The author hits on a lot of points that should be common sense and what is taught about diets but unfortunately aren't. People think a diet works for all the wrong reasons, and we know enough...
The author hits on a lot of points that should be common sense and what is taught about diets but unfortunately aren't. People think a diet works for all the wrong reasons, and we know enough about them nowadays that I don't understand why this isn't all common knowledge.
In the last 3 or so months I've managed to get my brother to lose 20 lbs. He's down to 270 from 290 and has been hovering around 270 for about 2 weeks now. He's gone through a variety of diets including weight watchers and nothing worked until I got him to focus on calories.
I myself have lost around 40lbs when I did my first diet (wake up call was at 190 for me) and over the course of a decade have slowly put most of it back on as muscle. Along the way I've dieted plenty of times.
About 90% of weight loss is counting calories. Want to lose weight? You need to decrease your intake, or increase your output. The problem with exercise (looking at increasing output) is that it often increases your hunger, which means intake will start to rise after a few weeks of an increase in output. Reducing intake, so long as it's not drastic, is typically the easiest way to make a serious change in calories.
The reason I say 90% is counting calories, is that the kind of food your consuming matters too. If you eat nothing but sugar, you're going to feel like shit, your insulin levels are going to go out of control, and you're going to have a hard time sticking to a diet. The other 10% comes from healthy food and healthy habits. Protein, for example, can promote fat loss even when caloric intake is higher when it's paired with resistance exercise. An adequate amount of healthy fats is necessary for mental health. Slow carbs (carbs paired with fiber, typically) can help with anaerobic exercise like lifting and sprinting. Fiber, protein, and fats all have feedback cycles which regulate Ghrelin levels, reducing hunger. Inadequate sleep causes people to eat more. All of these things and more make it easier or more difficult to stick to a caloric prescription and account for the last 10% or so of CICO.
Almost anything you do will work over two weeks. But from all the research we have we know that calorie counting and CICO do not work over two years. CICO is an unhelpful simplification that makes...
about 2 weeks now
Almost anything you do will work over two weeks. But from all the research we have we know that calorie counting and CICO do not work over two years.
CICO is an unhelpful simplification that makes no account of gut flora, genetics, bioavailability, satiety, psychology, etc etc.
Calorie counting is useless, which is why modern weightloss programmes (which are effective enough to be paid for by English NHS) don't bother with it at all.
I want to clarify here because you misread what I stated. He's been calorie counting and losing weight for 3 months. He's been stuck at around 270 for 2 weeks, because I think he needs to...
about 2 weeks now
I want to clarify here because you misread what I stated. He's been calorie counting and losing weight for 3 months. He's been stuck at around 270 for 2 weeks, because I think he needs to re-target and is cheating his counting.
calorie counting and CICO do not work over two years
I am 100% in agreement that calorie counting and CICO are not enough to be sustainable. But if someone manages to adhere, CICO does work over two weeks, two months, two years or two decades.
It's been working for me for over a decade and there are countless others with similar stories.
CICO is an unhelpful simplification
I also agree that CICO is an oversimplification. I was careful in how to word my statement because any time I mention it online, I get a fuck ton of people jumping down my throat.
Counting calories is not useless or unhelpful however. The problem with most modern weight loss programs, including the ones that were prescribed to my brother and did not work, is that people either don't understand how to adhere to them, or they simply cheat their way out of them because they don't understand how to limit their portions or they cheat their portions without recognizing that they are. Calorie counting keeps you honest.
no account of gut flora, genetics, bioavailability, satiety, psychology, etc etc.
This list really should be reorganized, as satiety and psychology are probably the biggest contributors to sustainability here.
I also find it interesting that you don't talk about macronutrients at all, since they are even bigger contributors to body composition than any of what you listed.
But there are very many more for who CICO just doesn't work. We know this, we have the research. Pushing CICO is encouraging people to waste time on a method that doesn't work. We know "just stop"...
It's been working for me for over a decade and there are countless others with similar stories.
But there are very many more for who CICO just doesn't work. We know this, we have the research. Pushing CICO is encouraging people to waste time on a method that doesn't work.
We know "just stop" doesn't work for alcohol, drugs, smoking, gambling, etc etc. Why do we think it works for food?
You're confusing practicality with effectiveness. It is effective, period. It is not practical to tell a lot of people "just eat less". I agree entirely.
You're confusing practicality with effectiveness. It is effective, period. It is not practical to tell a lot of people "just eat less". I agree entirely.
I'm sorry but I have to correct this. Everything you listed either only effects will power (satiety, psychology), or have very marginal effects on nutrient absorption rates (gut flora) and energy...
