This title is really misleading. It makes it sound like you can just cut out fructose and obesity will fade away. That's not really what the paper is stating; it's stating that a number of other...
This title is really misleading. It makes it sound like you can just cut out fructose and obesity will fade away. That's not really what the paper is stating; it's stating that a number of other hypotheses about the causes of obesity are likely correct and provides the idea that the way our bodies process fructose is the link between them.
Science article titles are frequently oversimplified, but it gets people’s attention and starts the discussion. Lots of questions remain, but If someone cuts down on HFCS or added sugars found in...
Science article titles are frequently oversimplified, but it gets people’s attention and starts the discussion.
Lots of questions remain, but If someone cuts down on HFCS or added sugars found in processed foods, it would almost certainly be helpful to their health.
Here's an oversimplification: "New study claims to identify chemical central to obesity". "root cause" is straight-up misinformation, if fructose isn't the root cause. And the article does not...
Here's an oversimplification: "New study claims to identify chemical central to obesity". "root cause" is straight-up misinformation, if fructose isn't the root cause. And the article does not assert that it is.
Science journalism is atrocious. A admittedly speculative paper by our research group got some buzz in the press this week. These popular science writers then amped things up to 11 making our...
Science journalism is atrocious. A admittedly speculative paper by our research group got some buzz in the press this week. These popular science writers then amped things up to 11 making our group sound like arrogant crazy people promising the moon. There was a USA today article that was especially egregious claiming we had made a "major discovery." Ughh.
This group argues that Fructose intake alters ATP metabolism and induces a starvation state, which in turn leads to decreased energy usage, decreased satiety and over eating of high calorie foods....
This group argues that Fructose intake alters ATP metabolism and induces a starvation state, which in turn leads to decreased energy usage, decreased satiety and over eating of high calorie foods. Seems to add a plausible piece to the puzzle.
There’s a link to the study published in the Journal Obesity for those who want a deeper dive.
Just anecdotally this seems to track with America vs countries that have a ban on [high] fructose corn syrup. While yes Mexico, Canada, and most of the EU have the same "goodies" as the US,...
Just anecdotally this seems to track with America vs countries that have a ban on [high] fructose corn syrup.
While yes Mexico, Canada, and most of the EU have the same "goodies" as the US, instead of fructose syrup they have to use real sugar. If what is proposed is true, it basically means your body would stop naturally from sugar intake, and as a result you consume fewer empty calories.
Except Mexico and Canada have major obesity issues as well. The US is worse than either, but they're not in a different category than us. You'd need to look at the differences in lifestyle between...
Except Mexico and Canada have major obesity issues as well. The US is worse than either, but they're not in a different category than us. You'd need to look at the differences in lifestyle between North America and Asia.
@shinigami HFCS is not banned in Canada, and many of our groceries come from the USA. You will see it on tons of our foods in the ingredients as "glucose-fructose" Now it is recognized as a...
@shinigami HFCS is not banned in Canada, and many of our groceries come from the USA.
You will see it on tons of our foods in the ingredients as "glucose-fructose" Now it is recognized as a problem ingredient and is regulated so there are limits on how much can be used in any given drink or food but it's still there.
I have to say, I'm not sure Mexico is a good example here Not to mention that obesity is rising in Europe at an exponential rate. It's certainly much better in most of Europe (outside of the UK),...
I have to say, I'm not sure Mexico is a good example here
Mexico passed the United States as the most obese country in the world. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is 16.7% in preschool children, 26.2% in school children, and 30.9% in adolescents. For adults, the prevalence of overweight and obesity is 39.7 and 29.9%, respectively.
Not to mention that obesity is rising in Europe at an exponential rate. It's certainly much better in most of Europe (outside of the UK), but that's now - at current rates, Europe will catch up to the US's current state in no time.
The root cause of obesity is calorie-dense foods. It's all just CICO. Sure, fructose may play a big role in making people eat more. But any sugar does that - your organism goes into "energy debt"...
The root cause of obesity is calorie-dense foods. It's all just CICO. Sure, fructose may play a big role in making people eat more. But any sugar does that - your organism goes into "energy debt" while breaking sugar down, so you feel more hungry and can eat more. It does matter, but calling it "THE root cause" is really weird.
Edit: many people misunderstood my point, please read this comment where I explain what I meant more clearly
CICO and even calorie density are still oversimplifying things, though. There are foods in nature that are calorie-dense that our bodies are better at telling us when to stop eating. The...
CICO and even calorie density are still oversimplifying things, though. There are foods in nature that are calorie-dense that our bodies are better at telling us when to stop eating. The hypothesis the paper posits that there are multiple mechanisms causing obesity and their conclusions suggest using that knowledge to personalize treatment plans.
Yeah, definitely, that's why I mentioned that glucose and other stuff plays an important role, but it's not the root cause. Of course, there are foods that make you want to eat more and lead to...
Yeah, definitely, that's why I mentioned that glucose and other stuff plays an important role, but it's not the root cause. Of course, there are foods that make you want to eat more and lead to higher obesity rates. There are also natural appetite suppressants, like coffee. They all matter, but you shouldn't just blame glucose for obesity - people will lose weight if they are in a caloric deficit, that's still the only way to lose weight, no matter if there is glucose or not
There's a huge tree of responses in this thread where people are repeating the mantra of CICO and others are pushing back against it. This fight plays out every time research is posted having...
Exemplary
There's a huge tree of responses in this thread where people are repeating the mantra of CICO and others are pushing back against it. This fight plays out every time research is posted having anything to do with dietary preferences. I'd like to take a step back, for a second, and attempt to recenter the human before going into the science.
Have you ever considered how someone who has struggled with obesity their entire lives might feel, coming across a thread like this, fettered with people implying that their obesity is simply solved by either 'consuming less' or 'exercising more'? I would imagine that the vast majority of those who believe they are overweight and wish to do something about it have at the very least attempted to either eat less or exercise more. They've likely spoken with doctors, dieticians, family, friends, people on the internet, and other overweight people for advice. There's a good chance that they have tried at least a half dozen diets all to no success. They have likely gone through many bouts of exercise, lost weight and then put it on again. Many are likely exhausted searching for a solution to a problem that they cannot solve.
Do you think that given this context, repeating a mantra which represents advice they have attempted to implement in their lives unsuccessfully multiple times, does much for their self-esteem? Do you think that this might make them feel like they are lacking in willpower? That they might feel helpless? Do you think that this advice gives them anything tangible to do differently or gives them any hope of a solution?
The reason that people are pushing back against what you say is not because they don't believe in the science so much as it is that your science, or rather the way that you are presenting it, is dehumanizing. You're failing to center the human and the struggles that they are dealing with. In some cultures the majority of people are overweight. Systemic problems like this are not failures of willpower or of humans being unwilling to make changes to their lives. Systemic problems like this only happen because of systemic changes, such as those that affect our food supply or our activity. Systemic problems need systemic solutions- we cannot simply ask for individuals to adjust to negative systemic changes.
With that being said, I do think that it is fair to repeat your mantra as a response to snake oil salesmen who attempt to sell a fad diet which does nothing but simply shift the macronutrients that someone is eating, without simultaneously reducing calories in. However, even in this case, one should take caution. As you have already admitted, there are substances out there which affect the CICO formula in ways that are not as simple as food consumed or exercise out. Caffeine is one such example. Caffeine is something that is consumed but does not provide sustenance and rather increases the amount of calories expended. If we are to examine the left side of this equation, calories in, we can imagine substances that we consume as existing on a spectrum. On one side of the spectrum are substances which almost exclusively net calories in and on the other side of the spectrum are substances which exclusively net calories out. Caffeine would be one such substance that provides no calories but increases energy expenditure. Chocolate covered espresso beans, for example, might exist a bit left on the spectrum providing some sustenance but also increasing calories expended through the action of caffeine.
But it is not always so simple since breaking down what is consumed into its individual components. An example of a substance for which there is natural variation in the population with regards to how it is processed, is alcohol. For some individuals, they can process this chemical relatively easily. For other individuals such as those with the RS671 allele on chromosome 12, the acetaldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme is less functional, resulting in higher energy expenditure in order to process alcohol. This means that for these individuals the CICO formula does not have the same values for this particular chemical as it does for individuals with a different genetic profile. This concept holds true, not just for chemicals but also for micronutrients and even at the level of macronutrients.
