with one of the estimates, and see if you're losing weight. No? Then decrease the amount of calories until you do. There must be some point between 2k calories and 0 calories where your weight starts to decrease, or else you really are violating the laws of thermodynamics.
I would go further and say that counting calories is unnecessary if you stick to a routine diet most days. Track your weight and try things to see what happens. It also puts "cheating" into...
I would go further and say that counting calories is unnecessary if you stick to a routine diet most days. Track your weight and try things to see what happens.
It also puts "cheating" into perspective. If you "cheat" one day, your weight goes up, but then it goes down and you end up at the same weight, you got away with it. The only thing it did is put you behind schedule for losing weight. Do you have a deadline?
I think one big problem with counting calories is comparing with other people. It's true that you can't directly compare calories between people and that metabolic rates vary between people even...
I think one big problem with counting calories is comparing with other people. It's true that you can't directly compare calories between people and that metabolic rates vary between people even within the same person at different times. However, people hear this and interpret it as meaning that it's useless to count calories.
If one counts calories somewhat accurately and weighs themselves regularly, they should be able to affect the weight on the scale by changing the amount of calories consumed. This is always true regardless of any health condition. It may be true that one has to consume fewer or more calories to end up at the same weight as someone else, so this calorie count is only applicable to the individual.
Sure. I just think it's important to remember that maintaining a percentage deficit will be more difficult for some people then others. If your body is producing more ghrelin, you are going to be...
Sure. I just think it's important to remember that maintaining a percentage deficit will be more difficult for some people then others. If your body is producing more ghrelin, you are going to be hungrier, with all the associated psychological side effects of that. I can understand why someone might not want to be miserable all the time to lose weight that statistically is almost guaranteed to return within a few years.
For those people probably more exercise might be the way to go (as it can affect their feeling of hunger and their whole metabolism). Also, if someone is eating some insane amounts of calories,...
For those people probably more exercise might be the way to go (as it can affect their feeling of hunger and their whole metabolism). Also, if someone is eating some insane amounts of calories, changing it overnight by a huge amount is not going to work out well - it’s much easier to do so gradually, similarly to how people leave behind drugs (medical, but also addictive ones).
While these are good points, it is often the overweight people saying them. Perhaps it is better to seek weightloss advice from people who have lost weight.
While these are good points, it is often the overweight people saying them.
Perhaps it is better to seek weightloss advice from people who have lost weight.
Really? I'm not being rude at all. I've even agreed that good points were made. I'm also not being judgemental about anyone's weight. It is true that I have found that people who have lost weight...
Really?
I'm not being rude at all. I've even agreed that good points were made. I'm also not being judgemental about anyone's weight.
It is true that I have found that people who have lost weight often have different advice about losing weight compared to people who are fat.
Who would you trust to teach you how to fish? A person who has caught heaps of fish or a person who has caught no fish and is full of excuses as to why fishing does not work?
Your comment may not have been intended to be rude, but it is certainly biased. There are plenty of people out there who have lost weight and are still overweight. It's also not a particularly...
Your comment may not have been intended to be rude, but it is certainly biased. There are plenty of people out there who have lost weight and are still overweight. It's also not a particularly valuable insight, because people's nutritional needs vary; what worked for one person might not be what another needs.
I really appreciate what this writer is doing, and I think a lot of people need a source like this introduced to them in a way they'll be receptive to it. This fella is basically saying what I've...
I really appreciate what this writer is doing, and I think a lot of people need a source like this introduced to them in a way they'll be receptive to it. This fella is basically saying what I've been telling numerous friends and loved ones for years and years. Sure there are subtleties to diet and how your body works, but if you ignore the obvious primary reality of CI-CO and put all your time into making excuses and money into fancy foods that you think you can eat consequence-free, then you'll make no progress and go broke quickly.
You should feel hungry if your goal is to lose weight. Yep, it sucks. If you wanna pile steamed kale on top to try and feel full, go for it. I'd much rather eat a smaller portion of something I enjoy and accept that my tummy will feel hungry at bedtime.
My family did me no favors as a youngster and it took about a decade of active reprogramming to get to a place where I enjoy my relationship with food. Folks who operate with cognitive dissonance about eating, bribe their children with junk food, et cetera are doing long term harm
Fair enough. I agree that it's possible to not feel hungry constantly while eating a calorie deficit. I guess my point is more that if you've clocked your allotted calories for the day and still...
Fair enough. I agree that it's possible to not feel hungry constantly while eating a calorie deficit. I guess my point is more that if you've clocked your allotted calories for the day and still feel unsatiated, that's not a green flag to continue eating (if your goal is to lose weight).
For a lot of folks, I think that's where they fall off the wagon. And my point might be better stated as "it's okay to feel hungry". In fact I think it's really good to spend a significant chunk of time feeling hungry, and not get into the mindset of "I should always feel full".
Having lost a lot of weight at one point - I viewed hunger as the feeling of progress. It's like you're draining a pond and you've got a tiny diesel pump to do it. Hunger is the sound of the pump...
Having lost a lot of weight at one point - I viewed hunger as the feeling of progress. It's like you're draining a pond and you've got a tiny diesel pump to do it. Hunger is the sound of the pump sloooooooooowly extracting the water. You can't see the water level going down, so the drone of the pump is the only indication you have that progress is being made.
Fun fact: you lose weight by breathing it out. That's the main point of exit for fat. It's funny (from our modern perspective) how our bodies give us such an intense signal for such a ludicrously slow process of energy loss.
Exactly what my thinking on the experience of hunger. It's a sign of progress, and an indicator that you've been doing a good job controlling impulses, so far that day at least.
Exactly what my thinking on the experience of hunger. It's a sign of progress, and an indicator that you've been doing a good job controlling impulses, so far that day at least.
