Economist article: Death of the Calorie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I never once said all calories are the same. And CICO as a concept does not rely on that as its entire premise, and you know that. You don't throw out the calorie as a unit of energy measure for food consumption just because there is a recognition that some calorie consumption is different than others.

Some people do want to throw it out as a general principle that guides an overall systematic equation of weight maintenance because they don't like the results.

What general guiding measure do you think endurance athletes use for in-race fueling to avoid blowing up and running out of glycogen / fuel? Perhaps it is the calorie? Also, the vast majority of athletes rely on sugar as that in-race fueling. But you know what they don't do? They don't sit in front of the TV and consume carb drink like normal Americans do with Soda and other junk. They only use it during efforts of a certain intensity and duration.

All athletes use the calorie and other macros as a metric to guide fueling generally, including overall diet guidance for weight maintenance. What do you think they are doing - totally winging it because the calorie simply doesn't matter?

In the end, the only reason why people are making this as complicated as possible is because they can't seem to figure out their own intake habits. Or, they know their habits should be and they are unwilling to do it. Take from that what you will. But acting like the calorie is "dead" and a useless measure is exceptionally stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, but yes, if all you eat every day is 1,000 calories of ice cream, you will lose a lot of weight.

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I am open to the idea that certain types of calories are more "filling" than others and so a diet focused on such food may require less self-control. I'm also open to the possibility that different people burn more or fewer calories doing the same activity. But regardless of how one gets there, a calorie deficit will result in weight loss, and a calorie surplus will result in weight gain.

This all seems really uncontroversial. Can you say with more specificity which of these statements you disagree with, and why?

[Anonymous]

Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

Our bodies don’t “want” to do anything. The system you need to overpower is not your own body but your environment, which you can do fairly easily with your own choices.

Yes, willpower is finite, so you need to take it out of the equation to the extent that you can. That can be as simple as not having junk food or snacks in the house, not stopping by the break room at work, making your own breakfast/coffee/lunch, etc.

Developing new habits is difficult, but the willpower and extraordinary vigilance required is relatively short-term if you are actually committed to making lifestyle changes.

It’s incredibly simple, not necessarily easy, but certainly within your control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

Our bodies don’t “want” to do anything. The system you need to overpower is not your own body but your environment, which you can do fairly easily with your own choices.

Yes, willpower is finite, so you need to take it out of the equation to the extent that you can. That can be as simple as not having junk food or snacks in the house, not stopping by the break room at work, making your own breakfast/coffee/lunch, etc.

Developing new habits is difficult, but the willpower and extraordinary vigilance required is relatively short-term if you are actually committed to making lifestyle changes.

It’s incredibly simple, not necessarily easy, but certainly within your control.

Yes, our bodies want to maintain our weight. I lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 5 years. I was hungry all day every day. When I could no longer tolerate the hunger and deprivation of eating only 1500 calories a day, and started eating according to my hunger cues again, I gained 50 back in a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

Our bodies don’t “want” to do anything. The system you need to overpower is not your own body but your environment, which you can do fairly easily with your own choices.

Yes, willpower is finite, so you need to take it out of the equation to the extent that you can. That can be as simple as not having junk food or snacks in the house, not stopping by the break room at work, making your own breakfast/coffee/lunch, etc.

Developing new habits is difficult, but the willpower and extraordinary vigilance required is relatively short-term if you are actually committed to making lifestyle changes.

It’s incredibly simple, not necessarily easy, but certainly within your control.

Yes, our bodies want to maintain our weight. I lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 5 years. I was hungry all day every day. When I could no longer tolerate the hunger and deprivation of eating only 1500 calories a day, and started eating according to my hunger cues again, I gained 50 back in a year.

What scientific evidence do you have for any of these theories about some sort of long term “body weight memory”?

So the story is you managed to control your intake for five years. Then, after five long years “the body” was lying in wait and finally struck. You started eating more non-calorie dense nutritious Whole Foods and gained 50 pounds back in a year? There are only 365 calendar days in a year. How did you manage to do that?

As for your theory that bodies want more in calories then out, that doesn’t make any sense. How do you explain how difficult it is to maintain weight while ultra running? Those bodies love calorie output and it’s a challenge replacing all that - especially when relying on real food and not junk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

The movement part is where you are wrong. Our bodies do want food and do want to have some fat, so anyone in a major calorie deficit will be hungry often. But they do not want to be sedentary. That’s a huge part of why so many people are overweight—for many people their most movement in a day is walking from their office to the car. That’s why when you can go to big walkable/bikable cities like NYC so few people are overweight. I promise you they’re not all eating low cal diets with pizza and bagels on every corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

Our bodies don’t “want” to do anything. The system you need to overpower is not your own body but your environment, which you can do fairly easily with your own choices.

Yes, willpower is finite, so you need to take it out of the equation to the extent that you can. That can be as simple as not having junk food or snacks in the house, not stopping by the break room at work, making your own breakfast/coffee/lunch, etc.