Similarly true on the other side of the equation, CO, there are individual differences based on genetic makeup. A good example of this is the clearing of lactic acid from muscles after exertion. Some exceptional individuals are actually able to clear lactic acid just as fast as it builds up and unsurprisingly do so with a different energetic profile than the majority of the population which cannot. How many calories one expends when running a mile is both a function of genetic makeup as well as training. What's lost in the CICO formula is the normal variation among humans consuming similar foods and exercising in similar ways having vastly different CI and CO values.
One final issue with the oversimplification of CICO is the loss of factors which affect CI and CO indirectly. One sense of hunger can be shaped by many inputs. Ghrelin is commonly referred to as the hunger hormone. An increase in ghrelin correlates with an increase in perceived hunger. Some individuals are more responsive to ghrelin than others, based on their genetics. Ghrelin is also responsive to levels of hydration as well as macronutrient intake. It can also be suppressed by physical factors such as excessive gas or pressure on the stomach. Foods which are high in protein suppress the release of ghrelin. Being adequately hydrated suppresses the release of ghrelin. Calories in is not specific enough to account for these factors. It is not as simple as the caloric content that is going in because 30 calories of protein will suppress more ghrelin than 30 calories of fat. Another example of a complicated interaction between the content consumed and the CICO formula is postprandial somnolence, colloquently known as a food coma. While we do not fully understand all of the mechanisms of postprandial somnolence, we do know some of the factors. Meals high in fat and carbohydrates with a high glycemic index tend to increase somnolence in individuals. Adenosine, parasympathetic activation, insulin, hypokalemia, and cytokines are all likely contributors and are influenced by the composition and size of the meal consumed. A decrease in energy expenditure affects the CO side of the equation and in this case it is influenced almost entirely by what is consumed and if one were to consume a similar number of calories of a different composition, you would find a different outcome for their CICO equation.
My hope is that this reply has opened your eyes to some of the shortcomings of CICO (it is by no means an exhaustive review of modern dietary science). In my opinion CICO is far too simple to be of much use in dietary science and is often unhelpful and dehumanizing to individuals who wish to lose weight. While there is a time and place for its application and for it to be stated it is not a universal statement and should not be treated as such. When talking about CICO, one must absolutely mention the current state of dietary science and explain in detail how all calories are not made the same. If one does not, one risks alienating the intended audience in the same way that generic statements like 'drugs are bad' alienates the youth and makes them distrustful of the system. While CICO may have been an enlightening experience for you, we need to recognize that not everyone walks the same path or even has the same genetic makeup for a simple statement to have such a strong effect on everyone's life. A longer, more nuanced conversation than simply stating CICO is often warranted for issues which individuals have struggled their entire lives with.
I'd just like to say that I learnt a lot from your post, thank you. As someone who made it up to 17st at my heaviest (12 years ago), lost down to 13st by stress alone (divorce), even while...
I'd just like to say that I learnt a lot from your post, thank you.
As someone who made it up to 17st at my heaviest (12 years ago), lost down to 13st by stress alone (divorce), even while drinking alcohol like coffee (also divorce related), then went back to 15.5st (new partner) and then recently lost 28lbs using CICO (not happy with my size), you have opened my eyes to the human and science side of it.
I'd like to add something which helped me and thank the NHS (not back to Thursday night clapping levels) for providing this: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/
They simplify what to aim for food wise. The basic premise is a good mix of unprocessed foods; try to aim for whole grain, protein, 1/3 of the diet as starch and keep portion control. The idea being that if you're hungry, an apple and a banana with a yoghurt will do way more for you than smashing through a Mars bar and a bag of crisps both in health and fulfillment.
It took me just over two months to lose 2 stone (28lbs) in weight. I'm 6'1", desk job, low activity and CICO works great, with the right foods... For me! It's not suited to everyone, but for the general population of the planet it should work which is all @fxgn was trying to say.
Shout out to Nutracheck app which allowed me to do it, it's way better if you're a UK person than the competition. (I'm not affiliated).
Yes, thank you, that is what I meant! I lost ~10kg (22lbs) with CICO, but I do, of course, understand that it's much easier for me than for a lot of people - I'm 184cm (6'0"), male and adolescent,...
CICO works great, with the right foods... For me! It's not suited to everyone, but for the general population of the planet it should work which is all @fxgn was trying to say.
Yes, thank you, that is what I meant! I lost ~10kg (22lbs) with CICO, but I do, of course, understand that it's much easier for me than for a lot of people - I'm 184cm (6'0"), male and adolescent, and also exercise a few times a week. So I can't fully sympathize and understand the struggles of people for whom it's harder, but I fully understand that they exist and "just eating less" can be a bad strategy for them.
Your reply reminded me of a fantastic talk on dietary sciences that I think may benefit some people. I really like this talk because it threads the needle so well of synthesizing the last few...
Your reply reminded me of a fantastic talk on dietary sciences that I think may benefit some people. I really like this talk because it threads the needle so well of synthesizing the last few decades of dietary science while still providing advice that is very approachable to non-scientific folks. If you are pressed for time or simply are not interested in the science and would rather listen to an expert provide a few easy rules to eat healthily, find the time to listen from 25:35-30:12 where he outlines what he calls a "foundational diet". I promise it's worth just a few minutes of your time.
Thank you for your response. As I stated somewhere else in this thread, I fully agree. I definitely do not claim that people who can't lose weight are just lazy - of course, it can be hard for...
Thank you for your response. As I stated somewhere else in this thread, I fully agree. I definitely do not claim that people who can't lose weight are just lazy - of course, it can be hard for you, especially if you're not very tall or have a low TDEE for some other reason. I am not arguing with that.
And neither am I trying to say that CICO is the perfect way to lose weight. My original comment was in the context of research claiming that glucose is "the root cause" of obesity - which I don't believe it to be. The root cause of obesity is consuming more calories than you burn. Which is not to say that everyone should "just eat less". For some people, avoiding certain foods might be easier, some prefer intermittent fasting, etc. The thing is that they're all still just CICO, just not as explicit. They are all just ways to make the "CI" part lower without struggling as much. That's what I meant by saying that CICO is the root cause.
I still believe that CICO can be a comforting "mantra" to tell to people, even if applying it directly won't help them. It sort of "demystifies" the process. It stops being "you're fat because you got unlucky with your genetics" and becomes "don't worry - there is a known reason for your weight, we just need to figure out which of the strategies will be comfortable for you"
I really do not mean to be mean here, but I kind of feel like you’re missing a lot of what is being said. You have at multiple times written “glucose”, but the article is talking about fructose....
I really do not mean to be mean here, but I kind of feel like you’re missing a lot of what is being said. You have at multiple times written “glucose”, but the article is talking about fructose. It’s also not saying that the root cause of obesity is fructose, it’s saying that fructose intake could be a link between a handful of different theories as to what causes obesity.
I suppose that CICO could be comforting to some people, but the only people I can think of who are just trying to lose a few pounds and haven’t considered dieting before. And even then CICO is part of basic nutrition that people learn while they are in high school or earlier, so it’s not a new concept for them. If you are obese - which is the group of people this topic is concerned with - there is very little chance they have not tried dieting before, and there is little chance that whatever book they read on it will not mention the concept either directly or indirectly.
The truth of the matter is that the scientific understanding of nutrition is extremely complex. CICO is just one single component in it, but there are countless other elements at play. Given how common obesity is at this point, it’s clear that CICO alone doesn’t work for everyone.
Speaking as someone who has been obese for the greater part of their life, if you were to tell me that all I had to do was follow the principle of CICO, it would be insulting to me. It took dramatic lifestyle changes to start losing weight. The good news is that it’s also had some dramatic results. But I only got here after spending more than a decade trying different strategies. Figuring out what works can be extremely difficult, especially if you don’t have professional help and significant resources.
To be fair to them, the title sets up the context for the argument of "root cause". To perhaps help contextualize better for those who see the title and think "CICO is the root cause", I feel this...
It’s also not saying that the root cause of obesity is fructose, it’s saying that fructose intake could be a link between a handful of different theories as to what causes obesity.
To be fair to them, the title sets up the context for the argument of "root cause".
To perhaps help contextualize better for those who see the title and think "CICO is the root cause", I feel this explanation might work.