The thing is, to lose weight you have to firstly stop doing the things that made you fat. And then you have to take actions to reverse the things that made you fat. Prior isiah get fat from...
The thing is, to lose weight you have to firstly stop doing the things that made you fat. And then you have to take actions to reverse the things that made you fat. Prior isiah get fat from overeating, which means they have to under-eat to lose weight. This tends to make people hungry.
Wouldn't they simply have to stop over eating? Under eating may be faster, but probably more stressful on the body and mind. It's also creating new bad habits as opposed to just eating a healthy...
Wouldn't they simply have to stop over eating? Under eating may be faster, but probably more stressful on the body and mind. It's also creating new bad habits as opposed to just eating a healthy amount.
No, because if they are eating at maintenance they will stay the same weight, not lose weight. You have to eat less than what it takes to maintain your current weight. You have to trigger your...
Wouldn't they simply have to stop over eating?
No, because if they are eating at maintenance they will stay the same weight, not lose weight.
You have to eat less than what it takes to maintain your current weight. You have to trigger your body into using fat reserves for fuel, which means you literally have to eat less energy than you use, ie, under-eat.
This is a it misleading, I think. Eating a maintainance amount at an unhealthy weight is overeating, and it is accurate to say that if an overweight person switched to eating a diet that would...
This is a it misleading, I think. Eating a maintainance amount at an unhealthy weight is overeating, and it is accurate to say that if an overweight person switched to eating a diet that would maintain them at a healthy weight, then their weight will asymptotically approach that healthy weight, which is what I think the poster above is suggesting and is a fine way to approach a healthy weight.
I think the feeling of hunger is perhaps under-acknowledged in the discourse about weight management. I agree with you that, to a degree, a person should feel hungry when losing weight. The idea...
I think the feeling of hunger is perhaps under-acknowledged in the discourse about weight management. I agree with you that, to a degree, a person should feel hungry when losing weight. The idea that being hungry is torture or a catastrophe is, if you think about it, kind of unnatural. The human body is built to withstand fasting. Pre-agricultural humans had to deal with unreliable food sources, and I've read that their pattern of eating was probably most similar to the 'intermittent fasting' technique that many people have success with in terms of weight loss.
Personally, if I ate every time I was hungry, I would be obese right now. Due to chronic illness I get basically zero exercise, and due to manifold dietary intolerances and other GI issues, I eat almost entirely starches and meat. But my weight hasn't changed from pretty much the exact middle of the healthy range in over a year. I do intermittent fasting and also sometimes fast for a whole day.
I think that eating whenever you are hungry is like filling your car with gasoline whenever the fuel gauge is only one notch below full. Hunger is a gauge of your nutritional status, and like the fuel status of your car, it can get pretty low before you start incurring risks of various kinds. Obviously this is not a perfect analogy, but the hunger that people often experience between meals is not the kind that indicates a dire physiological need to eat, in most cases. The sticking point is figuring out how to get people to experience this mild hunger as such.
A lot of it comes down to habits, how a person has habitually reacted to hunger throughout their life, but there are other factors. It is easier to disregard mild hunger if you are engaged with something interesting, and for many people, chronic boredom or depression deprives them of activities that can distract them from hunger. For other people who have experienced food insecurity in their childhood, the feeling of hunger is not just annoying but terrifying, and as such can be difficult to tolerate even in its milder forms. And of course all kinds of health issues can modulate the feeling of hunger in one way or another. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions to this issue, but nonetheless I feel like the concept of hunger and how a person experiences it is critical to the management of their weight.
I agree with your observation about boredom and depression. Most of my own unhealthy eating habits earlier in life revolved around those emotions. These days I call it "recreational eating", and I...
I agree with your observation about boredom and depression. Most of my own unhealthy eating habits earlier in life revolved around those emotions. These days I call it "recreational eating", and I see people do it allllllll the time. Eating to dispel boredom or to change their mood.
The car/gas analogy holds up, except overfilling your car with fuel isn't generally possible. It's as though people pump a full tank when their gague reads half empty, regularly. And that's the source of weight gain.
Definitely no one technique or idea will work for everyone. In my experience it's usually about winning the psychological game, and that part is different for everyone. Good therapy is more important than someone telling you precisely what to eat.
I (and one of my siblings) have always been lanky and could never put on weight no matter how much I was eating - probably because of hormonal issues - but my Father was obese when we were born...
I (and one of my siblings) have always been lanky and could never put on weight no matter how much I was eating - probably because of hormonal issues - but my Father was obese when we were born and is now almost at a healthy BMI after surgery, intensive dieting, and every day exercise. He managed to lose a lot of weight, but it's an uphill battle he always had to fight, even when he was eating correctly.
All of this to say, weight management is such a varied part of the human experience that articles like this and in general the surrounding discourse never really managed to convince me towards any one technique or buzzword. After twenty years of intensive routines my Father did something that, for others, could be done in a tenth of the time with the exact same amount of discipline, as I used to see online in the IF subreddit and the like. I think we need to be more accepting of the fact that some people gain and keep weight easier than others, and their weight loss journey will be substantially harder, and at the end of the day they need to find what works for them and keep at it, not what some article says.
While every journey is different, losing weight is still always possible (even if incredibly hard, and in many cases very slow). Putting on weight is not, though.
While every journey is different, losing weight is still always possible (even if incredibly hard, and in many cases very slow). Putting on weight is not, though.
From my experience people who say that they have lesser calorie intake than they need and they are still gaining weight are eithier just not measuring their calorie intake right or are outright...
