5 ms·

The reason that it isn't helpful, despite you're peer reviewed, laboratory evidence cited on MyFitnessPal postings, is that the causal mechanism that common sen

by JPKab 11y ago

The reason that it isn't helpful, despite you're peer reviewed, laboratory evidence cited on MyFitnessPal postings, is that the causal mechanism that common sense derives from this is completely incorrect. People aren't fat because they eat too much. People (and mammals) eat too much because their fat cells are being metabolically triggered by environmental and/or genetic factors to store fat at a higher than normal rate, diverting calories from operational needs, thus stimulating hunger. Bears don't go into hibernation because they've gotten fat. They get fat because their endocrine system begins gearing up for hibernation, and telling their fat cells to kick into overdrive growing. They will literally burn muscle while simultaneously gaining fat in this stage, like all hibernating mammals. The other side effect of growing fat cells is massive hunger, obviously. In humans, simple things like not eating sugar can help correct the endocrine factors which, for a lot of people, cause the fat cells to do this. However, genetic factors are going to be a different story. I say this as somebody who is fit and active, but have had running buddies who are fat. Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time. Without endocrine/genetic factors taken into account, reduction in calories in simply causes a mammalian body's system to reduce calories out by making the subject less energetic.

asdfgtyuiohj 11y ago
It's not even as simple as that. Calories in/calories out works if all you're calculating is how many calories are retained. It does not even tell you whether you will be putting on fat or not. Depending on your nutritional balance, timing of nutrient intake, hormonal balance, etc., you may be at a caloric deficit _and still put on fat_. Having a caloric deficit doesn't mean you're losing fat. You may be losing lean tissue while increasing fat, which can still lead to weight loss, but isn't what people usually are trying to achieve. Two people with the same caloric deficit/surplus may develop very differently over time while having the same levels of physical activity and caloric intake and 'output'.
Almaviva 11y ago
If we reduce to core principles, if you know your stuff, there's probably not much to disagree on. There are many factors affecting variables like appetite, subjective energy level, energy used through spontaneous movement, many hormones and so on. But, if you're an individual trying to decide what works and what doesn't in a field where the popular media is full of misinformation, I have a really hard time seeing the position that counting calories is _completely_ unhelpful. > "Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time." Yet, awareness of calories in vs calories out can be a way to plan your strategies, to know from the start whether a given strategy can even work or not, from the point of view of physics. Many people try things that this simple knowledge would rule out. A lifestyle change that does not result in a negative energy balance will not cause someone to lose weight, period. It's also a framework where you can discover what works for yourself. Does lowering carbs vs lowering fat affect your appetite at the same calorie level? How does burning an extra 500 calories through exercise make you feel vs lowering food intake by that amount? These are valuable things to know, again for an individual on a personal quest, not talking about making public policy or population science. Some people find an intuitive lifestyle change that successfully allows them to lower their body fat and keep it down. Bravo. Some people also succeed more mechanically with conscious calorie control. I have a hard time seeing the argument that both of these can't be useful and successful.
daemonk 11y ago
I don't know the research on this area very well. Does that mean for some people, their bodies will actually store the intake as fat preferentially even if the intake is a minimal amount for survival? You can actually die by eating a minimal amount of food because your body doesn't know to use it for energy and, instead, stores it as fat? Are there any studies on this phenomena?
- the8472 11y ago
  One thing that would mimic the symptoms you describe would be induced hypoglycemia. Diabetes medication can cause that. But that's basically a knock-on effect of an already present metabolic issue. For a healthy adult there shouldn't be any such issue.
sudoherethere 11y ago
I am not sure that genetics & weight have that a big effect on weight but a lot of people use it to justify their weight. I say this based on my observation and because today I find out I am at risk of obesity (based on this study), yet I slightly overweight. In my personal circle, I have a lot of overweight friends and like hanging out with them. Some of them are always talking about losing weight, 10K steps, and other diet fads. And some have given up, I guess. But sometimes it is difficult to eat/hangout with them. Overweight friends who want to lose weight will want to go to healthy restaurant. Then they will get footlong sub with every possible thing at counter. Oh and of course, diet soda and chips. How does it make any sense? I have to bite my lips to stay quiet. And then other overweight friends/arrogant normal-weight friends, who will only want to eat buffets. And make fun of you if you don't get second refill. Apparently, you have to eat a lot to proof you are a man.
- sbov 11y ago
  My biggest problem with food is people's obsession with talking about it. I can't help but feel that people make it such a huge deal about how much/little/what people eat that we're creating food issues in children that might otherwise not have it.
the8472 11y ago
> thus stimulating hunger. Then go hungry every now and then once you know the causal link. It's not like it's an irresistible force to which you have no choice but to succumb. > Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time. In my experience [sample size: 1] it's entirely possible to ignore hunger for quite some time. Additionally there are options such as adding filler ingredients that help with reaching satiety with fewer calories. Carbohydrates with a low glycemic index which get absorbed more slowly, thus avoiding a boom-bust cycle as far as your blood sugar levels are concerned are also something you can adjust. This also helps staving off the next hunger for more hours. It's certainly not an inevitable "I'm hungry, therefore I must eat and grow fat" link that can't be broken.
- JeremyNT 11y ago
  There are also plenty of factors which can lead to overeating which are not caused by the hunger response (i.e. craving food based on learned behaviors, peer pressure, desire for a particular taste, boredom, depression, etc). The grandparent's post seems highly suspect to me. Hunger no doubt plays a role in obesity among some individuals, but the ultimate determinant is how many calories are available to be processed versus how many are expended, regardless of why they have been ingested.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    When you take a hypothetical individual and lock them in a room and control their food you can give them a restricted calorie diet and they will lose weight. No-one credible denies that. What the people arguing against CICO are saying is that it's fucking stupid pointless advice to give to a population because while true it's not helpful. We know it's not helpful because we've been saying loud and clear it for many years and obesity rates have risen in almost every country every year. "We could cure cancer if we just kill all the cancer cells" is true but not helpful. "We could fix world hunger if hungry people just grew food" is true but not helpful.
    - JeremyNT 11y ago