The way I view the word root cause in this context is not simply the actual mechanism of weight gain, which is more calories in than calories out, but rather the "why" or behavioral factors into what pushes that calories in to go up or the calories out to go down. We're looking for the forces behind the imbalance of the mechanism. What are the principle causes driving the imbalance of CICO? Obesity is going up, yet more people know now about CICO than they did throughout history, so knowing that CICO is the mechanism doesn't seem to help or improve the situation. The root cause of the increase in obesity isn't that people don't know the mechanism, but seemingly something else that has brought an imbalance.
My mistake, sorry. My original comment said "fructose", and then I just forgot and thought it was glucose after time has passed. I don't think this significantly affects my points though. It...
You have at multiple times written “glucose”, but the article is talking about fructose.
My mistake, sorry. My original comment said "fructose", and then I just forgot and thought it was glucose after time has passed. I don't think this significantly affects my points though.
It’s also not saying that the root cause of obesity is fructose
It literally says that in the title
And even then CICO is part of basic nutrition that people learn while they are in high school or earlier, so it’s not a new concept for them. If you are obese - which is the group of people this topic is concerned with - there is very little chance they have not tried dieting before, and there is little chance that whatever book they read on it will not mention the concept either directly or indirectly.
You'd be surprised at the amount of people I know who want to lose weight but have never even considered counting calories. A lot of people just go straight to diets or fasting, because those things are more popular.
Given how common obesity is at this point, it’s clear that CICO alone doesn’t work for everyone.
Sure, that's what the comment you're replying to was all about.
I’m well aware of what the title says. But the title does not reflect the contents of the article, let alone the contents of the hypothesis it is supposed to be about. I wrote a comment saying...
I’m well aware of what the title says. But the title does not reflect the contents of the article, let alone the contents of the hypothesis it is supposed to be about. I wrote a comment saying about it posted a few hours before your first comment on this topic. Did you read either of those three things? I can’t understand why you would still be talking about fructose causing obesity if you had.
You are also conflating the concept of CICO with the practice of calorie counting. They are two different things. Calorie counting is a strategy that is indeed extremely helpful to many people, but telling people “CICO” is basically just telling them to eat less. And that is clearly not a helpful strategy.
I know. I'm arguing with the misleading clickbait title, not the contents of the article. Yes, I saw it, and it was what made my write my original comment. It seems like you have the same opinion...
I’m well aware of what the title says. But the title does not reflect the contents of the article, let alone the contents of the hypothesis it is supposed to be about.
I know. I'm arguing with the misleading clickbait title, not the contents of the article.
I wrote a comment saying about it posted a few hours before your first comment on this topic
Yes, I saw it, and it was what made my write my original comment. It seems like you have the same opinion as I do, you're just misunderstanding me.
telling people “CICO” is basically just telling them to eat less
"CICO" is not even advice, it's just a statement, obviously you wouldn't tell that to people who need to lose weight, I'm not sure why you decided that I'm suggesting that. It is the root cause of obesity in the same way that the root cause of cancer are mutating cells, but you obviously won't say "just get rid of the cells" to someone who has cancer.
You're taking more of a technical approach to the problem rather than a practical one. Identifying what causes certain behaviors that lead to people not being able to meet the technical solution...
They all matter, but you shouldn't just blame glucose for obesity - people will lose weight if they are in a caloric deficit, that's still the only way to lose weight, no matter if there is glucose or not
You're taking more of a technical approach to the problem rather than a practical one. Identifying what causes certain behaviors that lead to people not being able to meet the technical solution to the problem is attempting to find a practical solution. Just constantly parroting CICO at a certain point reaches its limits of helpfulness. So whether it's fructose or anything else, identifying these factors that explain why people have various struggles with food and consuming excess calories goes a lot longer of a way than just saying CICO.
No, it is not all CICO. Metabolism is the other side of the equation. Think about it this way, Calories In ∆= Calories Out The ∆ represents the change. What causes the change? Metabolism. That's...
No, it is not all CICO. Metabolism is the other side of the equation. Think about it this way,
Calories In ∆= Calories Out
The ∆ represents the change. What causes the change? Metabolism. That's why it's very, very hard to lose weight the first time you work out despite using the same workout routine as some extremely fit person. This is why not all obese (or fat or whatever) people are necessarily unhealthy. Some of them are actually well-functioning but just have really crap metabolism despite eating few meals (also why the diet advice doesn't work sometimes). In any case, the first year is the hardest. Then, your body suddenly "snaps" and it just suddenly "wakes up" and your metabolism ramps up.
If you define it as fat/obese = unhealthy, then it's tautological. Granted I didn't define obese or fat, but now I will define obese/fat as having a BMI or weight greater than average but...
All obese (as in fat) people are unhealthy.
If you define it as fat/obese = unhealthy, then it's tautological. Granted I didn't define obese or fat, but now I will define obese/fat as having a BMI or weight greater than average but factoring muscle mass. This means that even if you are categorized as obese or fat, you may actually still be reasonably healthy. We don't need to be making blanket statements.
People usually don't have a "slow metabolism". Sure, it is possible, but pretty rare. Metabolism generally only varies by ~10-15% in people of the same sex and size, which is like ~100-200 kcal....
People usually don't have a "slow metabolism". Sure, it is possible, but pretty rare. Metabolism generally only varies by ~10-15% in people of the same sex and size, which is like ~100-200 kcal.
Have you looked into the reliability of calorie measurement, or the difficulty in estimating work output during exercise? With those in mind, "just 200 kcal", while ideally not insurmountable, is...
Have you looked into the reliability of calorie measurement, or the difficulty in estimating work output during exercise? With those in mind, "just 200 kcal", while ideally not insurmountable, is huge.
If your TDEE is 200kcal lower than average, and you eat the amount of calories suggested for a person with an average metabolism, you'll still be eating in a deficit, it'll just be a 300kcal...
If your TDEE is 200kcal lower than average, and you eat the amount of calories suggested for a person with an average metabolism, you'll still be eating in a deficit, it'll just be a 300kcal deficit instead of 500kcal. Also, weight loss is a trial and error thing. You eat a certain amount of calories for a week or two, check your progress - if you didn't lose weight, that just means you have to eat less.
Sure, it's trial and error. And almost nobody is succeeding despite extremely strong pressure. Now, so what about "just eat less"? Your brain has very little concept of what calorically sufficient...
Sure, it's trial and error. And almost nobody is succeeding despite extremely strong pressure. Now, so what about "just eat less"? Your brain has very little concept of what calorically sufficient looks, tastes, and feels like, how is it not supposed to hurt weight loss attempts for someone to need to cut 200 extra kcals, relative to other people, not just the food they've been eating their whole lives? They're either gonna be at it for nearly twice as long, or they're going to have something like twice as much discomfort. The demotivation to do something constantly unpleasant and nearly impossible to ignore will hit harder either at the scale or on the plate.
You should not base your results on weekly progress. It can take longer than that to see results. I've gone several weeks eating 1200 calories and seen no weight loss, or even seen the scale go up...
You should not base your results on weekly progress. It can take longer than that to see results. I've gone several weeks eating 1200 calories and seen no weight loss, or even seen the scale go up by a pound or two. Hormones and water retention can cause small changes in weight that can make progress very difficult to determine in the short term. It can be worse in the shorter term. I've gone days where I've eaten literally nothing and the next day the scale was two pounds higher. You can't eat less than nothing.
Yeah of course, that's why I said "a week or two", because daily measurements are especially inaccurate due to water retention, I had cases of gaining like 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs) in a day even when...
Yeah of course, that's why I said "a week or two", because daily measurements are especially inaccurate due to water retention, I had cases of gaining like 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs) in a day even when eating in a deficit. Once every few weeks is generally accurate enough to see if you're making progress though, but you're right, if you've been dieting for a week and haven't seen any weight loss you definitely shouldn't panic and think that you're eating too much.
But doesn't that still exemplify the point? If your delta is higher or lower than someone else's, then your body is going to be affected at a different rate -- but it will still be affected based...
But doesn't that still exemplify the point? If your delta is higher or lower than someone else's, then your body is going to be affected at a different rate -- but it will still be affected based on the CICO.
So if we're all sucking down fructose smoothies with crap carbs that get processed super quickly, instead of eating a more balanced meal, that fructose is going to trigger the insulin production and be processed quicker than if they ate the same amount of Cal of say, some broccoli and chicken breast. Someone with a "better" delta (and I'm thinking me in my youth vs me now when I look at chocolate these days and gain weight...) will still be able to better process those Cals, but if someone whose body doesn't have as good as a delta chose better Cals... that is, opted for declining the HFCS... then metabolism is still a very real factor, but it also is based on that input to start.