From my experience people who say that they have lesser calorie intake than they need and they are still gaining weight are eithier just not measuring their calorie intake right or are outright liars. I lost 25kg eating what I ate before trying to lose weight including my fav coconut chocolate bars but I genuinely weighed and added EVERYTHING I ate or drank to my app (Fitatu) and stopped when I reached the 1700kcal limit I set for myself even though I was hungry later. I set 1700 because app calculated that I would lose 1kg a week at that rate and that was actually on point. Now I am back to my previous weight because I just stopped counting calories and was eating like before. It really is simple as that. Even if you have underlying health conditions then remember that your body fat doesn't spawn from thin air - you gain because you eat too much not because you have issues. Surely hormonal issues can make you feel hungry more often but won't make you fat without you actually eating.
I actually resonated with the tone of the article. People in this thread make some very good points about how this could be presented better and more educationally valuable, however I think the...
I actually resonated with the tone of the article. People in this thread make some very good points about how this could be presented better and more educationally valuable, however I think the article is very easy to read and the illustrations are also a nice way to break it up.
It probably depends in what kind of mood you're in, how much of the information you already knew beforehand and of course, your relationship to food.
Also, pepperoni pizza does have a lot of calories, my god
The writing style amused me enough to get me to actually read the article. I was hoping it would also touch on fasting cycles and their effects rather than just literal starvation, but it was...
The writing style amused me enough to get me to actually read the article. I was hoping it would also touch on fasting cycles and their effects rather than just literal starvation, but it was already a lengthy read. Intermittent fasting has become a big trend in recent years and while anecdotally I think it has helped me control my weight better, it'd be interesting to see how effective it actually is.
I don't really like the writing style but get he's going for the shock factor. All this obsession about diet is frustrating because worrying about "calories" will never be an issue if you do the...
I don't really like the writing style but get he's going for the shock factor. All this obsession about diet is frustrating because worrying about "calories" will never be an issue if you do the following:
Drink mostly water (coffee + tea + occasional splurges okay)
Eat mostly whole foods, and mostly vegetables and fruits. Said simply: "Eat the rainbow"
Do some active exercise regularly.
Find me one person who does all that and is overweight.
I recommend downloading an app and begin by tracking what you eat on a weekly basis. Then look at some rudimentary BMI calculators (they aren't accurate because they don't account for A LOT, but...
I recommend downloading an app and begin by tracking what you eat on a weekly basis. Then look at some rudimentary BMI calculators (they aren't accurate because they don't account for A LOT, but they can give you a good ballpark). Use your weekly caloric intake and match that up against what the calculator says.
That'll give you the foundation. Then you have to look at macros--how much of each nutrient do you need and how much are you getting? This varies from person to person and depends on what the overall goal is. Again, start by looking at what you're already consuming. Then, depending on what your goals are, hit up google to see what recommendations there are.
It takes months and years for results to really show. As for your sugar addiction... slowly wean yourself off. If you like soda, try drinking coke zero or something. Or chew some xylitol gum. Or use sweet n low
Obviously, if you have any specific concerns, symptoms, etc - see a doctor (and possibly referral to a registered dietitian). For tracking purposes, I highly recommend Cronometer. It is far better...
Obviously, if you have any specific concerns, symptoms, etc - see a doctor (and possibly referral to a registered dietitian).
For tracking purposes, I highly recommend Cronometer. It is far better than MyFitnessPal both in terms of breadth of nutrients tracked and in data accuracy & completeness (if you stick to NCCDB and USDA sources). The free version is feature rich enough for most casual users. You can set targets for both macros and micros, integrate activity monitors for expended calories (or use their general “activity level” estimates), add your own foods and recipes, scan food barcodes, see trends, etc. The free version lets you set 10 “favorite” micronutrient targets for easier viewing (you can still see them all in the deeper report), so you can add some big ones like fiber, B12, etc.
I haven’t used the paid version, but there’s supposedly the “Oracle” that can look at your what you’ve eaten so far to suggest foods that can best help reach the remainder your targets.
Start out by simply tracking everything to the gram for two weeks without changing anything else. Use a kitchen scale, don’t estimate (we’re awful at that). Include any and all oils, sauces, etc. Don’t worry about your targets; this is just to get a baseline average for your diet. It also helps develop a clear picture of what each of your normal foods are actually contributing to your nutrition instead of vague notions.
From there, see what’s high cal low nutrition that can be easily swapped. Do a little at a time so it’s not overwhelming. Between that and reasonable portions, you should have some freed up calories to play with for adding new foods to your daily diet towards your targets. Don’t forget to budget for small pleasures, and don’t worry if you have a crappy nutritional day because you enjoyed a family potluck; it’s the only way you’re going to stick with it and be happy.
Once you’ve settled into a long term diet, internalized the portion sizes, and developed better intuition about food, you can be less and less anal about tracking. For example, I track my weekdays since I’m fully in control, but I don’t on weekends since there’s extended family gatherings, meals out, etc; the latter is too difficult to track accurately, so I just stay mindful and try not to overdo anything.
Honestly you probably should take a class. There is so much information out there that is not wrong but in a vacuum is very misleading and counterproductive. You’re much better off getting the...
Honestly you probably should take a class. There is so much information out there that is not wrong but in a vacuum is very misleading and counterproductive. You’re much better off getting the whole picture from an actual expert who can put things into easy to understand terms.
The powers that he know that preventative measures are far cheaper than the healthcare they would have to provide you without them so just about every insurance company or major hospital has some sort of nutrition education program. I would suggest you look through them. They’re usually offered free of additional charge.
I recommend Noom. It’s expensive but it works. It teaches nutrition and good habits in a few minutes a day so you don’t get burnt out. Once you do it for a few months you really can do everything...
I recommend Noom. It’s expensive but it works. It teaches nutrition and good habits in a few minutes a day so you don’t get burnt out. Once you do it for a few months you really can do everything on your own for free, but their system is great to start.
Two books that changed my thinking on weight were The Hungry Brain by Stephan J. Guyenet and Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss. They both touch on what this article calls the obesogenic environment....