CICO is an unhelpful simplification that makes no account of gut flora, genetics, bioavailability, satiety, psychology, etc etc. [...] Calorie counting is useless.
I'm sorry but I have to correct this. Everything you listed either only effects will power (satiety, psychology), or have very marginal effects on nutrient absorption rates (gut flora) and energy conversion efficiency (genetics).
None of these can violate the laws of thermodynamics. There is not a single person (or another animal) on earth who gained weight without taking more calories than their body spends. 99% of weight loss or gain is CICO. Everything else you can imagine fits within that 1%.
As somebody currently on a CICO diet, I don't believe DanBC was saying you can maintain or gain weight while taking in less than you burn. I interpreted their comment to mean that the diet itself...
As somebody currently on a CICO diet, I don't believe DanBC was saying you can maintain or gain weight while taking in less than you burn. I interpreted their comment to mean that the diet itself is unsustainable for some, which it can be in the environment we live in. There's a serious dearth of healthy diet information available. When someone hears that all they have to do is eat less, they may try to stick to the same diet, just smaller, which won't work for many people.
There's also the fact that your metabolism adjusts as you lose weight, meaning you have fewer calories to work with, so you won't lose as much as you did before even with the same diet, and that's confusing and frustrating for many.
Of course it's a simplification. It's a 2 line comment. None of your links invalidate CICO, which is fundemental thermodynamics. There is no magical gut microbe that will allow you to turn 10...
Of course it's a simplification. It's a 2 line comment. None of your links invalidate CICO, which is fundemental thermodynamics. There is no magical gut microbe that will allow you to turn 10 ingested calories into 11.
But there are likely to be gut microbes that allow you to turn 11 calories into 5, or some other non-exaggerated reduction, which is where your point falls down. If you actually read the links I...
But there are likely to be gut microbes that allow you to turn 11 calories into 5, or some other non-exaggerated reduction, which is where your point falls down.
If you actually read the links I posted, you will see that differences in gut flora massively alter/influence he amount of weight that is actually put on. This will in effect alter the amount of work that one person has to put in with their own personal weight gain, compared to another.
I personally live with someone who has stuck rigorously to various diets over long periods. I can say that the majority, including CICO, have unfortunately had absolutely no effect on their weight gain. I know for a fact that this person eats much, much, less than a number of other people who are able to eat large amounts and put on no weight, and in many cases they will skip certain meals entirely (They often skip both breakfast and lunch, and eat an extremely light dinner about 12 hours later in the day). They are also one of the healthiest eaters I know, as they have a number of conditions that in total mean that they cannot eat junk food, or most fatty foods, without suffering for a number of days.
I can say for a fact, unfortunately none of this has had an effect on their weight.
Yes, there are many, many conditions - including abnormal gut flora - that can prevent weight gain, but my point was about weight loss, which cannot be prevented by any disease given a caloric...
gut microbes that allow you to turn 11 calories into 5
Yes, there are many, many conditions - including abnormal gut flora - that can prevent weight gain, but my point was about weight loss, which cannot be prevented by any disease given a caloric intake below your body's daily expenditure. That's the argument behind CICO.
I know for a fact that this person eats much, much, less than a number of other people who are able to eat large amounts and put on no weight
Then those other people have higher caloric expenditure; i.e they burn more than they eat. We can both eat 10 cheeseburgers per day and you can lose weight while I gain. That doesn't contradict CICO.
in many cases they will skip certain meals entirely
When you eat has no bearing on weight gain or loss. It does effect other important things, like electrolyte levels, sleep patterns and so on but once again, the rules of thermodynamics don't change with time of day.
they cannot eat junk food, or most fatty foods, without suffering for a number of days.
This is also unrelated to weight changes. As long as you are getting above minimum levels of macro and micronutrients, your entire diet could be McDonalds and you could still lose weight as per CICO. It would have secondary effects on your cholesterol etc. but that's besides the point.
You're misunderstanding my point to such a degree, that to state it specifically and clearly enough for you to understand it would deplete energy that I do not have. TL;DR: The CICO point of view...
the rules of thermodynamics don't change with time of day.
You're misunderstanding my point to such a degree, that to state it specifically and clearly enough for you to understand it would deplete energy that I do not have.
TL;DR: The CICO point of view is incredibly reductionist, because of the social implications that such a point of view has, and how that point of view is used by most people. To say that XYZ is "merely" a point of counting calories and ensuring you're taking less in than you are out, is to ignore a myriad of factors that influence how those calories are input, and used. Your reduction that I'm somehow "arguing against the laws of thermodynamics" is utterly ridiculous, and shows an almost childlike understanding of the full picture and of my argument.