Hence why I didn't deny CICO but said it's not the only consideration. For example, vegetable and seed oils have been shown to contribute to metabolic disorders, and so does HFCS. The point OC was...
Hence why I didn't deny CICO but said it's not the only consideration. For example, vegetable and seed oils have been shown to contribute to metabolic disorders, and so does HFCS. The point OC was trying to make was that it's all just calories. No it is not. There are factors that will actually impair your metabolism, causing you to not only feel less energy despite eating healthy, but also feel hungry despite eating plenty.
To reduce everything to CICO is to deny the reality of a complex system. Sure, you can "Occam's Razor" it, but do note that Occam's Razor is misunderstood. It's not about the simplest explanation, but the minimum prerequisites required for suffience understanding.
But I understand the point of CICO. It takes out all considerations and factors them into one. If your metabolism sucks, eat even less. It's simple. But it doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you explain to a person trying to lose weight "just CICO it", they'd be less inclined to actually follow through. But if you explain to them patiently that, "Hey, the reason why it's taking this slow is because your body needs to adjust its delta," then they'd understand that the weight loss journey actually takes time. They would also be more open to understand that certain foods would and could potentially destroy their metabolism. CICO reductionists wouldn't have been to explain this.
Really? I'd assume it would have an opposite effect. If you complicate weight loss and say that certain foods are "evil" and "destroy your metabolism", you may overwhelm the person. With CICO it's...
If you explain to a person trying to lose weight "just CICO it", they'd be less inclined to actually follow through.
Really? I'd assume it would have an opposite effect. If you complicate weight loss and say that certain foods are "evil" and "destroy your metabolism", you may overwhelm the person. With CICO it's simple - just eat whatever you want, hell, you can have a diet out of Big Macs and Snickers bars, and as long as you keep a number on your phone lower than another number on your phone, you will lose weight.
(Obviously, "just eating whatever" wouldn't make for a healthy diet - you do need to think about what you eat if you want to eat healthy. But I'm speaking purely from a weight loss standpoint here.)
It helps until you reach the point where you reach your calorie limit and then if you end up feeling hungry later, you can't do anything other than suffer through it. Then it makes it harder to...
With CICO it's simple - just eat whatever you want, hell, you can have a diet out of Big Macs and Snickers bars, and as long as you keep a number on your phone lower than another number on your phone, you will lose weight.
It helps until you reach the point where you reach your calorie limit and then if you end up feeling hungry later, you can't do anything other than suffer through it. Then it makes it harder to think about anything other than eating. Then you do it all again the next day, and then the day after that, and the day after that, and so on. It's clear why it doesn't work for some people.
This is why it isn't necessarily that effective for some people and trying to identify foods that might help you avoid those causes of feeling hunger which in turn helps you keep your calorie intake lower.
And we have to consider two things. Our own perspective on "when is getting happier more important than getting healthier," and also what is the dieting person's perspective on that question...
And we have to consider two things. Our own perspective on "when is getting happier more important than getting healthier," and also what is the dieting person's perspective on that question (because it surely will vary from person to person)? But at the risk of overgeneralizing, I'm going to guess that most people who over-simplify the problem/solution, and take a lazy (for lack of better word) approach to compassion and advice likely won't consider at least the latter perspective, and possibly neither perspective.
I have lost weight this way. I also gained it back, plus more, because obsessively tracking everything you eat and feeling hungry all the time is not sustainable.
as long as you keep a number on your phone lower than another number on your phone, you will lose weight.
I have lost weight this way. I also gained it back, plus more, because obsessively tracking everything you eat and feeling hungry all the time is not sustainable.
That is true, it did take me some effort to not fall into being overly obsessed about calories. But I found that tracking my calorie intake while eating in a deficit gave me experience to just...
That is true, it did take me some effort to not fall into being overly obsessed about calories. But I found that tracking my calorie intake while eating in a deficit gave me experience to just approximately estimate how much I'm eating accurately enough to stay in maintenance. I'd still say tracking calories while losing weight is the better option, but for maintenance simple estimation should be good enough after you already have the knowledge of how much calories different kinds of food generally contain. For example, while tracking calories I had a really useful observation that any sweet snacks (Snickers, an ice cream, a frozen coffee, ...) all generally contain 200-300 kcal. This is not an accurate estimation to stay in a deficit, but it is accurate enough for maintenance.
I suppose I'm just terrible at estimating. If I'm not tracking my calories, I am gaining weight, always. And tracking my calories feels pretty mentally unhealthy. I can't think about anything...
I suppose I'm just terrible at estimating. If I'm not tracking my calories, I am gaining weight, always. And tracking my calories feels pretty mentally unhealthy. I can't think about anything other than food and my weight when I'm in "diet mode". Most of the foods I eat don't have barcodes, and I've found a lot of those apps to be pretty inaccurate, so I usually try to overestimate what I've eaten. It ends up with a string of days where my counter says 1200, but I'm probably closer to 900, the scale hasn't moved (or is .2 pounds higher somehow), and I'm crying and wishing desperately that I could understand what I'm doing wrong.
Hmm fair point. There is value in simplifying things indeed. I guess only those putting more effort into losing weight would be more inclined to hear more theory.
Hmm fair point. There is value in simplifying things indeed. I guess only those putting more effort into losing weight would be more inclined to hear more theory.
I think it depends on the person. I got interested in nutrition science after I lost some weight by counting calories (and my above comment was written from personal experience, I really liked how...
I think it depends on the person. I got interested in nutrition science after I lost some weight by counting calories (and my above comment was written from personal experience, I really liked how I didn't have to constantly worry about what I eat). But I'm the kind of person who's just generally interested in researching about stuff I do. There are certainly a lot of people who would absolutely not care about theory, they just want to use a mobile app that would tell them how much they can eat to lose weight. And while glucose and stuff does affect weight loss, those people don't have to care about it if they don't want to - they'll generally lose weight anyway. That's what I meant in my original comment by "the root cause" being just CICO.
Also, I think that the new trend of subscription-based healthy meal plans is a really nice option for the kind of people who don't want to put a lot of effort into it and can afford a subscription like that. But the issue with those meal plans is that they only work if you eat just the meal plan. That could be hard for many people, who are used to constantly grabbing a snack or bored eating.
This, I suspect, is why Atkins' diet was so revolutionary about 20ish years back. I had a friend/coworker who lost quite a bit of weight and she'd eat bacon and (no carb) whipped cream out of the...
This, I suspect, is why Atkins' diet was so revolutionary about 20ish years back. I had a friend/coworker who lost quite a bit of weight and she'd eat bacon and (no carb) whipped cream out of the can. It'll play into your system eventually though, especially with more processed foods (in my opinion, though I suspect I'm on the right track).
This is such a poor take. What is a calorie? How are calories measured? How does burning a sample of food in a sealed, oxygen-filled container, and measuring the increase in temperature of the...
It's all just CICO.
This is such a poor take. What is a calorie? How are calories measured? How does burning a sample of food in a sealed, oxygen-filled container, and measuring the increase in temperature of the water bath that surrounds it, tell you anything about how human bodies use that energy?
CICO is meaningless garbage if the person can't know 1) How many calories they're eating 2) How their body processes those calories 3) How their body processes calories from different sources and 4) How many calories their body excretes.
It's like saying "all you need to do to cure cancer is kill all the cancer cells" - sure, but there's nothing useful or actionable about it.
The other problem with "it's all CICO" is that it focuses all the attention back onto the person leading to highly stigmatising attitudes about obesity, and no attention on the billion dollar industries providing and advertising highly processed, high sugar, high fat, foods; with well-funded trade organisations that fight against any kind of public health measure no matter how mild that might be; and governments that are not interested in making better food more easily available.
There is a whole industry of mobile apps that make this extremely convenient There isn't much difference in how your body processes calories from different sources....
How many calories they're eating [...] 4) How many calories their body excretes.
There is a whole industry of mobile apps that make this extremely convenient
How their body processes those calories 3) How their body processes calories from different sources
There isn't much difference in how your body processes calories from different sources.
it focuses all the attention back onto the person leading to highly stigmatising attitudes about obesity, and no attention on the billion dollar industries
Of course the industries and all the other parties you mentioned are responsible, I'm not denying that. But blaming them won't help you lose weight. If you want to solve societal problems, you should focus on the food companies and regulations etc. But if you're just a normal person who wants to lose some kilograms, it doesn't matter who's "responsible" for your weight - you won't lose fat unless you change how you eat.
