Economist article: Death of the Calorie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people with any basic knowledge of diet and nutrition don't believe in CICO

Most people with any basic knowledge of thermodynamics and closed loop systems do…

Biology isn’t physics. No one who understands biology would say something as stupid as this. But many people can’t tell the difference.

IME most people who understand physics understand biology, and most people who understand biology do NOT understand physics.

Nope.

You’re right. Most people who claim to understand biology don’t actually understand biology either, and this thread is a perfect illustration.

But I am sure all of the overweight ladies of America would still pack on the pounds even in a famine, because… hormones? PCOS? Whatever, it’s not your fault you’re fat, that’s the key takeaway for those who “understand” biology :roll:

+1
It's basically a warped ideology, not much different than being a member of a political party. They have 1,000 excuses why you are fat or poor, and not a single one of those excuses has anything to do with your actions. That's why other countries think we're a joke.

I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.

Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.

+1

If you locked someone in a room for a month and gave them a set low calorie diet they would lose weight. Period. No one leaves survivor at the same weight or having gained weight.

Not arguing that there aren't external factors that make it difficult for people to do this in the real world or that metabolisms and hunger don't vary greatly, but just because people can't eat in a deficit doesn't mean that the principle of CICO are false.

Not true at all. Suppose I have 2000 calories a day now. And suppose I’m objectively obese. If I cut everything I eat in half, my calories fall from 2000 a day to 1000 a day. If in doing so, my blood glucose is still such that I produce insulin, I’m going to convert that glucose to fat cells. I won’t lose weight. It’s all about blood glucose.

NP, but I would be willing to bet any sum of money up to $1M that if you reduced your caloric intake to 1000 calories/day, you would lose a lot of weight.

+100

I swear people are looking for any excuse as to why they can’t lose weight.

I guess you didn’t read that article about The Biggest Loser contestants and what happened after?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.

Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.

So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.

*I doubt it.

Ooh, this sounds like one of those "motte and bailey" arguments I've heard so much about! Pepsi is unhealthy, therefore CICO is BS.

Literally no one is disputing that different foods have different impacts on your overall health.

You don't think that metabolic health might have a little something to do with weight gain (circular as the dynamic may be)? Ooookay...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.

Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.

So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.

*I doubt it.

Ooh, this sounds like one of those "motte and bailey" arguments I've heard so much about! Pepsi is unhealthy, therefore CICO is BS.

Literally no one is disputing that different foods have different impacts on your overall health.

You don't think that metabolic health might have a little something to do with weight gain (circular as the dynamic may be)? Ooookay...

I said no such thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.

Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.

So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.

*I doubt it.

I’m sorry, but how is this NOT still “just physics”? The input directly effects the output. Energy input is equalized with energy output in your example, so weight (which is what this thread is about) stabilizes.

Nutritional inputs effect individual system outputs (i.e. performance), so it tracks that a nutritionally terrible diet will result in poor performance leading to illness and disease. (Garbage in, garbage out).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot lose weight unless I eat fewer than 1500 calories a day. But my fitness tracker and all of the science says I am in a calorie deficit at 2500 calories a day. No weight loss at that calorie range. At least not this month. Last month I was able to lose weight eating more than that. Interesting huh? Almost like… something … other than calories in and out … is affecting my ability to lose weight. What could it be?

LOL 1) it is well known that fitness trackers vastly overestimate calories burned and 2) what “all of the science” are you referring to that claims that YOU are in a caloric deficit at 2500 calories per day?

[Anonymous]

People in this thread barking about calories in calories out should be reading Dr. Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist specializing in diabetes in children.

His latest book is called Metabolical - pick it up at the library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread barking about calories in calories out should be reading Dr. Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist specializing in diabetes in children.

His latest book is called Metabolical - pick it up at the library.

No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread barking about calories in calories out should be reading Dr. Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist specializing in diabetes in children.

His latest book is called Metabolical - pick it up at the library.

I’ll sum up all his books/talks for you: sugar is the devil.

There, saved you some time - I suggest you use it to count calories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.

Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.

So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.

*I doubt it.

Ooh, this sounds like one of those "motte and bailey" arguments I've heard so much about! Pepsi is unhealthy, therefore CICO is BS.

Literally no one is disputing that different foods have different impacts on your overall health.

Well considering that 1/3 (!) of adult Americans are pre-diabetic, https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/prediabetes.html, I’m afraid this is not so outlandish a hypothetical. Of course insulin-resistance in a third of your population is going to have some effect on obesity (and vice versa).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.

Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.

So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.

*I doubt it.

Ooh, this sounds like one of those "motte and bailey" arguments I've heard so much about! Pepsi is unhealthy, therefore CICO is BS.

Literally no one is disputing that different foods have different impacts on your overall health.

Well considering that 1/3 (!) of adult Americans are pre-diabetic, https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/prediabetes.html, I’m afraid this is not so outlandish a hypothetical. Of course insulin-resistance in a third of your population is going to have some effect on obesity (and vice versa).

And they got there by repeatedly dosing themselves with too much energy (calories) for their needs, and in high volumes of refined carbohydrates.

[Anonymous]

So, I can eat 6 lbs of potatoes per day and not gain weight? As long as they are not fried in a ton of oil, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness, so many “educated”, people in here failing to understand the simple scientific fact that not all bodies require the same number of calories to sustain a healthy weight. Those who are metabolically challenged have it so much harder than anyone wants to admit. Yes it take serious discipline to subsist on fewer than 1200 calories a day. Most people don’t need to do that. Those people need to sit down and be quiet. Some bodies do not like to lose weight.

Yes, you are so correct. Only overweight people understand that not all bodies require the same number of calories to sustain the healthy weight.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t ketodnagerous for your heart because of the saturated fat you eat so much of?

[Anonymous]

I eat a lot of sugar, fruit several times per day, pies on the weekend. Banana bread, etc. I am not overweight nor diabetic.
I love sugar and eat sugar. I also love savory dishes and eat a ton of them too.
Have good HDL, no other kind of cholesterol, and I am 120 lbs. At 52 and not short either.
I eat carbs, all the time too!
and I barely exercise, some pulls up and walks.
It is sad how many people are buying into some food cults bcs they need an excuse as to why they are overweight.

[Anonymous]

There needs to be more focus on not becoming overweight; on calorie counting when needed if you see weight creeping up and weighing yourself regularly as part of a healthy lifestyle. Once you are are 30+ lbs overweight it is too late, you are doomed to pretty much be overweight forever.

The average person is capable of small changes and small calorie deficits in order to shift weight 5-10 lbs if they notice gain. The average person isn’t capable of having a large calorie deficit for a prolonged time in order to lose huge amounts of weight.

I have a hard time understanding how people let themselves get so far overweight in the first place.