Economist article: Death of the Calorie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Great. Your body tolerates substantial blood glucose without producing insulin. Not all bodies do. I’m not entirely sure why this concept is so opaque to so many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree 100% with the first part of your statements. The focus should be on a healthy lifestyle and making adjustments as weight creeps up. Of course, for people to do that, they need time and space to make those adjustments. There are so many factors that influence lifestyle and habits, from job, financial, and family demands to sickness and injury, pregnancy and hormonal shifts, and on and on. Fatigue and sleep deprivation play a huge factor in weight gain, and that isn't recognized enough.

When I was 25, single without kids, and a gym rat, I lived a disciplined life, exercised constantly, and ate a highly restricted, low-calorie diet to maintain an ultraslim figure. As I got older, life simply got in the way of those habits, which, in truth, weren't all that healthy to begin with. My disciplined life wasn't focused on health at all; I was just afraid of being fat. The person I was at 25 would have said the same thing as you, wondering how someone could let themselves get to the point of obesity. The almost sixty-year-old me now understands that outside factors and physical issues that make life feel out of control can easily cause someone to get off-track with their eating and exercise, and once you slide into being overweight, it's an incredible struggle to take that weight off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Great. Your body tolerates substantial blood glucose without producing insulin. Not all bodies do. I’m not entirely sure why this concept is so opaque to so many.

I feel like most weight management beliefs are based on the idea “if it works for me, it must work exactly the same way for everybody.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree completely, so you did not notice at 160 lbs.? And nada at 200, and then still nothing at 300 lbs?

[Anonymous]

Bodies, even when in peak physical condition, are just so different. Different muscularity, weight distribution, bone density, frame size, etc. It's always seemed odd to me that CICO could be broadly applied as a consistent and enduring solution to such a stubborn problem when people are so different. Why does one cancer treatment work to cure the same cancer in one person but not the other?

For the most part, if I restrict calories and increase exercise, I'm going to lose weight. Most people will. There just has to be more nuance in effectively losing it and keeping it off. Also, I see too much emphasis in simply being thin and reducing the number on the scale. Who cares if you weigh 120 lbs at 52 and can eat whatever you want and barely exercise? Good luck when you fall and break your hip at 60. There needs to be more focus on key markers for overall health and wellness like mobility, maintaining muscle mass, what foods actually nourish your body (could look different for different people).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree 100% with the first part of your statements. The focus should be on a healthy lifestyle and making adjustments as weight creeps up. Of course, for people to do that, they need time and space to make those adjustments. There are so many factors that influence lifestyle and habits, from job, financial, and family demands to sickness and injury, pregnancy and hormonal shifts, and on and on. Fatigue and sleep deprivation play a huge factor in weight gain, and that isn't recognized enough.

When I was 25, single without kids, and a gym rat, I lived a disciplined life, exercised constantly, and ate a highly restricted, low-calorie diet to maintain an ultraslim figure. As I got older, life simply got in the way of those habits, which, in truth, weren't all that healthy to begin with. My disciplined life wasn't focused on health at all; I was just afraid of being fat. The person I was at 25 would have said the same thing as you, wondering how someone could let themselves get to the point of obesity. The almost sixty-year-old me now understands that outside factors and physical issues that make life feel out of control can easily cause someone to get off-track with their eating and exercise, and once you slide into being overweight, it's an incredible struggle to take that weight off.

I’m the PP and 40 and had three kids. Between having three kids, I didn’t go to the gym or do formal workouts at home at all for 8 years. I just couldn’t manage to with young kids. But what I did do was weigh myself regular and watch the scale. If I notice more than a couple pounds gain, I would cut back on portions and be a little more disciplined in food choices. If you make adjustments when changes in body weight are small- it isn’t that hard. But when you ignore and carry on with bad eating and lifestyle habits until a lot of weight has accumulated, then you have a big problem. But it doesn’t have to be like that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

I think it's because a lot of people who use the concept do so in a manner that suggests - if not necessarily saying so outright - that fat people are fat because they are more gluttonous than skinny people. I think there would be less resistance to the concept if advocates were more forthright about metabolisms being all over the map and that consumption amounts aren't a matter of morality or virtue.

It’s not all over the map by the orders of magnitude that people want to believe.

But it is. As a lifelong dieter currently maintaining close to goal, I was very interested in the scientific finding that my “CO” side of the equation is about 20-25% less than someone who has always been my weight. That’s quite a delta, especially given that I’m still 5-8 lbs overweight. I don’t even know how long this effect lasts because most people never kept the weight off long enough to find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.

I think it's because a lot of people who use the concept do so in a manner that suggests - if not necessarily saying so outright - that fat people are fat because they are more gluttonous than skinny people. I think there would be less resistance to the concept if advocates were more forthright about metabolisms being all over the map and that consumption amounts aren't a matter of morality or virtue.

It’s not all over the map by the orders of magnitude that people want to believe.

But it is. As a lifelong dieter currently maintaining close to goal, I was very interested in the scientific finding that my “CO” side of the equation is about 20-25% less than someone who has always been my weight. That’s quite a delta, especially given that I’m still 5-8 lbs overweight. I don’t even know how long this effect lasts because most people never kept the weight off long enough to find out.

What does this even mean? Calories out of course is complicated. A body at rest with fundamentally different muscle to fat ratio will have a calories out “calculation” that is possibly 20-25% higher. Beyond this, the person who has such a wildly different body composition is much more active anyways. Everything converges on an explanation. It’s not random.