Two books that changed my thinking on weight were The Hungry Brain by Stephan J. Guyenet and Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss. They both touch on what this article calls the obesogenic environment. The hardest thing about losing weight is how much our psychology is unprepared for our current environment.
We gain weight because we eat too much. We eat too much because food is so damned tasty.
I mean yes, but look how many people fail to do so by looking for “loopholes”. For all those afflicted with “magical thinking” perhaps this will cover the particular way that person is currently...
I mean yes, but look how many people fail to do so by looking for “loopholes”. For all those afflicted with “magical thinking” perhaps this will cover the particular way that person is currently choosing to fool themself into thinking their obesity is somehow not actually treatable through common sense measures.
You wrote a lot here, but I just wanted to link to this prior discussion on Tildes on this topic for people who might be curious
I don’t know, anecdotally CICO has been the only thing that ever made sense in my weight loss journey. I eat less, I lose weight. I eat more, I get fat.
What I eat never seemed to matter, just pure CICO whether that was fast food or health food.
I've read the study they mentioned and it was also linked to in this other commend. The thing is, there was indeed a difference in calories "lost" depending on the food eaten, but the difference was between 5% for the worst diet and 10% with the best.
All in all it is true that there are other factors than just CICO at play (for another example I know someone with an thyroid condition that causes their body to periodically deposit too much water, thus causing weight gain), but for most people focusing on CICO is the easiest way to influence their weight. Obviously it works best if combined with other strategies.
Pro-tip with Cronometer: if you can, stick to the NCCDB and USDA results where possible. That’ll get you the best, most thorough info. The custom (user) database CRDB is all over the place in terms of accuracy and completeness, same as MyFitnessPal’s mountain of garbage entries.
If MyFitnessPal’s online searchable food database is showing all of the data they track, it’s got a few micronutrients, but is far less comprehensive than Cronometer
Gastroparesis?
flintstone chewables
I absolutely understand what you are talking about regarding hunger being ever-present with sugar in your diet.
I started intentionally losing weight about 2 1/2 months ago and one of the main things (other than logging calories) was to remove practically all added sugar from my intake.
Holy shit, I never experienced this difference before. Hunger is now this mild thing that I can shrug at. It used to be insistent, I used to need to eat right then when I was hungry. Now? Now it's more along the lines of just being information - 'your body requests food in the next few hours, please add food when convenient, thank you'.
I LOVE that change. I'm also no longer an unintentional asshole when hungry.
I never thought of it as a bad thing - because I never thought of it at all since I'd never felt differently as far as I could remember. It was just normal. It also led to me having difficulty understanding how people did diets: 'do they feel hungry like this all the time? I definitely couldn't do that!'.
Having felt this difference, I would not wish to go back.
Eating sugar now is kind of a hilarious experience of doing crack and suffering for it. I had cake on my birthday and was sent home with more - it was disturbing how much of a I-WANT-IT reaction I had when I smelled that sugar, and how shitty I felt an hour afterwards. By that point I had gone a month and a half without added sugar and my body had acclimated - eating a couple slices of cake (which would previously not have been a problem) showed me what sugar was doing to me since I finally had a non-sugar chunk of time to compare to.
Bloody hell, I just learnt a whole lot in a short period of time. Thank you for sharing that, I'm going to integrate that into my daily diet regime
sends an Internet hug
I find that you'll get a lot of leeway on Tildes when it comes to comments that have a lot of thought put into them? People on here really recognize when a comment is written with care and kindness, especially when it comes from a personal, experiential sort of place. With comments like yours, I find that the responses from other Tildes folk become less about A Debate To Win and more about connecting with each other over varied perspectives. So, you're generally not going to get heated replies looking to jump down your throat. :>
Yea the back and forth doesn't get my cortisol up like on reddit. It's not reactionary. People comment because they want to connect with others and share something in good faith, not because they're trying to get one over on somebody. I've had to re-program myself over the years here.
This is really crazy now that I think about it, but I turned off comment replies in my reddit inbox a few years ago when I noticed how much anxiety I got from receiving rude comments on reddit (or, I admit that sometimes I was guilty of picking a fight here and there, because reddit tends to be irritating.) I really dislike arguing with anyone, I just want to have civil discussions.
So, for a few years I've been essentially rambling into the void making comments on reddit, only reading the replies every couple of months or so. I had completely removed the actual discussion aspect... After a while I wonder why I'm even making comments anymore.
Seriously, that Harvard article that was bought and paid for by the sugar industry touting "fat is bad" and recommending fat free diets contributed significantly to the obesity problem of America. It's been disproven so many times, and I think it was bought for ~$50k only, but still we see "fat free" and "low-fat" being pushed.
It's disgusting.
I would love it if we could get a better model of metabolism. For me the standard stuff you get from the MyFitnessPal app works pretty well. But I trust people when they say it doesn’t work for them. Some might be tracking wrong but really it can’t be as simple as a handful of parameters.
Everywhere I look puts tamales at between 150-300 calories each, depending on which protein is used. So if you had 12, that would be waaaaay more than 1300 calories.
That's really low. I'd be very hesitant to trust that. Especially for pork.
Are the Calorie Counts on Food Labels Accurate? [Discover 2019]
Just something to keep in mind
The study you mention in your second point can be read about here.
Thank you so much for sharing!
Overeating tamales is totally understandable, i do it too. I check myself on that now by making at home, my steamer can only fit 4 at a time.
I saw a you tube video once where scientists and some obese people were talking
One person said that it is hard dieting and the scientists agreed dieting is hard, but you have to look at it scientifically. If calories out isn't greater than calories in you will gain weight. Thats the calculation.
If you aren't going to diet then exercise. If you aren't going to exercise, diet. Ideally do both.
