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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

I still don't get what you are not understanding.

I am not arguing that some breeds or people don't put more weight on eating the same food and calories as other. I fully understand that for all sorts of reasons people burn or store energy (calories as calories are just units of energy) differently. As unfair as it is, it means some people need more or less calories to gain or lose weight energy balance is still the same. But he way energy balance works is still the same.

If your car engine is running as you slowly add gas that gas will get burned. If you turn off the engine and stop adding gas the gas level stays the same. If you turn off the engine but still keep adding gas then you need a bigger tank to store that gas you are no longer using. The gas a Fiat needs vs the gas a semi need is different.


back to your sheep breeds- if you fed the big breeds sheep less food than they need to fatten up they wouldn't fatten up and may even lose weight.

Some sheep breeds put on more weight than others even when you feed the same amount and type of food. It's isn't just the feed.

Do you get that?

You really are dense.

I get that. Not all breeds have the same calorie requirements, makes total sense. Not all people have the same calorie requirement, even people who weigh the same.
If the big breeds were fed less then guess what they would eventually stop gaining weight. If you stopped feeding them they would also stop gaining weight.
just because A and B have different energy requirement/metabolism doesn't make CICO false.

No, PP, you are not getting it. But I think we are boring people, so carry on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

I still don't get what you are not understanding.

I am not arguing that some breeds or people don't put more weight on eating the same food and calories as other. I fully understand that for all sorts of reasons people burn or store energy (calories as calories are just units of energy) differently. As unfair as it is, it means some people need more or less calories to gain or lose weight energy balance is still the same. But he way energy balance works is still the same.

If your car engine is running as you slowly add gas that gas will get burned. If you turn off the engine and stop adding gas the gas level stays the same. If you turn off the engine but still keep adding gas then you need a bigger tank to store that gas you are no longer using. The gas a Fiat needs vs the gas a semi need is different.


back to your sheep breeds- if you fed the big breeds sheep less food than they need to fatten up they wouldn't fatten up and may even lose weight.

Nope. There is a ton more going on than rates of burning. A ton more than "some people should eat less." You have no idea. Research has just begun and already the vast misunderstandings of the human body are coming to light. Gut biome, hormones, neurological tone, etc. et. et. It all changes more than just how many calories you "need" based on how many you "use."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

I still don't get what you are not understanding.

I am not arguing that some breeds or people don't put more weight on eating the same food and calories as other. I fully understand that for all sorts of reasons people burn or store energy (calories as calories are just units of energy) differently. As unfair as it is, it means some people need more or less calories to gain or lose weight energy balance is still the same. But he way energy balance works is still the same.

If your car engine is running as you slowly add gas that gas will get burned. If you turn off the engine and stop adding gas the gas level stays the same. If you turn off the engine but still keep adding gas then you need a bigger tank to store that gas you are no longer using. The gas a Fiat needs vs the gas a semi need is different.


back to your sheep breeds- if you fed the big breeds sheep less food than they need to fatten up they wouldn't fatten up and may even lose weight.

Some sheep breeds put on more weight than others even when you feed the same amount and type of food. It's isn't just the feed.

Do you get that?

You really are dense.

I get that. Not all breeds have the same calorie requirements, makes total sense. Not all people have the same calorie requirement, even people who weigh the same.
If the big breeds were fed less then guess what they would eventually stop gaining weight. If you stopped feeding them they would also stop gaining weight.
just because A and B have different energy requirement/metabolism doesn't make CICO false.

DP - in addition to being a rude person who resorts to ad hominem attacks instead of responding with facts or data, you are entirely misrepresenting the other side's points.

No one is making any claim that CICO is "false". NO ONE. So stop saying they are.

What they are saying is that recent research and the demonstrated effectiveness of these drugs are proving it is far more complex than simply CICO.

Are you also the guy who brought up the concentration camp example?

[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.