You don’t really need to know any of those numbers, just how your weight is trending and by extension how your current average CI relates to your average CO. Losing weight? CI < CO. Quickly? CI <<...
CICO is meaningless garbage if the person can't know 1) How many calories they're eating 2) How their body processes those calories 3) How their body processes calories from different sources and 4) How many calories their body excretes.
You don’t really need to know any of those numbers, just how your weight is trending and by extension how your current average CI relates to your average CO.
Losing weight? CI < CO. Quickly? CI << CO
Maintaining weight? CI = CO
Gaining weight? CI > CO. Quickly? CI >> CO
To change CI, change how much you eat or alter it a bit. Nutrition info gives you an estimate to base your changes on, but just eating more/less is fine too.
To change CO, change how much activity you’re getting. You can calculate estimated burned calories for specific exercises if that helps you pick a change, but just doing more/less is fine too.
After two or three weeks, assess the weight trend again. Rinse and repeat until you’re approaching your target. At that point, make smaller changes until you hit your target and find your average maintenance diet.
People have been eating Calorie-dense food, such as bread, for centuries. I don't think it's useful to say that Calorie-dense foods are causing the obesity epidemic when they long pre-date it....
People have been eating Calorie-dense food, such as bread, for centuries. I don't think it's useful to say that Calorie-dense foods are causing the obesity epidemic when they long pre-date it. That's like saying that cooking is the cause of the obesity epidemic, or that stomachs are the cause of the obesity epidemic—yes, we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic if those things didn't exist, but they do not appear to be the trigger.
The question is, why are so many people (and even wild animals!) today overweight when they just eat intuitively without trying to manipulate their weight, whereas people historically were a healthy weight on average when they just ate intuitively without trying to manipulate their weight?
There are two possibilities (both of which seem to be true):
The CI part of CICO is generally higher now than than it was historically.
The CO part of CICO is generally lower now than it was historically.
How can we reign these back in to their historical values? To do that, we need to find out which factors have caused them to change. Some of them we already know (e.g., the rise of cars and office jobs have caused a drop in CO), but they do not appear to be the whole picture.
The bread we eat today is dramatically more processed and energy dense than it was centuries ago. I’ve talked about it before but white bread is made by removing the bran from the wheat before...
The bread we eat today is dramatically more processed and energy dense than it was centuries ago. I’ve talked about it before but white bread is made by removing the bran from the wheat before grinding it into flour, and that removes the majority of the vitamins as well as all of the fiber, which is important to keep you feeling full for longer periods of time. Modern breads also commonly have added sugars and fats.
Ultraprocessed foods leading towards weight gain and obesity is not just a fringe theory, it’s generally accepted fact. They cause you to consume many more calories than lightly processed foods do.
The root cause of obesity is people consuming an excessive amount of calories leading to a state of energy toxicity. Anybody can combat this by choosing foods that are higher in satiety which will...
The root cause of obesity is people consuming an excessive amount of calories leading to a state of energy toxicity.
Anybody can combat this by choosing foods that are higher in satiety which will drive a calorie deficit without any hunger. This is done by prioritizing high protein foods, high fiber foods, and low energy density foods, while avoiding addictive treats that combine fat and sugar.
I admire Dr. Ted Naiman’s push to spread the word of satiety per calorie and really believe it can help people.
This interview does a pretty good job of summing it all up if anyone is interested.
I did, and I think the theories are compatible. Fructose “gunking up the works” in the mitochondria leading to less efficient ATP production is one of the drivers of overeating energy calories --...
Exemplary
I did, and I think the theories are compatible. Fructose “gunking up the works” in the mitochondria leading to less efficient ATP production is one of the drivers of overeating energy calories -- either fat and/or carbohydrates.
As for the carbs vs fats debate and diet religions talked about elsewhere, both macronutrients are simply interchangeable energy sources which are suited for different tasks. Glycogen is tapped for energy at above 70% of your maximum heart rate, while fat is oxidized for all other low-level activity. For the best body composition, targeting a high-protein, moderate fat and moderate carb diet seems best — something body builders have known since the 1900s.
There’s too many black swans of populations eating high fat and low fat for there to be “one true way”. Calorie intake and energy burn is a more elegant explanation for overweight and obesity across all peoples.
The real question is what drives excessive calorie intake and it's my belief that the parties responsible are protein and nutrient dilution in the form of energy-dense, processed foods that aim to be maximally tasty and addictive keeping us hungry for more until we’ve consumed our four-ish pounds of bulk a day with way more calories than necessary to hit our actual nutrition and energy needs. Fructose plays a huge role in making food addictive and leaving us hungry for more, so I think we're all in agreement.
This title is really misleading. It makes it sound like you can just cut out fructose and obesity will fade away. That's not really what the paper is stating; it's stating that a number of other hypotheses about the causes of obesity are likely correct and provides the idea that the way our bodies process fructose is the link between them.
Science article titles are frequently oversimplified, but it gets people’s attention and starts the discussion.
Lots of questions remain, but If someone cuts down on HFCS or added sugars found in processed foods, it would almost certainly be helpful to their health.
Here's an oversimplification: "New study claims to identify chemical central to obesity". "root cause" is straight-up misinformation, if fructose isn't the root cause. And the article does not assert that it is.
Science journalism is atrocious. A admittedly speculative paper by our research group got some buzz in the press this week. These popular science writers then amped things up to 11 making our group sound like arrogant crazy people promising the moon. There was a USA today article that was especially egregious claiming we had made a "major discovery." Ughh.
This group argues that Fructose intake alters ATP metabolism and induces a starvation state, which in turn leads to decreased energy usage, decreased satiety and over eating of high calorie foods. Seems to add a plausible piece to the puzzle.
There’s a link to the study published in the Journal Obesity for those who want a deeper dive.
Just anecdotally this seems to track with America vs countries that have a ban on [high] fructose corn syrup.
While yes Mexico, Canada, and most of the EU have the same "goodies" as the US, instead of fructose syrup they have to use real sugar. If what is proposed is true, it basically means your body would stop naturally from sugar intake, and as a result you consume fewer empty calories.
Except Mexico and Canada have major obesity issues as well. The US is worse than either, but they're not in a different category than us. You'd need to look at the differences in lifestyle between North America and Asia.
@shinigami HFCS is not banned in Canada, and many of our groceries come from the USA.
You will see it on tons of our foods in the ingredients as "glucose-fructose" Now it is recognized as a problem ingredient and is regulated so there are limits on how much can be used in any given drink or food but it's still there.
I'm going to guess that Mexico is similar.
I have to say, I'm not sure Mexico is a good example here
Not to mention that obesity is rising in Europe at an exponential rate. It's certainly much better in most of Europe (outside of the UK), but that's now - at current rates, Europe will catch up to the US's current state in no time.
The root cause of obesity is calorie-dense foods. It's all just CICO. Sure, fructose may play a big role in making people eat more. But any sugar does that - your organism goes into "energy debt" while breaking sugar down, so you feel more hungry and can eat more. It does matter, but calling it "THE root cause" is really weird.
Edit: many people misunderstood my point, please read this comment where I explain what I meant more clearly
CICO and even calorie density are still oversimplifying things, though. There are foods in nature that are calorie-dense that our bodies are better at telling us when to stop eating. The hypothesis the paper posits that there are multiple mechanisms causing obesity and their conclusions suggest using that knowledge to personalize treatment plans.
Yeah, definitely, that's why I mentioned that glucose and other stuff plays an important role, but it's not the root cause. Of course, there are foods that make you want to eat more and lead to higher obesity rates. There are also natural appetite suppressants, like coffee. They all matter, but you shouldn't just blame glucose for obesity - people will lose weight if they are in a caloric deficit, that's still the only way to lose weight, no matter if there is glucose or not
There's a huge tree of responses in this thread where people are repeating the mantra of CICO and others are pushing back against it. This fight plays out every time research is posted having anything to do with dietary preferences. I'd like to take a step back, for a second, and attempt to recenter the human before going into the science.