EDIT:
One specific point I'd like to say here:
Yes, there are many, many conditions - including abnormal gut flora - that can prevent weight gain, but my point was about weight loss, which cannot be prevented by any disease given a caloric intake below your body's daily expenditure. That's the argument behind CICO.
I also, was talking about weight loss. Your statement is in direct contravention of evidence that shows the opposite - alterations in gut flora have been shown to cause you to put on weight despite no percieved change in diet or daily activity. (What I propose to be possible is that certain added bacteria produce usable sugars out of previously unusable 'inputs'. So you have added calorific input despite external measurements remaining the same. It's entirely likely, and (to cope with your utter literality) I am not proposing this as fact, merely a possibility that your calorie counting does not account for).
When you eat has no bearing on weight gain or loss.
[...]
As long as you are getting above minimum levels of macro and micronutrients, your entire diet could be McDonalds and you could still lose weight as per CICO.
Once again, you misunderstand. What I mean by this is that they are missing the meal entirely. Said person is very active (moreso than the people around them) and sometimes will subside on nothing but a banana and a couple of sugarless cups of tea a day. They are unable to eat rich foods full stop, and they do not tend to snack. They still do not lose weight. Under your system this is clearly impossible, yet I live with the person.
The author hits on a lot of points that should be common sense and what is taught about diets but unfortunately aren't. People think a diet works for all the wrong reasons, and we know enough about them nowadays that I don't understand why this isn't all common knowledge.
In the last 3 or so months I've managed to get my brother to lose 20 lbs. He's down to 270 from 290 and has been hovering around 270 for about 2 weeks now. He's gone through a variety of diets including weight watchers and nothing worked until I got him to focus on calories.
I myself have lost around 40lbs when I did my first diet (wake up call was at 190 for me) and over the course of a decade have slowly put most of it back on as muscle. Along the way I've dieted plenty of times.
About 90% of weight loss is counting calories. Want to lose weight? You need to decrease your intake, or increase your output. The problem with exercise (looking at increasing output) is that it often increases your hunger, which means intake will start to rise after a few weeks of an increase in output. Reducing intake, so long as it's not drastic, is typically the easiest way to make a serious change in calories.
The reason I say 90% is counting calories, is that the kind of food your consuming matters too. If you eat nothing but sugar, you're going to feel like shit, your insulin levels are going to go out of control, and you're going to have a hard time sticking to a diet. The other 10% comes from healthy food and healthy habits. Protein, for example, can promote fat loss even when caloric intake is higher when it's paired with resistance exercise. An adequate amount of healthy fats is necessary for mental health. Slow carbs (carbs paired with fiber, typically) can help with anaerobic exercise like lifting and sprinting. Fiber, protein, and fats all have feedback cycles which regulate Ghrelin levels, reducing hunger. Inadequate sleep causes people to eat more. All of these things and more make it easier or more difficult to stick to a caloric prescription and account for the last 10% or so of CICO.
Almost anything you do will work over two weeks. But from all the research we have we know that calorie counting and CICO do not work over two years.
CICO is an unhelpful simplification that makes no account of gut flora, genetics, bioavailability, satiety, psychology, etc etc.
Calorie counting is useless, which is why modern weightloss programmes (which are effective enough to be paid for by English NHS) don't bother with it at all.
I want to clarify here because you misread what I stated. He's been calorie counting and losing weight for 3 months. He's been stuck at around 270 for 2 weeks, because I think he needs to re-target and is cheating his counting.
I am 100% in agreement that calorie counting and CICO are not enough to be sustainable. But if someone manages to adhere, CICO does work over two weeks, two months, two years or two decades.
It's been working for me for over a decade and there are countless others with similar stories.
I also agree that CICO is an oversimplification. I was careful in how to word my statement because any time I mention it online, I get a fuck ton of people jumping down my throat.
Counting calories is not useless or unhelpful however. The problem with most modern weight loss programs, including the ones that were prescribed to my brother and did not work, is that people either don't understand how to adhere to them, or they simply cheat their way out of them because they don't understand how to limit their portions or they cheat their portions without recognizing that they are. Calorie counting keeps you honest.
This list really should be reorganized, as satiety and psychology are probably the biggest contributors to sustainability here.
I also find it interesting that you don't talk about macronutrients at all, since they are even bigger contributors to body composition than any of what you listed.
But there are very many more for who CICO just doesn't work. We know this, we have the research. Pushing CICO is encouraging people to waste time on a method that doesn't work.