Because “CICO” is obviously way too simplistic if metabolism can vary so much that one person loses weight on 2500 calories but the other person has to go down to 1200 calories to lose the same weight. Or you start to gain weight on the same amount of calories that never caused you to gain before. Telling people “just eat 900 calories/day” is not a realistic approach; it’s functionally impossible for most people.

I’m not sure how Wegovy etc work, but I know that differing metabolisms absolutely impact weight loss such that people making exactly the same efforts will have very different results.

Anyone who had taken a medication like an SSRI that makes your weight almost instantly go up with no change in diet can tell you that something is going on far beyond “CICO.”

[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”?

Food noise is a term that keeps being thrown out but my understanding is these drugs target a hormone imbalance common in obese people where their cells send constant hunger signals even when food is not needed. There are actual hormonal differences in people who are overweight vs. those who are not which make it extremely difficult to lose weight. If you can control that signal with medication then you aren't perpetually being tortured by feeling like you must eat.

[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.

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.

It's because framing body size as something that is 1) simple and 2) tied to personal willpower, makes the people who are naturally more inclined to thinness feel morally superior. It's very, very hard to raise a person their entire life being praised for their self control and moral superiority and then try to tell them "oh, nevermind, it turns out that without your input your body produces less leptin than other people's bodies so you basically lucked out". They will fight to the death to hang on to the sense of superiority that being thinner than *those* people gives them, because they've tied it to their sense of self.

This is the same reason they will brag about being "health conscious" for wearing a size 4-8 even though they work out maybe once a week, but then heap scorn on a triathlete that wears a size 14. It's all about self-perception, and in particular the right to think of themselves as better than the out group.

This is such a clear statement, thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

I still don't get what you are not understanding.

I am not arguing that some breeds or people don't put more weight on eating the same food and calories as other. I fully understand that for all sorts of reasons people burn or store energy (calories as calories are just units of energy) differently. As unfair as it is, it means some people need more or less calories to gain or lose weight energy balance is still the same. But he way energy balance works is still the same.

If your car engine is running as you slowly add gas that gas will get burned. If you turn off the engine and stop adding gas the gas level stays the same. If you turn off the engine but still keep adding gas then you need a bigger tank to store that gas you are no longer using. The gas a Fiat needs vs the gas a semi need is different.


back to your sheep breeds- if you fed the big breeds sheep less food than they need to fatten up they wouldn't fatten up and may even lose weight.

Nope. There is a ton more going on than rates of burning. A ton more than "some people should eat less." You have no idea. Research has just begun and already the vast misunderstandings of the human body are coming to light. Gut biome, hormones, neurological tone, etc. et. et. It all changes more than just how many calories you "need" based on how many you "use."

+1000

But it isn't surprising that people on DCUM don't understand this. It isn't even surprising when doctors specializing in weight loss don't understand this. The research is happening though -- it'll be common knowledge soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Per the bmi chart, I am the exact weight I should be, but I too have food noise. So it can happen to anyone. But I also workout euphoria, where I get a rush from doing an intense workout. Luckily the two balance me out, otherwise I could be extremely overweight or anorexic.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Calories in/calories out. You’re now eating less than your body burns in a day hence the weight lose. The only people who struggle to understand this are those who refuse to acknowledge that calories in/calories out is how weight loss works 100% of the time. (not directed at you just so many people argue that CICO is not accurate for them because they lean on that as an excuse for why they don’t lose weight)

[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.

Because “CICO” is obviously way too simplistic if metabolism can vary so much that one person loses weight on 2500 calories but the other person has to go down to 1200 calories to lose the same weight. Or you start to gain weight on the same amount of calories that never caused you to gain before. Telling people “just eat 900 calories/day” is not a realistic approach; it’s functionally impossible for most people.

I’m not sure how Wegovy etc work, but I know that differing metabolisms absolutely impact weight loss such that people making exactly the same efforts will have very different results.