Have you ever considered how someone who has struggled with obesity their entire lives might feel, coming across a thread like this, fettered with people implying that their obesity is simply solved by either 'consuming less' or 'exercising more'? I would imagine that the vast majority of those who believe they are overweight and wish to do something about it have at the very least attempted to either eat less or exercise more. They've likely spoken with doctors, dieticians, family, friends, people on the internet, and other overweight people for advice. There's a good chance that they have tried at least a half dozen diets all to no success. They have likely gone through many bouts of exercise, lost weight and then put it on again. Many are likely exhausted searching for a solution to a problem that they cannot solve.
Do you think that given this context, repeating a mantra which represents advice they have attempted to implement in their lives unsuccessfully multiple times, does much for their self-esteem? Do you think that this might make them feel like they are lacking in willpower? That they might feel helpless? Do you think that this advice gives them anything tangible to do differently or gives them any hope of a solution?
The reason that people are pushing back against what you say is not because they don't believe in the science so much as it is that your science, or rather the way that you are presenting it, is dehumanizing. You're failing to center the human and the struggles that they are dealing with. In some cultures the majority of people are overweight. Systemic problems like this are not failures of willpower or of humans being unwilling to make changes to their lives. Systemic problems like this only happen because of systemic changes, such as those that affect our food supply or our activity. Systemic problems need systemic solutions- we cannot simply ask for individuals to adjust to negative systemic changes.
With that being said, I do think that it is fair to repeat your mantra as a response to snake oil salesmen who attempt to sell a fad diet which does nothing but simply shift the macronutrients that someone is eating, without simultaneously reducing calories in. However, even in this case, one should take caution. As you have already admitted, there are substances out there which affect the CICO formula in ways that are not as simple as food consumed or exercise out. Caffeine is one such example. Caffeine is something that is consumed but does not provide sustenance and rather increases the amount of calories expended. If we are to examine the left side of this equation, calories in, we can imagine substances that we consume as existing on a spectrum. On one side of the spectrum are substances which almost exclusively net calories in and on the other side of the spectrum are substances which exclusively net calories out. Caffeine would be one such substance that provides no calories but increases energy expenditure. Chocolate covered espresso beans, for example, might exist a bit left on the spectrum providing some sustenance but also increasing calories expended through the action of caffeine.
But it is not always so simple since breaking down what is consumed into its individual components. An example of a substance for which there is natural variation in the population with regards to how it is processed, is alcohol. For some individuals, they can process this chemical relatively easily. For other individuals such as those with the RS671 allele on chromosome 12, the acetaldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme is less functional, resulting in higher energy expenditure in order to process alcohol. This means that for these individuals the CICO formula does not have the same values for this particular chemical as it does for individuals with a different genetic profile. This concept holds true, not just for chemicals but also for micronutrients and even at the level of macronutrients.
Similarly true on the other side of the equation, CO, there are individual differences based on genetic makeup. A good example of this is the clearing of lactic acid from muscles after exertion. Some exceptional individuals are actually able to clear lactic acid just as fast as it builds up and unsurprisingly do so with a different energetic profile than the majority of the population which cannot. How many calories one expends when running a mile is both a function of genetic makeup as well as training. What's lost in the CICO formula is the normal variation among humans consuming similar foods and exercising in similar ways having vastly different CI and CO values.
One final issue with the oversimplification of CICO is the loss of factors which affect CI and CO indirectly. One sense of hunger can be shaped by many inputs. Ghrelin is commonly referred to as the hunger hormone. An increase in ghrelin correlates with an increase in perceived hunger. Some individuals are more responsive to ghrelin than others, based on their genetics. Ghrelin is also responsive to levels of hydration as well as macronutrient intake. It can also be suppressed by physical factors such as excessive gas or pressure on the stomach. Foods which are high in protein suppress the release of ghrelin. Being adequately hydrated suppresses the release of ghrelin. Calories in is not specific enough to account for these factors. It is not as simple as the caloric content that is going in because 30 calories of protein will suppress more ghrelin than 30 calories of fat. Another example of a complicated interaction between the content consumed and the CICO formula is postprandial somnolence, colloquently known as a food coma. While we do not fully understand all of the mechanisms of postprandial somnolence, we do know some of the factors. Meals high in fat and carbohydrates with a high glycemic index tend to increase somnolence in individuals. Adenosine, parasympathetic activation, insulin, hypokalemia, and cytokines are all likely contributors and are influenced by the composition and size of the meal consumed. A decrease in energy expenditure affects the CO side of the equation and in this case it is influenced almost entirely by what is consumed and if one were to consume a similar number of calories of a different composition, you would find a different outcome for their CICO equation.
My hope is that this reply has opened your eyes to some of the shortcomings of CICO (it is by no means an exhaustive review of modern dietary science). In my opinion CICO is far too simple to be of much use in dietary science and is often unhelpful and dehumanizing to individuals who wish to lose weight. While there is a time and place for its application and for it to be stated it is not a universal statement and should not be treated as such. When talking about CICO, one must absolutely mention the current state of dietary science and explain in detail how all calories are not made the same. If one does not, one risks alienating the intended audience in the same way that generic statements like 'drugs are bad' alienates the youth and makes them distrustful of the system. While CICO may have been an enlightening experience for you, we need to recognize that not everyone walks the same path or even has the same genetic makeup for a simple statement to have such a strong effect on everyone's life. A longer, more nuanced conversation than simply stating CICO is often warranted for issues which individuals have struggled their entire lives with.
I'd just like to say that I learnt a lot from your post, thank you.
As someone who made it up to 17st at my heaviest (12 years ago), lost down to 13st by stress alone (divorce), even while drinking alcohol like coffee (also divorce related), then went back to 15.5st (new partner) and then recently lost 28lbs using CICO (not happy with my size), you have opened my eyes to the human and science side of it.
I'd like to add something which helped me and thank the NHS (not back to Thursday night clapping levels) for providing this: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/
They simplify what to aim for food wise. The basic premise is a good mix of unprocessed foods; try to aim for whole grain, protein, 1/3 of the diet as starch and keep portion control. The idea being that if you're hungry, an apple and a banana with a yoghurt will do way more for you than smashing through a Mars bar and a bag of crisps both in health and fulfillment.
It took me just over two months to lose 2 stone (28lbs) in weight. I'm 6'1", desk job, low activity and CICO works great, with the right foods... For me! It's not suited to everyone, but for the general population of the planet it should work which is all @fxgn was trying to say.
Shout out to Nutracheck app which allowed me to do it, it's way better if you're a UK person than the competition. (I'm not affiliated).
Yes, thank you, that is what I meant! I lost ~10kg (22lbs) with CICO, but I do, of course, understand that it's much easier for me than for a lot of people - I'm 184cm (6'0"), male and adolescent, and also exercise a few times a week. So I can't fully sympathize and understand the struggles of people for whom it's harder, but I fully understand that they exist and "just eating less" can be a bad strategy for them.
Your reply reminded me of a fantastic talk on dietary sciences that I think may benefit some people. I really like this talk because it threads the needle so well of synthesizing the last few decades of dietary science while still providing advice that is very approachable to non-scientific folks. If you are pressed for time or simply are not interested in the science and would rather listen to an expert provide a few easy rules to eat healthily, find the time to listen from 25:35-30:12 where he outlines what he calls a "foundational diet". I promise it's worth just a few minutes of your time.
Thank you for your response. As I stated somewhere else in this thread, I fully agree. I definitely do not claim that people who can't lose weight are just lazy - of course, it can be hard for you, especially if you're not very tall or have a low TDEE for some other reason. I am not arguing with that.
And neither am I trying to say that CICO is the perfect way to lose weight. My original comment was in the context of research claiming that glucose is "the root cause" of obesity - which I don't believe it to be. The root cause of obesity is consuming more calories than you burn. Which is not to say that everyone should "just eat less". For some people, avoiding certain foods might be easier, some prefer intermittent fasting, etc. The thing is that they're all still just CICO, just not as explicit. They are all just ways to make the "CI" part lower without struggling as much. That's what I meant by saying that CICO is the root cause.
I still believe that CICO can be a comforting "mantra" to tell to people, even if applying it directly won't help them. It sort of "demystifies" the process. It stops being "you're fat because you got unlucky with your genetics" and becomes "don't worry - there is a known reason for your weight, we just need to figure out which of the strategies will be comfortable for you"
I really do not mean to be mean here, but I kind of feel like you’re missing a lot of what is being said. You have at multiple times written “glucose”, but the article is talking about fructose. It’s also not saying that the root cause of obesity is fructose, it’s saying that fructose intake could be a link between a handful of different theories as to what causes obesity.