We know "just stop" doesn't work for alcohol, drugs, smoking, gambling, etc etc. Why do we think it works for food?
You're confusing practicality with effectiveness. It is effective, period. It is not practical to tell a lot of people "just eat less". I agree entirely.
I'm sorry but I have to correct this. Everything you listed either only effects will power (satiety, psychology), or have very marginal effects on nutrient absorption rates (gut flora) and energy conversion efficiency (genetics).
None of these can violate the laws of thermodynamics. There is not a single person (or another animal) on earth who gained weight without taking more calories than their body spends. 99% of weight loss or gain is CICO. Everything else you can imagine fits within that 1%.
As somebody currently on a CICO diet, I don't believe DanBC was saying you can maintain or gain weight while taking in less than you burn. I interpreted their comment to mean that the diet itself is unsustainable for some, which it can be in the environment we live in. There's a serious dearth of healthy diet information available. When someone hears that all they have to do is eat less, they may try to stick to the same diet, just smaller, which won't work for many people.
There's also the fact that your metabolism adjusts as you lose weight, meaning you have fewer calories to work with, so you won't lose as much as you did before even with the same diet, and that's confusing and frustrating for many.
That's a complete and utter simplification. (Also just off the top of my head, this, this, and this)
Of course it's a simplification. It's a 2 line comment. None of your links invalidate CICO, which is fundemental thermodynamics. There is no magical gut microbe that will allow you to turn 10 ingested calories into 11.
But there are likely to be gut microbes that allow you to turn 11 calories into 5, or some other non-exaggerated reduction, which is where your point falls down.
If you actually read the links I posted, you will see that differences in gut flora massively alter/influence he amount of weight that is actually put on. This will in effect alter the amount of work that one person has to put in with their own personal weight gain, compared to another.
I personally live with someone who has stuck rigorously to various diets over long periods. I can say that the majority, including CICO, have unfortunately had absolutely no effect on their weight gain. I know for a fact that this person eats much, much, less than a number of other people who are able to eat large amounts and put on no weight, and in many cases they will skip certain meals entirely (They often skip both breakfast and lunch, and eat an extremely light dinner about 12 hours later in the day). They are also one of the healthiest eaters I know, as they have a number of conditions that in total mean that they cannot eat junk food, or most fatty foods, without suffering for a number of days.
I can say for a fact, unfortunately none of this has had an effect on their weight.
Yes, there are many, many conditions - including abnormal gut flora - that can prevent weight gain, but my point was about weight loss, which cannot be prevented by any disease given a caloric intake below your body's daily expenditure. That's the argument behind CICO.
Then those other people have higher caloric expenditure; i.e they burn more than they eat. We can both eat 10 cheeseburgers per day and you can lose weight while I gain. That doesn't contradict CICO.
When you eat has no bearing on weight gain or loss. It does effect other important things, like electrolyte levels, sleep patterns and so on but once again, the rules of thermodynamics don't change with time of day.
This is also unrelated to weight changes. As long as you are getting above minimum levels of macro and micronutrients, your entire diet could be McDonalds and you could still lose weight as per CICO. It would have secondary effects on your cholesterol etc. but that's besides the point.
You're misunderstanding my point to such a degree, that to state it specifically and clearly enough for you to understand it would deplete energy that I do not have.
TL;DR: The CICO point of view is incredibly reductionist, because of the social implications that such a point of view has, and how that point of view is used by most people. To say that XYZ is "merely" a point of counting calories and ensuring you're taking less in than you are out, is to ignore a myriad of factors that influence how those calories are input, and used. Your reduction that I'm somehow "arguing against the laws of thermodynamics" is utterly ridiculous, and shows an almost childlike understanding of the full picture and of my argument.
EDIT:
One specific point I'd like to say here:
I also, was talking about weight loss. Your statement is in direct contravention of evidence that shows the opposite - alterations in gut flora have been shown to cause you to put on weight despite no percieved change in diet or daily activity. (What I propose to be possible is that certain added bacteria produce usable sugars out of previously unusable 'inputs'. So you have added calorific input despite external measurements remaining the same. It's entirely likely, and (to cope with your utter literality) I am not proposing this as fact, merely a possibility that your calorie counting does not account for).
Once again, you misunderstand. What I mean by this is that they are missing the meal entirely. Said person is very active (moreso than the people around them) and sometimes will subside on nothing but a banana and a couple of sugarless cups of tea a day. They are unable to eat rich foods full stop, and they do not tend to snack. They still do not lose weight. Under your system this is clearly impossible, yet I live with the person.