I was obese, morbidly. But that calculation spoke to me. It was easy to understand. In two years I lost 7 stone (roughly 100 pounds). It wasn't easy but saying no rather than yes was.
I think people just underestimate how incredibly hard it is to change human habits — that’s why sticking to a diet is insanely hard and requires huge will power. It’s especially hard when your body tells you to eat more, so you not only have to fight your mind, but often your body as well.
It also doesn’t help that there are countless pseudoscientific bullshit articles circling around the internet and it is very hard to navigate to trustful information.
Nonetheless, congrats on your weight loss!
Whenever people talk about this topic and CICO in general, it usually rubs me the wrong way. CICO is the be all and end all of losing weight. Nutrition, vitamin, a balanced diet etc don't mean anything in that context, and people use that to complicate the matter more and find excuses as to why they're not losing weight and why they're overeating.
If your energy intake is consistently less than what you use up, you will lose weight. There's a reason why everybody was abnormally skinny in labour camps. There is no way around basic thermodynamics. Energy in < energy out -> weight loss. Whether that's healthy or sustainable is a completely different question.
You make a very good point. Losing weight isn't the hard part, it's keeping that weight off. Everybody can eat 500-1000 calories less than they burn for a few weeks and lose those 5 kilos (10 lbs), but it's not sustainable. They aren't feeling well, and it's not their lifestyle, so eventually they gain that weight back.
While this generally might be true, the reality is that the vast majority of obese people, who should lose weight because it's a health risk, don't have to worry about any of this at all. All they need to do is eat food that's large in volume and filling, which makes consuming less calories than what they're burning much much easier. The sad truth is, most people have very little knowledge about food, and there are countless old wives' tales out there spreading misinformation.
What nearly killed it for me was when my body just got into a kind of balance where no more weight loss was happening, despite a calorie deficit and keeping the level of activity that worked for the previous 10 Kg... Over 3 months now of basically just going +1 Kg. Finally seeing some movement in the past few days, thankfully
I am happy for you! Good luck with sticking to it, you can do it!
I'm ambivalent towards this article. I appreciate the adamant defense against misleading/predatory health claims and trends. Calling out "high protein" being misinterpreted as healthy, demystifying halo foods... I completely understand the value of teaching people to see through marketing and myths and stuff. I just don't agree with how the author presented this information.
In my opinion, many modern writers and creators in health and fitness miss the mark in how they present this, mostly correct, information. They "fight fire with fire":
Many persistent food myths are expressed in a way that's intended to scare or discourage the listener: "If you eat too much bread, you will get fat". In a similar direction, health food marketing is often misleading: "High protein to keep you full longer (but the 250 calorie granola bar has 10g of protein; this is a literal example from the linked article)". But the typical response to these claims is to rebuff them in a tone that is also intended to scare or discourage: "Actually, CICO is the way, and if you don't track your calories, you're just eating too much". "Don't eat the 250kcal/10P granola bar, eat the 180kcal/20P protein bar".
Posts like these tend to spit information at the reader, who, on the one hand, now knows how to track calories and what kinds of foods to avoid, but on the other hand, may become deathly terrified of eating foods they now know to be "bad". My belief is that by issuing information in the form of counter-propaganda, you encourage a lot of people to replace an ignorant, unhealthy relationship-with-food with a scientifically informed but still unhealthy relationship-with-food.
Much of my commentary comes from personal experience. I've battled a strange relationship with food for, I dunno, 20 years? And of course, considering hard facts "or else" becomes way more important when there's any form of medical risk involved.
But I digress: I think a more effective way to educate people about health, fitness, and food choices is to start with behavior change, not information overload. If the goal is to lose weight, then don't scare the person into doing it. Help them understand the behaviors that prevent them from doing it, and introduce patterns and information that help change those behaviors.
There's a whole other mental and non-thermodynamics component to weight loss that people who aren't me are more qualified to speak about. But my point: This information can be helpful, but presentation is important. Scaring and shaming people into losing weight can work. But is it sustainable, or mentally beneficial? There's a lot more to consider than just owning the folk myths and talking about science.
I’m honestly disgusted by some of these comments.
Some of you know what’s up. The exemplary post at the top is full of good information, for instance. But a lot of these comments seem to be written in a very judgemental position about people you have met, and the advice you espouse is very unhelpful.
I know for the most part that you’re not trying to hurt anyone, and your advice is well meaning, but I also think that some of these are not coming from a place of compassion.
So as someone who has tried just about every diet out there before getting into something that works, let me give you some very personal reasons why this advice is not helpful.
For the many people spouting CICO I recommend reading the top reply once again since they did a great job explaining the scientific reasons why it’s an incomplete model. But from a real world implementation I can tell you that calorie-counting without serious education about the stuff that makes you satisfied is like going through life at the “hell” difficulty. It can easily mean hunger at all times. The entire point of the article is that people are terrible at estimating calories. Nobody is walking around carrying scales and measuring spoons.
There seems to be a common thought - written or not - that if you are dieting, that you should be hungry. This is what sets most dieters to failure. It’s true that we can resist urges, but when they are bodily functions there will always be limits to your ability to resist. Imagine you put your hand on a hot stove range; how long do you think you could resist moving your hand? Hunger is not as urgent as pain, but it still must be obeyed eventually. Completely ignoring the compulsion aspect, people who wait to eat until they are extremely hungry are far more likely to overeat.
The other common misconception is that exercise is the CICO key to losing weight. While exercise is important for countless reasons, it is far from being a solution to weight problems. Did you not read in the article how much those starvation experiment people had to run to get their total calories down? The calories you lose from exercise are paltry, and often intense exercise can make you more hungry. And of course there are some people who are severely limited in their ability to do such extreme exercises in the first place.