by JPKab 11y ago

asdfgtyuiohj 11y ago

It's not even as simple as that. Calories in/calories out works if all you're calculating is how many calories are retained. It does not even tell you whether you will be putting on fat or not. Depending on your nutritional balance, timing of nutrient intake, hormonal balance, etc., you may be at a caloric deficit _and still put on fat_. Having a caloric deficit doesn't mean you're losing fat. You may be losing lean tissue while increasing fat, which can still lead to weight loss, but isn't what people usually are trying to achieve. Two people with the same caloric deficit/surplus may develop very differently over time while having the same levels of physical activity and caloric intake and 'output'.

Almaviva 11y ago

If we reduce to core principles, if you know your stuff, there's probably not much to disagree on. There are many factors affecting variables like appetite, subjective energy level, energy used through spontaneous movement, many hormones and so on. But, if you're an individual trying to decide what works and what doesn't in a field where the popular media is full of misinformation, I have a really hard time seeing the position that counting calories is _completely_ unhelpful. > "Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time." Yet, awareness of calories in vs calories out can be a way to plan your strategies, to know from the start whether a given strategy can even work or not, from the point of view of physics. Many people try things that this simple knowledge would rule out. A lifestyle change that does not result in a negative energy balance will not cause someone to lose weight, period. It's also a framework where you can discover what works for yourself. Does lowering carbs vs lowering fat affect your appetite at the same calorie level? How does burning an extra 500 calories through exercise make you feel vs lowering food intake by that amount? These are valuable things to know, again for an individual on a personal quest, not talking about making public policy or population science. Some people find an intuitive lifestyle change that successfully allows them to lower their body fat and keep it down. Bravo. Some people also succeed more mechanically with conscious calorie control. I have a hard time seeing the argument that both of these can't be useful and successful.

daemonk 11y ago

I don't know the research on this area very well. Does that mean for some people, their bodies will actually store the intake as fat preferentially even if the intake is a minimal amount for survival? You can actually die by eating a minimal amount of food because your body doesn't know to use it for energy and, instead, stores it as fat? Are there any studies on this phenomena?

the8472 11y ago
One thing that would mimic the symptoms you describe would be induced hypoglycemia. Diabetes medication can cause that. But that's basically a knock-on effect of an already present metabolic issue. For a healthy adult there shouldn't be any such issue.

sudoherethere 11y ago

I am not sure that genetics & weight have that a big effect on weight but a lot of people use it to justify their weight. I say this based on my observation and because today I find out I am at risk of obesity (based on this study), yet I slightly overweight. In my personal circle, I have a lot of overweight friends and like hanging out with them. Some of them are always talking about losing weight, 10K steps, and other diet fads. And some have given up, I guess. But sometimes it is difficult to eat/hangout with them. Overweight friends who want to lose weight will want to go to healthy restaurant. Then they will get footlong sub with every possible thing at counter. Oh and of course, diet soda and chips. How does it make any sense? I have to bite my lips to stay quiet. And then other overweight friends/arrogant normal-weight friends, who will only want to eat buffets. And make fun of you if you don't get second refill. Apparently, you have to eat a lot to proof you are a man.

sbov 11y ago
My biggest problem with food is people's obsession with talking about it. I can't help but feel that people make it such a huge deal about how much/little/what people eat that we're creating food issues in children that might otherwise not have it.

the8472 11y ago

> thus stimulating hunger. Then go hungry every now and then once you know the causal link. It's not like it's an irresistible force to which you have no choice but to succumb. > Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time. In my experience [sample size: 1] it's entirely possible to ignore hunger for quite some time. Additionally there are options such as adding filler ingredients that help with reaching satiety with fewer calories. Carbohydrates with a low glycemic index which get absorbed more slowly, thus avoiding a boom-bust cycle as far as your blood sugar levels are concerned are also something you can adjust. This also helps staving off the next hunger for more hours. It's certainly not an inevitable "I'm hungry, therefore I must eat and grow fat" link that can't be broken.

JeremyNT 11y ago
There are also plenty of factors which can lead to overeating which are not caused by the hunger response (i.e. craving food based on learned behaviors, peer pressure, desire for a particular taste, boredom, depression, etc). The grandparent's post seems highly suspect to me. Hunger no doubt plays a role in obesity among some individuals, but the ultimate determinant is how many calories are available to be processed versus how many are expended, regardless of why they have been ingested.
- DanBC 11y ago
  When you take a hypothetical individual and lock them in a room and control their food you can give them a restricted calorie diet and they will lose weight. No-one credible denies that. What the people arguing against CICO are saying is that it's fucking stupid pointless advice to give to a population because while true it's not helpful. We know it's not helpful because we've been saying loud and clear it for many years and obesity rates have risen in almost every country every year. "We could cure cancer if we just kill all the cancer cells" is true but not helpful. "We could fix world hunger if hungry people just grew food" is true but not helpful.
  - JeremyNT 11y ago