Developing new habits is difficult, but the willpower and extraordinary vigilance required is relatively short-term if you are actually committed to making lifestyle changes.

It’s incredibly simple, not necessarily easy, but certainly within your control.

Yes, our bodies want to maintain our weight. I lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 5 years. I was hungry all day every day. When I could no longer tolerate the hunger and deprivation of eating only 1500 calories a day, and started eating according to my hunger cues again, I gained 50 back in a year.

Why didn’t your body want to maintain your weight before you had 70 lbs of gained weight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

Our bodies don’t “want” to do anything. The system you need to overpower is not your own body but your environment, which you can do fairly easily with your own choices.

Yes, willpower is finite, so you need to take it out of the equation to the extent that you can. That can be as simple as not having junk food or snacks in the house, not stopping by the break room at work, making your own breakfast/coffee/lunch, etc.

Developing new habits is difficult, but the willpower and extraordinary vigilance required is relatively short-term if you are actually committed to making lifestyle changes.

It’s incredibly simple, not necessarily easy, but certainly within your control.

Yes, our bodies want to maintain our weight. I lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 5 years. I was hungry all day every day. When I could no longer tolerate the hunger and deprivation of eating only 1500 calories a day, and started eating according to my hunger cues again, I gained 50 back in a year.

Why didn’t your body want to maintain your weight before you had 70 lbs of gained weight?

🤔 💭 🧐

[Anonymous]

All calories are the same. That's the entire point of having a unit of measurement. The fact that weight loss and weight gain are complicated mean that it's *not* a simple matter of calories in, calories out because, again, the calorie is a basic unit of measurement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All calories are the same. That's the entire point of having a unit of measurement. The fact that weight loss and weight gain are complicated mean that it's *not* a simple matter of calories in, calories out because, again, the calorie is a basic unit of measurement.

Yea calories are a basic measure of unit. The complication is not in the unit of energy. What is complicated is it is high variable and non constant. People eat different foods of different quantities on a daily basis. It isn’t static. Neither is the energy burned. Lots of variables go into how much energy you burn daily and those are constantly changing, even day to day.

[Anonymous]

So many uniformed people here! Metabolism affects everything. Shockingly, when you lose weight, your metabolism actually SLOWS down. That is why people hit weight loss plateaus after initial weight loss. Also, it’s been shown that anyone who has ever been obese will have a resting metabolic rate slower than anyone who has not, even if they weigh the same (sucks!)

The only way to speed your metabolism up is to gain muscle mass—which is very hard to do if you aren’t feeding your body adequately, and you’re exercising. If you don’t build muscle, you’ll have to cut even more calories to lose weight. You can see the conundrum.

People are focused on the wrong things here. Metabolism is not an afterthought. Hacking it is an integral part of sustained weight loss. Eating MORE is sometimes the key to weight loss. It was for me, to a shocking degree. Thank god I’m not starving my body anymore. I can lose a pound a week on 2000 calories a day, if it includes adequate protein and I do some squats every day. Who knew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All calories are the same. That's the entire point of having a unit of measurement. The fact that weight loss and weight gain are complicated mean that it's *not* a simple matter of calories in, calories out because, again, the calorie is a basic unit of measurement.

It’s more like

(calories in - calories out) x metabolic rate = calories

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s as “simple” as calories in and calories out. But what the people screeching about refuse to acknowledge that the body will do everything it can to keep calories from going out and more calories coming in. Our bodies do not want to lose weight. While we might feel our best at a lower weight, are bodies aren’t programmed to lose weight and keep it off indefinitely. The vast majority of people do not have the Herculean willpower and constant vigilance to overpower a system that wants to get back up to the higher weight.

Our bodies don’t “want” to do anything. The system you need to overpower is not your own body but your environment, which you can do fairly easily with your own choices.

Yes, willpower is finite, so you need to take it out of the equation to the extent that you can. That can be as simple as not having junk food or snacks in the house, not stopping by the break room at work, making your own breakfast/coffee/lunch, etc.

Developing new habits is difficult, but the willpower and extraordinary vigilance required is relatively short-term if you are actually committed to making lifestyle changes.

It’s incredibly simple, not necessarily easy, but certainly within your control.

Yes, our bodies want to maintain our weight. I lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 5 years. I was hungry all day every day. When I could no longer tolerate the hunger and deprivation of eating only 1500 calories a day, and started eating according to my hunger cues again, I gained 50 back in a year.

Why didn’t your body want to maintain your weight before you had 70 lbs of gained weight?

I’m not the PP but in my case, illness, injury, and hormones. Birth control caused the first 15 lb of weight gain. Happens to many many people. Then Lyme disease from a tick bite, followed by rapid 30 lb weight gain. Didn’t help that it also happened right before I had my first child, which also changed EVERYTHING. And an TBI thrown in the mix probably didn’t help. Our bodies are complicated. Don’t be silly.

[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.

What’s it to you?