This gets said quite a lot but it seems that people still don’t get it: there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all diet. Different bodies need different nutrition. If you are a healthy weight by eating intuitively, don’t just assume that “common sense eating” is something that works for everyone - if it did nobody would be fat. And frankly none of us here who are not currently licensed and practicing dietitians are qualified to dictate dietary advice to anyone. Frankly, in my experience dietitians generally don’t dictate things as much as they say “give this a chance and see if it works for you.”
Somewhat related - I have been on a GLP-1 agonist (tirzepatide / Mounjaro) since January, which has been eye-opening. I am just genuinely not as hungry as I used to be. I thought people were exaggerating, but it was almost like a light switch turned off my "food noise." It's glorious, and I've finally lost weight (60 pounds and counting).
Christ. There is good info here but between this and the automatic insult to the reader I almost gave up because of how insufferable this voice is.
Been reading through the comments waiting sometime to mention this. I was also quite turned off by the reference to “testicular fortitude.” I understand the frustration that can come out in trying to cut through all the BS that exists in this space but being rude and misogynist aren’t necessary.
Men and females, the whole thing reeks of bro science.
It's not incorrect though, is it? A 200lb guy can eat more than a 120lb guy. The math checks out
If you try to log less than 1400 calories a day in my fitness pal it will refuse to chart it. 1100 calories a day for an adult (assuming we're talking about a human female) is less a diet, and more anorexia. 2' tall toddlers require 1300 calories per day. The starvation experiment he mentioned earlier was 1560 calories per day.
Yes, the math checks out. Starve yourself to lose weight, one weird trick and all that.
My issue was primarily the 'men and females' phrasing tho, not the math.
Really? I use loseit and it warns you if you try putting in less than 1200, but it does so anyway.
I usually eat less than 1000 a day and I'm not on any special diet
If that's an accurate calorie count, you really should be under a doctor's supervision.
I'm always frustrated by people who bring up "the laws of thermodynamics" when they talk about caloric needs and fat creation. Our bodies are built to maintain homeostasis. They have numerous tools to do this, including increasing or decreasing body temperature, dedicating more or less calories to brain function, up-regulating and down-regulating the immune system, stopping the menstrual cycle or sperm production... There are reasons that if you don't eat, you feel unwell. Even on a day-to-day basis, our bodies do not use the same amount of calories.
The extent that any of that happens also varies from person to person. You could put two women of the same height and weight on the same scientifically measured diet, and it's possible one of their bodies would stop their menstrual cycle and the other wouldn't.
Here is a meta-analysis of people's resting metabolic rate varying as much as 15-20%
Another thing that significantly varies from person to person is how much of various hormones they produce. One of those hormones is ghrelin, which causes the feeling we associate with hunger. If your body secretes more gherlin, you will almost certainly weigh more (src).
To some extent, but the inter-day variability will average on. In the end, restricting what you eat is the only lever you have. Variability in metabolic rate can make the estimates on what range of calories you should be eating, but in the end, that doesn't really matter. Count the amount of calories you're eating, start with one of the estimates, and see if you're losing weight. No? Then decrease the amount of calories until you do. There must be some point between 2k calories and 0 calories where your weight starts to decrease, or else you really are violating the laws of thermodynamics.
I would go further and say that counting calories is unnecessary if you stick to a routine diet most days. Track your weight and try things to see what happens.
It also puts "cheating" into perspective. If you "cheat" one day, your weight goes up, but then it goes down and you end up at the same weight, you got away with it. The only thing it did is put you behind schedule for losing weight. Do you have a deadline?
I think one big problem with counting calories is comparing with other people. It's true that you can't directly compare calories between people and that metabolic rates vary between people even within the same person at different times. However, people hear this and interpret it as meaning that it's useless to count calories.
If one counts calories somewhat accurately and weighs themselves regularly, they should be able to affect the weight on the scale by changing the amount of calories consumed. This is always true regardless of any health condition. It may be true that one has to consume fewer or more calories to end up at the same weight as someone else, so this calorie count is only applicable to the individual.
Sure. I just think it's important to remember that maintaining a percentage deficit will be more difficult for some people then others. If your body is producing more ghrelin, you are going to be hungrier, with all the associated psychological side effects of that. I can understand why someone might not want to be miserable all the time to lose weight that statistically is almost guaranteed to return within a few years.
For those people probably more exercise might be the way to go (as it can affect their feeling of hunger and their whole metabolism). Also, if someone is eating some insane amounts of calories, changing it overnight by a huge amount is not going to work out well - it’s much easier to do so gradually, similarly to how people leave behind drugs (medical, but also addictive ones).
While these are good points, it is often the overweight people saying them.
Perhaps it is better to seek weightloss advice from people who have lost weight.
I think this is an unnecessarily inflammatory response and violates the golden rule.
Really?
I'm not being rude at all. I've even agreed that good points were made. I'm also not being judgemental about anyone's weight.
It is true that I have found that people who have lost weight often have different advice about losing weight compared to people who are fat.
Who would you trust to teach you how to fish? A person who has caught heaps of fish or a person who has caught no fish and is full of excuses as to why fishing does not work?
Your comment may not have been intended to be rude, but it is certainly biased. There are plenty of people out there who have lost weight and are still overweight. It's also not a particularly valuable insight, because people's nutritional needs vary; what worked for one person might not be what another needs.
I really appreciate what this writer is doing, and I think a lot of people need a source like this introduced to them in a way they'll be receptive to it. This fella is basically saying what I've been telling numerous friends and loved ones for years and years. Sure there are subtleties to diet and how your body works, but if you ignore the obvious primary reality of CI-CO and put all your time into making excuses and money into fancy foods that you think you can eat consequence-free, then you'll make no progress and go broke quickly.
