4 ms·

I think the main problem is that many people simply say "I can't lose weight because of my metabolism." And this isn't true whatsoever. If instead they said "I

I think the main problem is that many people simply say "I can't lose weight because of my metabolism." And this isn't true whatsoever. If instead they said "I lose weight at a slower rate than normal people because of my metabolism," or perhaps "cheat days have an inordinate effect on me because of my metabolism," I might be more sympathetic. The playing field is definitely not level, but weight remains calories in / calories out.

caturopath 5y ago
Another charitable interpretation of a statement like that is, "When I eat so little food that I lose weight, I am not eating enough to nourish myself. I'm too hungry too much of the time, I have no energy, and I'm not even sure that I am getting what my body needs nutritionally."
- adamisom 5y ago
  That’s a good point. Yet, if you’re an overweight male, you can probably both lose weight and get adequate nutrition on 2000 cals/day. For females the balance may be harder.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Just a note - male vs female is almost irrelevant, the difference is almost entirely due to typical muscle mass differences.
  - caturopath 5y ago
    n.b., if you're a 5'9", slightly-overweight 50 year old man with an office job level of activity, you'll not be in a caloric deficit with 2000 Cal/day according to https://tdeecalculator.net/ https://tdeecalculator.net/ Actual nutrition -- getting the right micronutrients and such -- is the most questionable part of my interpretation, but it can still feel true to someone, they can still feel like their body just isn't getting what it's telling them it needs to feel right.
busyant 5y ago
> I think the main problem is that many people simply say "I can't lose weight because of my metabolism." And this isn't true whatsoever. If instead they said "I lose weight at a slower rate than normal people because of my metabolism," or perhaps "cheat days have an inordinate effect on me because of my metabolism," I agree that _many_ people can be delusional about their caloric intake (and their activity), but my suspicion is that calories-in/calories-out is messier than the simple thermodynamic argument.
- dqv 5y ago
  There are so many factors. Here's a great example: my husband has been focusing on weight loss for the past few months because he feels best at a certain weight. He had been using "zero-calorie" cooking spray, reasoning that "regular oil" had more calories. I warned him that it was advertising and that it's just regular oil that is 1/n (just checked and n=753) serving size to allow them to say it was 0 calories per serving. He didn't believe it. He plateaued with his weight loss and couldn't figure out how a 2500, 2500, 3500 diet was no longer giving him the expected results. Until he cut out the "zero-calorie" cooking spray. No one sprays that cooking spray for only 250ms.
  - busyant 5y ago
    Agreed. From what I understand, "0 calories" really means < 5 per "serving." And you're correct. Nobody sprays for 250 ms. For what it's worth... Part of my original comment is based on the fact that I have been _carefully_ monitoring my food intake AND activity for the past 18 months. I will tell you over that period, I wake up and weigh myself. Each morning, my scale says that I weigh between 166.6 and 168.0--without fail. I measure my food with a scale, but I will _also_ tell you that my caloric intake varies between 1800 and 2600 calories per day. My activity varies as well (I won't go into details). But my weight is PINNED to 167 pounds. Day after day after day. To me, this information just screams that my body is modulating its caloric intake based on what I eat and how active I am. Now, I know, this is "anecdata." But I can't be the only person who has observed this.
jjoonathan 5y ago
Yes, it's nonsensical to say that X can't be reduced when you "only" have control over a strict upper bound on X. The real problem is that eating less is HARD. I have the utmost sympathy for people who struggle to eat less. I think it's great that we have many strategies to eat less, I hope that we develop more strategies and more effective strategies, and I wish everyone luck in their search. I think it's actively counterproductive to say that "eat fewer calories" isn't the goal, though. Calories should be a first stop for measuring the efficacy of your strategies. Getting rid of your primary measuring stick is madness. If "CICO Sucks" claimants came armed with better measuring sticks, sure, they would have a point, but they generally don't, meaning their actual proposal is to discard the yardstick, which is madness. How do you hope to find an effective strategy if you can't measure the efficacy of your strategy? Good: "De-rate exercise calories by 50% due to compensation." Ok: "Count your calories." Bad: ... Really Bad: "CICO sucks, nobody knows anything, so buy my book and try my fad diet!"
- notJim 5y ago
  A lot of the time, CICO sucks people are using some other metric that, for them, ends up being basically a proxy for calories. I think similarly, when people totally change their diet (going low carb or keto or whatever), it basically amounts to a wholesale reevaluation. The end result of that will generally be eating less calories. To me, all of this is basically fine. If someone finds an effective way to trick themselves into eating fewer calories, that's still a win. I'm referring here to people who are themselves losing weight, not the hucksters.
nradov 5y ago
Most people who claim they can't lose weight due to a "slow metabolism" are just delusional and have never had a resting metabolic rate test. Those tests are totally safe and available for about $50. Anyone serious about losing weight should get tested occasionally just to establish a baseline. As weight drops off, daily calorie expenditure will also decline just because it takes energy to keep those extra fat deposits alive.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  I had one. My metabolism runs about 15% under what it should for my height, weight & age. Predictably, I struggle with losing weight as every calculator suggests that I eat about 15% more calories each day than I actually should. I do not have diabetes, my a1c is perfect, my resting heart rate is typically in the low 60s, the highest my blood pressure has ever been tested was 127/89 and the lowest has been 87/65 (pre-hypotensive). I guess what I am trying to say is that human metabolism is not standardized and does not fit into a single conceptual block. I would have to actively exercise for a 30 minutes a day or more to equal out the calories burned by someone with a normal metabolism who sat on their ass all day.