I suppose that CICO could be comforting to some people, but the only people I can think of who are just trying to lose a few pounds and haven’t considered dieting before. And even then CICO is part of basic nutrition that people learn while they are in high school or earlier, so it’s not a new concept for them. If you are obese - which is the group of people this topic is concerned with - there is very little chance they have not tried dieting before, and there is little chance that whatever book they read on it will not mention the concept either directly or indirectly.
The truth of the matter is that the scientific understanding of nutrition is extremely complex. CICO is just one single component in it, but there are countless other elements at play. Given how common obesity is at this point, it’s clear that CICO alone doesn’t work for everyone.
Speaking as someone who has been obese for the greater part of their life, if you were to tell me that all I had to do was follow the principle of CICO, it would be insulting to me. It took dramatic lifestyle changes to start losing weight. The good news is that it’s also had some dramatic results. But I only got here after spending more than a decade trying different strategies. Figuring out what works can be extremely difficult, especially if you don’t have professional help and significant resources.
To be fair to them, the title sets up the context for the argument of "root cause".
To perhaps help contextualize better for those who see the title and think "CICO is the root cause", I feel this explanation might work.
The way I view the word root cause in this context is not simply the actual mechanism of weight gain, which is more calories in than calories out, but rather the "why" or behavioral factors into what pushes that calories in to go up or the calories out to go down. We're looking for the forces behind the imbalance of the mechanism. What are the principle causes driving the imbalance of CICO? Obesity is going up, yet more people know now about CICO than they did throughout history, so knowing that CICO is the mechanism doesn't seem to help or improve the situation. The root cause of the increase in obesity isn't that people don't know the mechanism, but seemingly something else that has brought an imbalance.
My mistake, sorry. My original comment said "fructose", and then I just forgot and thought it was glucose after time has passed. I don't think this significantly affects my points though.
It literally says that in the title
You'd be surprised at the amount of people I know who want to lose weight but have never even considered counting calories. A lot of people just go straight to diets or fasting, because those things are more popular.
Sure, that's what the comment you're replying to was all about.
I’m well aware of what the title says. But the title does not reflect the contents of the article, let alone the contents of the hypothesis it is supposed to be about. I wrote a comment saying about it posted a few hours before your first comment on this topic. Did you read either of those three things? I can’t understand why you would still be talking about fructose causing obesity if you had.
You are also conflating the concept of CICO with the practice of calorie counting. They are two different things. Calorie counting is a strategy that is indeed extremely helpful to many people, but telling people “CICO” is basically just telling them to eat less. And that is clearly not a helpful strategy.
I know. I'm arguing with the misleading clickbait title, not the contents of the article.
Yes, I saw it, and it was what made my write my original comment. It seems like you have the same opinion as I do, you're just misunderstanding me.
"CICO" is not even advice, it's just a statement, obviously you wouldn't tell that to people who need to lose weight, I'm not sure why you decided that I'm suggesting that. It is the root cause of obesity in the same way that the root cause of cancer are mutating cells, but you obviously won't say "just get rid of the cells" to someone who has cancer.
You're taking more of a technical approach to the problem rather than a practical one. Identifying what causes certain behaviors that lead to people not being able to meet the technical solution to the problem is attempting to find a practical solution. Just constantly parroting CICO at a certain point reaches its limits of helpfulness. So whether it's fructose or anything else, identifying these factors that explain why people have various struggles with food and consuming excess calories goes a lot longer of a way than just saying CICO.
No, it is not all CICO. Metabolism is the other side of the equation. Think about it this way,
Calories In ∆= Calories Out
The ∆ represents the change. What causes the change? Metabolism. That's why it's very, very hard to lose weight the first time you work out despite using the same workout routine as some extremely fit person. This is why not all obese (or fat or whatever) people are necessarily unhealthy. Some of them are actually well-functioning but just have really crap metabolism despite eating few meals (also why the diet advice doesn't work sometimes). In any case, the first year is the hardest. Then, your body suddenly "snaps" and it just suddenly "wakes up" and your metabolism ramps up.
If you define it as fat/obese = unhealthy, then it's tautological. Granted I didn't define obese or fat, but now I will define obese/fat as having a BMI or weight greater than average but factoring muscle mass. This means that even if you are categorized as obese or fat, you may actually still be reasonably healthy. We don't need to be making blanket statements.
People usually don't have a "slow metabolism". Sure, it is possible, but pretty rare. Metabolism generally only varies by ~10-15% in people of the same sex and size, which is like ~100-200 kcal.
Here is a really great article about it
https://physiqonomics.com/slow-metabolism/
Have you looked into the reliability of calorie measurement, or the difficulty in estimating work output during exercise? With those in mind, "just 200 kcal", while ideally not insurmountable, is huge.
If your TDEE is 200kcal lower than average, and you eat the amount of calories suggested for a person with an average metabolism, you'll still be eating in a deficit, it'll just be a 300kcal deficit instead of 500kcal. Also, weight loss is a trial and error thing. You eat a certain amount of calories for a week or two, check your progress - if you didn't lose weight, that just means you have to eat less.
Sure, it's trial and error. And almost nobody is succeeding despite extremely strong pressure. Now, so what about "just eat less"? Your brain has very little concept of what calorically sufficient looks, tastes, and feels like, how is it not supposed to hurt weight loss attempts for someone to need to cut 200 extra kcals, relative to other people, not just the food they've been eating their whole lives? They're either gonna be at it for nearly twice as long, or they're going to have something like twice as much discomfort. The demotivation to do something constantly unpleasant and nearly impossible to ignore will hit harder either at the scale or on the plate.
You should not base your results on weekly progress. It can take longer than that to see results. I've gone several weeks eating 1200 calories and seen no weight loss, or even seen the scale go up by a pound or two. Hormones and water retention can cause small changes in weight that can make progress very difficult to determine in the short term. It can be worse in the shorter term. I've gone days where I've eaten literally nothing and the next day the scale was two pounds higher. You can't eat less than nothing.
Yeah of course, that's why I said "a week or two", because daily measurements are especially inaccurate due to water retention, I had cases of gaining like 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs) in a day even when eating in a deficit. Once every few weeks is generally accurate enough to see if you're making progress though, but you're right, if you've been dieting for a week and haven't seen any weight loss you definitely shouldn't panic and think that you're eating too much.
But doesn't that still exemplify the point? If your delta is higher or lower than someone else's, then your body is going to be affected at a different rate -- but it will still be affected based on the CICO.
So if we're all sucking down fructose smoothies with crap carbs that get processed super quickly, instead of eating a more balanced meal, that fructose is going to trigger the insulin production and be processed quicker than if they ate the same amount of Cal of say, some broccoli and chicken breast. Someone with a "better" delta (and I'm thinking me in my youth vs me now when I look at chocolate these days and gain weight...) will still be able to better process those Cals, but if someone whose body doesn't have as good as a delta chose better Cals... that is, opted for declining the HFCS... then metabolism is still a very real factor, but it also is based on that input to start.
Hence why I didn't deny CICO but said it's not the only consideration. For example, vegetable and seed oils have been shown to contribute to metabolic disorders, and so does HFCS. The point OC was trying to make was that it's all just calories. No it is not. There are factors that will actually impair your metabolism, causing you to not only feel less energy despite eating healthy, but also feel hungry despite eating plenty.
To reduce everything to CICO is to deny the reality of a complex system. Sure, you can "Occam's Razor" it, but do note that Occam's Razor is misunderstood. It's not about the simplest explanation, but the minimum prerequisites required for suffience understanding.
But I understand the point of CICO. It takes out all considerations and factors them into one. If your metabolism sucks, eat even less. It's simple. But it doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you explain to a person trying to lose weight "just CICO it", they'd be less inclined to actually follow through. But if you explain to them patiently that, "Hey, the reason why it's taking this slow is because your body needs to adjust its delta," then they'd understand that the weight loss journey actually takes time. They would also be more open to understand that certain foods would and could potentially destroy their metabolism. CICO reductionists wouldn't have been to explain this.
Really? I'd assume it would have an opposite effect. If you complicate weight loss and say that certain foods are "evil" and "destroy your metabolism", you may overwhelm the person. With CICO it's simple - just eat whatever you want, hell, you can have a diet out of Big Macs and Snickers bars, and as long as you keep a number on your phone lower than another number on your phone, you will lose weight.