You should feel hungry if your goal is to lose weight. Yep, it sucks. If you wanna pile steamed kale on top to try and feel full, go for it. I'd much rather eat a smaller portion of something I enjoy and accept that my tummy will feel hungry at bedtime.
My family did me no favors as a youngster and it took about a decade of active reprogramming to get to a place where I enjoy my relationship with food. Folks who operate with cognitive dissonance about eating, bribe their children with junk food, et cetera are doing long term harm
Fair enough. I agree that it's possible to not feel hungry constantly while eating a calorie deficit. I guess my point is more that if you've clocked your allotted calories for the day and still feel unsatiated, that's not a green flag to continue eating (if your goal is to lose weight).
For a lot of folks, I think that's where they fall off the wagon. And my point might be better stated as "it's okay to feel hungry". In fact I think it's really good to spend a significant chunk of time feeling hungry, and not get into the mindset of "I should always feel full".
Having lost a lot of weight at one point - I viewed hunger as the feeling of progress. It's like you're draining a pond and you've got a tiny diesel pump to do it. Hunger is the sound of the pump sloooooooooowly extracting the water. You can't see the water level going down, so the drone of the pump is the only indication you have that progress is being made.
Fun fact: you lose weight by breathing it out. That's the main point of exit for fat. It's funny (from our modern perspective) how our bodies give us such an intense signal for such a ludicrously slow process of energy loss.
Exactly what my thinking on the experience of hunger. It's a sign of progress, and an indicator that you've been doing a good job controlling impulses, so far that day at least.
The thing is, to lose weight you have to firstly stop doing the things that made you fat. And then you have to take actions to reverse the things that made you fat. Prior isiah get fat from overeating, which means they have to under-eat to lose weight. This tends to make people hungry.
There's nothing wrong with being a bit hungry.
Wouldn't they simply have to stop over eating? Under eating may be faster, but probably more stressful on the body and mind. It's also creating new bad habits as opposed to just eating a healthy amount.
No, because if they are eating at maintenance they will stay the same weight, not lose weight.
You have to eat less than what it takes to maintain your current weight. You have to trigger your body into using fat reserves for fuel, which means you literally have to eat less energy than you use, ie, under-eat.
I guess when I think under eat it implies to me under the recommended (e.g., 2000cal). If you just mean under that persons daily then sure.
For me to lose weight I have to eat significantly under 2000 calories.
This is a it misleading, I think. Eating a maintainance amount at an unhealthy weight is overeating, and it is accurate to say that if an overweight person switched to eating a diet that would maintain them at a healthy weight, then their weight will asymptotically approach that healthy weight, which is what I think the poster above is suggesting and is a fine way to approach a healthy weight.
Also, exercise and other lifestyle choices do affect the feeling of hunger, so it’s not a “single front war”:
I think the feeling of hunger is perhaps under-acknowledged in the discourse about weight management. I agree with you that, to a degree, a person should feel hungry when losing weight. The idea that being hungry is torture or a catastrophe is, if you think about it, kind of unnatural. The human body is built to withstand fasting. Pre-agricultural humans had to deal with unreliable food sources, and I've read that their pattern of eating was probably most similar to the 'intermittent fasting' technique that many people have success with in terms of weight loss.
Personally, if I ate every time I was hungry, I would be obese right now. Due to chronic illness I get basically zero exercise, and due to manifold dietary intolerances and other GI issues, I eat almost entirely starches and meat. But my weight hasn't changed from pretty much the exact middle of the healthy range in over a year. I do intermittent fasting and also sometimes fast for a whole day.
I think that eating whenever you are hungry is like filling your car with gasoline whenever the fuel gauge is only one notch below full. Hunger is a gauge of your nutritional status, and like the fuel status of your car, it can get pretty low before you start incurring risks of various kinds. Obviously this is not a perfect analogy, but the hunger that people often experience between meals is not the kind that indicates a dire physiological need to eat, in most cases. The sticking point is figuring out how to get people to experience this mild hunger as such.
A lot of it comes down to habits, how a person has habitually reacted to hunger throughout their life, but there are other factors. It is easier to disregard mild hunger if you are engaged with something interesting, and for many people, chronic boredom or depression deprives them of activities that can distract them from hunger. For other people who have experienced food insecurity in their childhood, the feeling of hunger is not just annoying but terrifying, and as such can be difficult to tolerate even in its milder forms. And of course all kinds of health issues can modulate the feeling of hunger in one way or another. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions to this issue, but nonetheless I feel like the concept of hunger and how a person experiences it is critical to the management of their weight.
I agree with your observation about boredom and depression. Most of my own unhealthy eating habits earlier in life revolved around those emotions. These days I call it "recreational eating", and I see people do it allllllll the time. Eating to dispel boredom or to change their mood.
The car/gas analogy holds up, except overfilling your car with fuel isn't generally possible. It's as though people pump a full tank when their gague reads half empty, regularly. And that's the source of weight gain.
Definitely no one technique or idea will work for everyone. In my experience it's usually about winning the psychological game, and that part is different for everyone. Good therapy is more important than someone telling you precisely what to eat.
I (and one of my siblings) have always been lanky and could never put on weight no matter how much I was eating - probably because of hormonal issues - but my Father was obese when we were born and is now almost at a healthy BMI after surgery, intensive dieting, and every day exercise. He managed to lose a lot of weight, but it's an uphill battle he always had to fight, even when he was eating correctly.
All of this to say, weight management is such a varied part of the human experience that articles like this and in general the surrounding discourse never really managed to convince me towards any one technique or buzzword. After twenty years of intensive routines my Father did something that, for others, could be done in a tenth of the time with the exact same amount of discipline, as I used to see online in the IF subreddit and the like. I think we need to be more accepting of the fact that some people gain and keep weight easier than others, and their weight loss journey will be substantially harder, and at the end of the day they need to find what works for them and keep at it, not what some article says.