caturopath 5y ago

Another charitable interpretation of a statement like that is, "When I eat so little food that I lose weight, I am not eating enough to nourish myself. I'm too hungry too much of the time, I have no energy, and I'm not even sure that I am getting what my body needs nutritionally."

adamisom 5y ago
That’s a good point. Yet, if you’re an overweight male, you can probably both lose weight and get adequate nutrition on 2000 cals/day. For females the balance may be harder.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Just a note - male vs female is almost irrelevant, the difference is almost entirely due to typical muscle mass differences.
- caturopath 5y ago
  n.b., if you're a 5'9", slightly-overweight 50 year old man with an office job level of activity, you'll not be in a caloric deficit with 2000 Cal/day according to https://tdeecalculator.net/ https://tdeecalculator.net/ Actual nutrition -- getting the right micronutrients and such -- is the most questionable part of my interpretation, but it can still feel true to someone, they can still feel like their body just isn't getting what it's telling them it needs to feel right.

busyant 5y ago

> I think the main problem is that many people simply say "I can't lose weight because of my metabolism." And this isn't true whatsoever. If instead they said "I lose weight at a slower rate than normal people because of my metabolism," or perhaps "cheat days have an inordinate effect on me because of my metabolism," I agree that _many_ people can be delusional about their caloric intake (and their activity), but my suspicion is that calories-in/calories-out is messier than the simple thermodynamic argument.

dqv 5y ago
There are so many factors. Here's a great example: my husband has been focusing on weight loss for the past few months because he feels best at a certain weight. He had been using "zero-calorie" cooking spray, reasoning that "regular oil" had more calories. I warned him that it was advertising and that it's just regular oil that is 1/n (just checked and n=753) serving size to allow them to say it was 0 calories per serving. He didn't believe it. He plateaued with his weight loss and couldn't figure out how a 2500, 2500, 3500 diet was no longer giving him the expected results. Until he cut out the "zero-calorie" cooking spray. No one sprays that cooking spray for only 250ms.
- busyant 5y ago
  Agreed. From what I understand, "0 calories" really means < 5 per "serving." And you're correct. Nobody sprays for 250 ms. For what it's worth... Part of my original comment is based on the fact that I have been _carefully_ monitoring my food intake AND activity for the past 18 months. I will tell you over that period, I wake up and weigh myself. Each morning, my scale says that I weigh between 166.6 and 168.0--without fail. I measure my food with a scale, but I will _also_ tell you that my caloric intake varies between 1800 and 2600 calories per day. My activity varies as well (I won't go into details). But my weight is PINNED to 167 pounds. Day after day after day. To me, this information just screams that my body is modulating its caloric intake based on what I eat and how active I am. Now, I know, this is "anecdata." But I can't be the only person who has observed this.

jjoonathan 5y ago

Yes, it's nonsensical to say that X can't be reduced when you "only" have control over a strict upper bound on X. The real problem is that eating less is HARD. I have the utmost sympathy for people who struggle to eat less. I think it's great that we have many strategies to eat less, I hope that we develop more strategies and more effective strategies, and I wish everyone luck in their search. I think it's actively counterproductive to say that "eat fewer calories" isn't the goal, though. Calories should be a first stop for measuring the efficacy of your strategies. Getting rid of your primary measuring stick is madness. If "CICO Sucks" claimants came armed with better measuring sticks, sure, they would have a point, but they generally don't, meaning their actual proposal is to discard the yardstick, which is madness. How do you hope to find an effective strategy if you can't measure the efficacy of your strategy? Good: "De-rate exercise calories by 50% due to compensation." Ok: "Count your calories." Bad: ... Really Bad: "CICO sucks, nobody knows anything, so buy my book and try my fad diet!"

notJim 5y ago
A lot of the time, CICO sucks people are using some other metric that, for them, ends up being basically a proxy for calories. I think similarly, when people totally change their diet (going low carb or keto or whatever), it basically amounts to a wholesale reevaluation. The end result of that will generally be eating less calories. To me, all of this is basically fine. If someone finds an effective way to trick themselves into eating fewer calories, that's still a win. I'm referring here to people who are themselves losing weight, not the hucksters.

nradov 5y ago

Most people who claim they can't lose weight due to a "slow metabolism" are just delusional and have never had a resting metabolic rate test. Those tests are totally safe and available for about $50. Anyone serious about losing weight should get tested occasionally just to establish a baseline. As weight drops off, daily calorie expenditure will also decline just because it takes energy to keep those extra fat deposits alive.

BizarroLand 5y ago
I had one. My metabolism runs about 15% under what it should for my height, weight & age. Predictably, I struggle with losing weight as every calculator suggests that I eat about 15% more calories each day than I actually should. I do not have diabetes, my a1c is perfect, my resting heart rate is typically in the low 60s, the highest my blood pressure has ever been tested was 127/89 and the lowest has been 87/65 (pre-hypotensive). I guess what I am trying to say is that human metabolism is not standardized and does not fit into a single conceptual block. I would have to actively exercise for a 30 minutes a day or more to equal out the calories burned by someone with a normal metabolism who sat on their ass all day.