Either way, you deal with the hand you are dealt like everything else in life. If you don’t need as much energy intake, figure how to not intake so much energy.

[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 literally are. That’s the entire definition of calories in, calories out. If, as you argue, the only thing that matters is caloric intake, then no, by your own definition it doesn’t matter what those calories are made of. You can’t have it both ways.

[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 literally are. That’s the entire definition of calories in, calories out. If, as you argue, the only thing that matters is caloric intake, then no, by your own definition it doesn’t matter what those calories are made of. You can’t have it both ways.

DP.

You do realize, don’t you, that weight and health, while related, are not the same?

The only thing that matters in terms of your weight is that you balance your own personal calories in / calories out equation. If you only need 1600 calories per day to maintain your weight, then it doesn’t matter (as far as your weight is concerned) if those calories are from twinkies or salmon.

Where those 1600 calories come from will of course impact your overall health. Just not your weight.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

[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 literally are. That’s the entire definition of calories in, calories out. If, as you argue, the only thing that matters is caloric intake, then no, by your own definition it doesn’t matter what those calories are made of. You can’t have it both ways.

The only posters attempting to side step the concept of too much energy intake are the ones trying to come up with elaborate reasons why they are overweight or obese. Reasons that are entirely independent of their own behavior.

Nobody sane believes a calorie unit of energy is “the same as consumed” regardless of its source.

Just like no sane person would throw up their hands and decide it’s not possible to control their body weight fate because the universe is conspiring against them as they tell the world they subsist off air and still manage to be obese. Yet here we are. And considering the main driver of weight gain - measurement of how much energy is being consumed - is useless somehow. Makes a ton of sense that theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 literally are. That’s the entire definition of calories in, calories out. If, as you argue, the only thing that matters is caloric intake, then no, by your own definition it doesn’t matter what those calories are made of. You can’t have it both ways.

The only posters attempting to side step the concept of too much energy intake are the ones trying to come up with elaborate reasons why they are overweight or obese. Reasons that are entirely independent of their own behavior.

Nobody sane believes a calorie unit of energy is “the same as consumed” regardless of its source.

Just like no sane person would throw up their hands and decide it’s not possible to control their body weight fate because the universe is conspiring against them as they tell the world they subsist off air and still manage to be obese. Yet here we are. And considering the main driver of weight gain - measurement of how much energy is being consumed - is useless somehow. Makes a ton of sense that theory.

The pretzel you’ve twisted yourself in to somehow keep insisting “IT’S CICO” but also “IT’S NOT CICO.” And while trying, it seems like?, to call me stupid and fat? I mean, that’s a real 1 pound served with your choice of hot mustard or cheese pretzel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 literally are. That’s the entire definition of calories in, calories out. If, as you argue, the only thing that matters is caloric intake, then no, by your own definition it doesn’t matter what those calories are made of. You can’t have it both ways.

The only posters attempting to side step the concept of too much energy intake are the ones trying to come up with elaborate reasons why they are overweight or obese. Reasons that are entirely independent of their own behavior.

Nobody sane believes a calorie unit of energy is “the same as consumed” regardless of its source.

Just like no sane person would throw up their hands and decide it’s not possible to control their body weight fate because the universe is conspiring against them as they tell the world they subsist off air and still manage to be obese. Yet here we are. And considering the main driver of weight gain - measurement of how much energy is being consumed - is useless somehow. Makes a ton of sense that theory.

The pretzel you’ve twisted yourself in to somehow keep insisting “IT’S CICO” but also “IT’S NOT CICO.” And while trying, it seems like?, to call me stupid and fat? I mean, that’s a real 1 pound served with your choice of hot mustard or cheese pretzel.

Lotwut?

Look. If you figure out how much energy to consume and in what form, you might not be fat. Or you can study this with all the others who are unwilling to accept the reality of their existence that might not allow eating so much.

All of that is possible. Or you can bemoan reality and act like it’s a galactic conspiracy inflicted on you like a pestilence. Your choice. Sounds miserable.

[Anonymous]

Dr William Li has books on calories and metabolism. Not all calories are the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 literally are. That’s the entire definition of calories in, calories out. If, as you argue, the only thing that matters is caloric intake, then no, by your own definition it doesn’t matter what those calories are made of. You can’t have it both ways.

The only posters attempting to side step the concept of too much energy intake are the ones trying to come up with elaborate reasons why they are overweight or obese. Reasons that are entirely independent of their own behavior.

Nobody sane believes a calorie unit of energy is “the same as consumed” regardless of its source.

Just like no sane person would throw up their hands and decide it’s not possible to control their body weight fate because the universe is conspiring against them as they tell the world they subsist off air and still manage to be obese. Yet here we are. And considering the main driver of weight gain - measurement of how much energy is being consumed - is useless somehow. Makes a ton of sense that theory.

The pretzel you’ve twisted yourself in to somehow keep insisting “IT’S CICO” but also “IT’S NOT CICO.” And while trying, it seems like?, to call me stupid and fat? I mean, that’s a real 1 pound served with your choice of hot mustard or cheese pretzel.

Lotwut?

Look. If you figure out how much energy to consume and in what form, you might not be fat. Or you can study this with all the others who are unwilling to accept the reality of their existence that might not allow eating so much.

All of that is possible. Or you can bemoan reality and act like it’s a galactic conspiracy inflicted on you like a pestilence. Your choice. Sounds miserable.

Why do you keep trying to attack me personally? You really don’t understand that in now saying that the type of calories do matter, you’re undercutting the entire premise of CICO.

And then you attack me like that makes you right.