While every journey is different, losing weight is still always possible (even if incredibly hard, and in many cases very slow). Putting on weight is not, though.
From my experience people who say that they have lesser calorie intake than they need and they are still gaining weight are eithier just not measuring their calorie intake right or are outright liars. I lost 25kg eating what I ate before trying to lose weight including my fav coconut chocolate bars but I genuinely weighed and added EVERYTHING I ate or drank to my app (Fitatu) and stopped when I reached the 1700kcal limit I set for myself even though I was hungry later. I set 1700 because app calculated that I would lose 1kg a week at that rate and that was actually on point. Now I am back to my previous weight because I just stopped counting calories and was eating like before. It really is simple as that. Even if you have underlying health conditions then remember that your body fat doesn't spawn from thin air - you gain because you eat too much not because you have issues. Surely hormonal issues can make you feel hungry more often but won't make you fat without you actually eating.
I actually resonated with the tone of the article. People in this thread make some very good points about how this could be presented better and more educationally valuable, however I think the article is very easy to read and the illustrations are also a nice way to break it up.
It probably depends in what kind of mood you're in, how much of the information you already knew beforehand and of course, your relationship to food.
Also, pepperoni pizza does have a lot of calories, my god
The writing style amused me enough to get me to actually read the article. I was hoping it would also touch on fasting cycles and their effects rather than just literal starvation, but it was already a lengthy read. Intermittent fasting has become a big trend in recent years and while anecdotally I think it has helped me control my weight better, it'd be interesting to see how effective it actually is.
I don't really like the writing style but get he's going for the shock factor. All this obsession about diet is frustrating because worrying about "calories" will never be an issue if you do the following:
Find me one person who does all that and is overweight.
I recommend downloading an app and begin by tracking what you eat on a weekly basis. Then look at some rudimentary BMI calculators (they aren't accurate because they don't account for A LOT, but they can give you a good ballpark). Use your weekly caloric intake and match that up against what the calculator says.
That'll give you the foundation. Then you have to look at macros--how much of each nutrient do you need and how much are you getting? This varies from person to person and depends on what the overall goal is. Again, start by looking at what you're already consuming. Then, depending on what your goals are, hit up google to see what recommendations there are.
It takes months and years for results to really show. As for your sugar addiction... slowly wean yourself off. If you like soda, try drinking coke zero or something. Or chew some xylitol gum. Or use sweet n low
Obviously, if you have any specific concerns, symptoms, etc - see a doctor (and possibly referral to a registered dietitian).
For tracking purposes, I highly recommend Cronometer. It is far better than MyFitnessPal both in terms of breadth of nutrients tracked and in data accuracy & completeness (if you stick to NCCDB and USDA sources). The free version is feature rich enough for most casual users. You can set targets for both macros and micros, integrate activity monitors for expended calories (or use their general “activity level” estimates), add your own foods and recipes, scan food barcodes, see trends, etc. The free version lets you set 10 “favorite” micronutrient targets for easier viewing (you can still see them all in the deeper report), so you can add some big ones like fiber, B12, etc.
I haven’t used the paid version, but there’s supposedly the “Oracle” that can look at your what you’ve eaten so far to suggest foods that can best help reach the remainder your targets.
Start out by simply tracking everything to the gram for two weeks without changing anything else. Use a kitchen scale, don’t estimate (we’re awful at that). Include any and all oils, sauces, etc. Don’t worry about your targets; this is just to get a baseline average for your diet. It also helps develop a clear picture of what each of your normal foods are actually contributing to your nutrition instead of vague notions.
From there, see what’s high cal low nutrition that can be easily swapped. Do a little at a time so it’s not overwhelming. Between that and reasonable portions, you should have some freed up calories to play with for adding new foods to your daily diet towards your targets. Don’t forget to budget for small pleasures, and don’t worry if you have a crappy nutritional day because you enjoyed a family potluck; it’s the only way you’re going to stick with it and be happy.
Once you’ve settled into a long term diet, internalized the portion sizes, and developed better intuition about food, you can be less and less anal about tracking. For example, I track my weekdays since I’m fully in control, but I don’t on weekends since there’s extended family gatherings, meals out, etc; the latter is too difficult to track accurately, so I just stay mindful and try not to overdo anything.
Honestly you probably should take a class. There is so much information out there that is not wrong but in a vacuum is very misleading and counterproductive. You’re much better off getting the whole picture from an actual expert who can put things into easy to understand terms.
The powers that he know that preventative measures are far cheaper than the healthcare they would have to provide you without them so just about every insurance company or major hospital has some sort of nutrition education program. I would suggest you look through them. They’re usually offered free of additional charge.
I recommend Noom. It’s expensive but it works. It teaches nutrition and good habits in a few minutes a day so you don’t get burnt out. Once you do it for a few months you really can do everything on your own for free, but their system is great to start.
Two books that changed my thinking on weight were The Hungry Brain by Stephan J. Guyenet and Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss. They both touch on what this article calls the obesogenic environment. The hardest thing about losing weight is how much our psychology is unprepared for our current environment.
We gain weight because we eat too much. We eat too much because food is so damned tasty.
that's a lot of words to say "measure your calories more precisely".
I mean yes, but look how many people fail to do so by looking for “loopholes”. For all those afflicted with “magical thinking” perhaps this will cover the particular way that person is currently choosing to fool themself into thinking their obesity is somehow not actually treatable through common sense measures.
this is all fine and informative but the man eats CRUNCHY PB.
i mean like people actually buy those?
I like crunchy PB better from a texture perspective, but buy creamy because it’s less of a pain-in-the-ass to stir and spread.
i know what you mean,i have tried crunchy before but why put myself through that when creamy exists