Weight loss drugs—is it just eating less calories??

[Anonymous]

What a load of horse manure in this thread. It's impossible lose 11 lbs in a week unless it is all water. That'd be burning almost 40,000 calories in a week. That means not only would you have to eat ZERO food for an entire week, you'd have to burn 3,800 calories every single day of the week, which is the equivalent of a 45 intense weight lifting session plus an entire marathon everyday.

Sorry, this is basic physics and thermodynamics. Anyone claiming to lose 11 lbs in a week is full of S and lost only water weight through severe dehydration or ate no food every single day per week while running a marathon everyday. Horse S.

[Anonymous]

I think ultimately it is calories in and calories out. However, some bodies are just naturally more efficient than others and they need fewer calories to do the same things. So, some people have to eat more to get the same result as others who have more efficient bodies. Some bodies are savers and some are spenders. The savers tend to put on more fat and “save” up energy for when the times are lean. That type of body backfires when we are in a situation of continual overabundance. It is these types of bodies that will do well when the famines come.

[Anonymous]

The calorie in calorie out people’s minds are getting blown and realizing everything they believed is debunked and their heads are exploding.

🤯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's easy to lose weight without all the food noise. these meds seem to tamp down the food noise.

WTH does this mean? I keep hearing it? So food noise is thinking about food all the time, so eating more, so basically back to you are eating less calories.

Why does everyone try to mask this? Food noise = you think about food and then you eat it, right? I'm so confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

Inflammation also related to arthritis or organs and not necessarily the result of infection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

Yet a group of people were stranded and had all the meat they wanted to eat yet they died of starvation.

CICO does not work for some people, they would literally have to starve themselves to lose weight which is unhealthy.

You admit that someone can eat 1500 calories and not lose or gain, another 2300 calories, others it's 5000 calories which is very unhealthy so they need medical intervention to gain weight... so do you get that that threshold for some is 500 calories and they need medical intervention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's easy to lose weight without all the food noise. these meds seem to tamp down the food noise.

WTH does this mean? I keep hearing it? So food noise is thinking about food all the time, so eating more, so basically back to you are eating less calories.

Why does everyone try to mask this? Food noise = you think about food and then you eat it, right? I'm so confused.

It means they have managed to become addicted to refined garbage and don’t eat real food. So they are never eating like nature intended them to eat and never satisfied. Or they have some other mental issue going on that manifests in soothing through eating. Among a variety of other causes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

Actually CICO has be PROVEN in every inpatient weight loss study.

Also, when you look at photos of famine or concentration camps there are not fat people who have bodies resistant to weight loss. This is just a hard fact for fat people to believe, because they want to have something else to blame. That said, hormones control hunger. So if you have more of the type that make you hungry (or not full) you will eat more - more calories - and be fatter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's easy to lose weight without all the food noise. these meds seem to tamp down the food noise.

Are you eating rice crispies all the time or something. What the heck is “food noise”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's easy to lose weight without all the food noise. these meds seem to tamp down the food noise.

Are you eating rice crispies all the time or something. What the heck is “food noise”?

Doritos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

Actually CICO has be PROVEN in every inpatient weight loss study.

Also, when you look at photos of famine or concentration camps there are not fat people who have bodies resistant to weight loss. This is just a hard fact for fat people to believe, because they want to have something else to blame. That said, hormones control hunger. So if you have more of the type that make you hungry (or not full) you will eat more - more calories - and be fatter.

No one is saying calories don’t matter. NO ONE.

What’s being said is that science is discovering that it is more complicated than that, and not every human engine works the same. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to accept and I DEFINITELY DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone would be so against it. What is your purpose in fighting things that are backed by science, proved by evidence, and affirmed by the millions they are helping? What is your problem?

And most importantly, what makes you think that using F$%KING CONCENTRATION CAMP VICTIMS as an example does any good? The greatest tragedy of the 20th century is your diet plan? That is disgusting, and you should apologize for that immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

Yet a group of people were stranded and had all the meat they wanted to eat yet they died of starvation.

CICO does not work for some people, they would literally have to starve themselves to lose weight which is unhealthy.

You admit that someone can eat 1500 calories and not lose or gain, another 2300 calories, others it's 5000 calories which is very unhealthy so they need medical intervention to gain weight... so do you get that that threshold for some is 500 calories and they need medical intervention.

again, just because someone needs medical intervention to eat more or fewer calories does not mean CICO is wrong. because with the medical intervention the are able to lose or gain weight by eating less.

And I am not at all arguing against medical intervention or weight loss drugs-I'm on one! but I am not blind to the fact that i will lose weight because I am eating less and if I take the drugs and eat too much and override hunger cues i will not lose weight.

Now I get it, if you require few calories to survive, thus need very few calories to lose weight, that it is hard. it hard to feel hungry, it is hard to refrain from eating highly palatable foods, but when you do so you will lose weight. If I offered bet someone $100k that if I loved them in a room and gave then a controlled diet that they would lose weight they wouldn't take it because they know they would in fact lose weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's easy to lose weight without all the food noise. these meds seem to tamp down the food noise.

Are you eating rice crispies all the time or something. What the heck is “food noise”?

'

I think they just mean that they aren't constantly hungry and thinking about food.

[Anonymous]

I seriously don't get the vitriol here. Lots of yelling that fat people shouldn't be fat. They now have a safe and reliable tool that makes that more achievable than ever, but it's not enough. Because willpower or something.

The meds are a godsend just as statins, estrogen, etc are.