(Obviously, "just eating whatever" wouldn't make for a healthy diet - you do need to think about what you eat if you want to eat healthy. But I'm speaking purely from a weight loss standpoint here.)
It helps until you reach the point where you reach your calorie limit and then if you end up feeling hungry later, you can't do anything other than suffer through it. Then it makes it harder to think about anything other than eating. Then you do it all again the next day, and then the day after that, and the day after that, and so on. It's clear why it doesn't work for some people.
This is why it isn't necessarily that effective for some people and trying to identify foods that might help you avoid those causes of feeling hunger which in turn helps you keep your calorie intake lower.
And we have to consider two things. Our own perspective on "when is getting happier more important than getting healthier," and also what is the dieting person's perspective on that question (because it surely will vary from person to person)? But at the risk of overgeneralizing, I'm going to guess that most people who over-simplify the problem/solution, and take a lazy (for lack of better word) approach to compassion and advice likely won't consider at least the latter perspective, and possibly neither perspective.
I have lost weight this way. I also gained it back, plus more, because obsessively tracking everything you eat and feeling hungry all the time is not sustainable.
That is true, it did take me some effort to not fall into being overly obsessed about calories. But I found that tracking my calorie intake while eating in a deficit gave me experience to just approximately estimate how much I'm eating accurately enough to stay in maintenance. I'd still say tracking calories while losing weight is the better option, but for maintenance simple estimation should be good enough after you already have the knowledge of how much calories different kinds of food generally contain. For example, while tracking calories I had a really useful observation that any sweet snacks (Snickers, an ice cream, a frozen coffee, ...) all generally contain 200-300 kcal. This is not an accurate estimation to stay in a deficit, but it is accurate enough for maintenance.
I suppose I'm just terrible at estimating. If I'm not tracking my calories, I am gaining weight, always. And tracking my calories feels pretty mentally unhealthy. I can't think about anything other than food and my weight when I'm in "diet mode". Most of the foods I eat don't have barcodes, and I've found a lot of those apps to be pretty inaccurate, so I usually try to overestimate what I've eaten. It ends up with a string of days where my counter says 1200, but I'm probably closer to 900, the scale hasn't moved (or is .2 pounds higher somehow), and I'm crying and wishing desperately that I could understand what I'm doing wrong.
Hmm fair point. There is value in simplifying things indeed. I guess only those putting more effort into losing weight would be more inclined to hear more theory.
I think it depends on the person. I got interested in nutrition science after I lost some weight by counting calories (and my above comment was written from personal experience, I really liked how I didn't have to constantly worry about what I eat). But I'm the kind of person who's just generally interested in researching about stuff I do. There are certainly a lot of people who would absolutely not care about theory, they just want to use a mobile app that would tell them how much they can eat to lose weight. And while glucose and stuff does affect weight loss, those people don't have to care about it if they don't want to - they'll generally lose weight anyway. That's what I meant in my original comment by "the root cause" being just CICO.
Also, I think that the new trend of subscription-based healthy meal plans is a really nice option for the kind of people who don't want to put a lot of effort into it and can afford a subscription like that. But the issue with those meal plans is that they only work if you eat just the meal plan. That could be hard for many people, who are used to constantly grabbing a snack or bored eating.
This, I suspect, is why Atkins' diet was so revolutionary about 20ish years back. I had a friend/coworker who lost quite a bit of weight and she'd eat bacon and (no carb) whipped cream out of the can. It'll play into your system eventually though, especially with more processed foods (in my opinion, though I suspect I'm on the right track).
This is such a poor take. What is a calorie? How are calories measured? How does burning a sample of food in a sealed, oxygen-filled container, and measuring the increase in temperature of the water bath that surrounds it, tell you anything about how human bodies use that energy?
CICO is meaningless garbage if the person can't know 1) How many calories they're eating 2) How their body processes those calories 3) How their body processes calories from different sources and 4) How many calories their body excretes.
It's like saying "all you need to do to cure cancer is kill all the cancer cells" - sure, but there's nothing useful or actionable about it.
The other problem with "it's all CICO" is that it focuses all the attention back onto the person leading to highly stigmatising attitudes about obesity, and no attention on the billion dollar industries providing and advertising highly processed, high sugar, high fat, foods; with well-funded trade organisations that fight against any kind of public health measure no matter how mild that might be; and governments that are not interested in making better food more easily available.
There is a whole industry of mobile apps that make this extremely convenient
There isn't much difference in how your body processes calories from different sources.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15113737/
https://thefitness.wiki/faq/what-is-more-important-for-weight-loss-calories-or-macros/
Of course the industries and all the other parties you mentioned are responsible, I'm not denying that. But blaming them won't help you lose weight. If you want to solve societal problems, you should focus on the food companies and regulations etc. But if you're just a normal person who wants to lose some kilograms, it doesn't matter who's "responsible" for your weight - you won't lose fat unless you change how you eat.
You don’t really need to know any of those numbers, just how your weight is trending and by extension how your current average CI relates to your average CO.
To change CI, change how much you eat or alter it a bit. Nutrition info gives you an estimate to base your changes on, but just eating more/less is fine too.
To change CO, change how much activity you’re getting. You can calculate estimated burned calories for specific exercises if that helps you pick a change, but just doing more/less is fine too.
After two or three weeks, assess the weight trend again. Rinse and repeat until you’re approaching your target. At that point, make smaller changes until you hit your target and find your average maintenance diet.
It just takes time.
People have been eating Calorie-dense food, such as bread, for centuries. I don't think it's useful to say that Calorie-dense foods are causing the obesity epidemic when they long pre-date it. That's like saying that cooking is the cause of the obesity epidemic, or that stomachs are the cause of the obesity epidemic—yes, we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic if those things didn't exist, but they do not appear to be the trigger.
The question is, why are so many people (and even wild animals!) today overweight when they just eat intuitively without trying to manipulate their weight, whereas people historically were a healthy weight on average when they just ate intuitively without trying to manipulate their weight?
There are two possibilities (both of which seem to be true):
How can we reign these back in to their historical values? To do that, we need to find out which factors have caused them to change. Some of them we already know (e.g., the rise of cars and office jobs have caused a drop in CO), but they do not appear to be the whole picture.
The bread we eat today is dramatically more processed and energy dense than it was centuries ago. I’ve talked about it before but white bread is made by removing the bran from the wheat before grinding it into flour, and that removes the majority of the vitamins as well as all of the fiber, which is important to keep you feeling full for longer periods of time. Modern breads also commonly have added sugars and fats.
Ultraprocessed foods leading towards weight gain and obesity is not just a fringe theory, it’s generally accepted fact. They cause you to consume many more calories than lightly processed foods do.
The root cause of obesity is people consuming an excessive amount of calories leading to a state of energy toxicity.
Anybody can combat this by choosing foods that are higher in satiety which will drive a calorie deficit without any hunger. This is done by prioritizing high protein foods, high fiber foods, and low energy density foods, while avoiding addictive treats that combine fat and sugar.
I admire Dr. Ted Naiman’s push to spread the word of satiety per calorie and really believe it can help people.
This interview does a pretty good job of summing it all up if anyone is interested.
Out of curiosity did you read the article, and what are your thoughts on how it talks about frutose theory in combination with fat vs sugar theories?
I did, and I think the theories are compatible. Fructose “gunking up the works” in the mitochondria leading to less efficient ATP production is one of the drivers of overeating energy calories -- either fat and/or carbohydrates.
As for the carbs vs fats debate and diet religions talked about elsewhere, both macronutrients are simply interchangeable energy sources which are suited for different tasks. Glycogen is tapped for energy at above 70% of your maximum heart rate, while fat is oxidized for all other low-level activity. For the best body composition, targeting a high-protein, moderate fat and moderate carb diet seems best — something body builders have known since the 1900s.
There’s too many black swans of populations eating high fat and low fat for there to be “one true way”. Calorie intake and energy burn is a more elegant explanation for overweight and obesity across all peoples.
The real question is what drives excessive calorie intake and it's my belief that the parties responsible are protein and nutrient dilution in the form of energy-dense, processed foods that aim to be maximally tasty and addictive keeping us hungry for more until we’ve consumed our four-ish pounds of bulk a day with way more calories than necessary to hit our actual nutrition and energy needs. Fructose plays a huge role in making food addictive and leaving us hungry for more, so I think we're all in agreement.