Anyone who had taken a medication like an SSRI that makes your weight almost instantly go up with no change in diet can tell you that something is going on far beyond “CICO.”

Have you read the studies that show metabolism does not decrease significantly until your 70’s? Metabolism is not an excuse. Also, your metabolism goes down if you are overweight/obese and increases with weight loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Calories in/calories out. You’re now eating less than your body burns in a day hence the weight lose. The only people who struggle to understand this are those who refuse to acknowledge that calories in/calories out is how weight loss works 100% of the time. (not directed at you just so many people argue that CICO is not accurate for them because they lean on that as an excuse for why they don’t lose weight)

Explain why I gain weight net 900 calories/day one week and lose weight net 1200 calories/day the next week.

[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.

Because “CICO” is obviously way too simplistic if metabolism can vary so much that one person loses weight on 2500 calories but the other person has to go down to 1200 calories to lose the same weight. Or you start to gain weight on the same amount of calories that never caused you to gain before. Telling people “just eat 900 calories/day” is not a realistic approach; it’s functionally impossible for most people.

I’m not sure how Wegovy etc work, but I know that differing metabolisms absolutely impact weight loss such that people making exactly the same efforts will have very different results.

Anyone who had taken a medication like an SSRI that makes your weight almost instantly go up with no change in diet can tell you that something is going on far beyond “CICO.”

Before psych meds I didn't weigh enough to give blood and I'm 5'7". Would have had a great modeling career if I weren't just a tiny bit too short. Then came the psych meds -- and over the years I've gained just shy of 100 pounds. People are constantly commenting on how little I eat. I've never eaten much. But my weight sure has changed.

On Wegovy now on the advice of my doctor. We'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Calories in/calories out. You’re now eating less than your body burns in a day hence the weight lose. The only people who struggle to understand this are those who refuse to acknowledge that calories in/calories out is how weight loss works 100% of the time. (not directed at you just so many people argue that CICO is not accurate for them because they lean on that as an excuse for why they don’t lose weight)

Yes, so simple. All the fat people are fat because they just fail to understand the math. 🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because “CICO” is obviously way too simplistic if metabolism can vary so much that one person loses weight on 2500 calories but the other person has to go down to 1200 calories to lose the same weight. Or you start to gain weight on the same amount of calories that never caused you to gain before. Telling people “just eat 900 calories/day” is not a realistic approach; it’s functionally impossible for most people.

I’m not sure how Wegovy etc work, but I know that differing metabolisms absolutely impact weight loss such that people making exactly the same efforts will have very different results.

Anyone who had taken a medication like an SSRI that makes your weight almost instantly go up with no change in diet can tell you that something is going on far beyond “CICO.”

Before psych meds I didn't weigh enough to give blood and I'm 5'7". Would have had a great modeling career if I weren't just a tiny bit too short. Then came the psych meds -- and over the years I've gained just shy of 100 pounds. People are constantly commenting on how little I eat. I've never eaten much. But my weight sure has changed.

On Wegovy now on the advice of my doctor. We'll see.

Also prednisone and chemo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because “CICO” is obviously way too simplistic if metabolism can vary so much that one person loses weight on 2500 calories but the other person has to go down to 1200 calories to lose the same weight. Or you start to gain weight on the same amount of calories that never caused you to gain before. Telling people “just eat 900 calories/day” is not a realistic approach; it’s functionally impossible for most people.

I’m not sure how Wegovy etc work, but I know that differing metabolisms absolutely impact weight loss such that people making exactly the same efforts will have very different results.

Anyone who had taken a medication like an SSRI that makes your weight almost instantly go up with no change in diet can tell you that something is going on far beyond “CICO.”

Have you read the studies that show metabolism does not decrease significantly until your 70’s? Metabolism is not an excuse. Also, your metabolism goes down if you are overweight/obese and increases with weight loss.

Did you read what I wrote on SSRIs? Your prejudice is clear - you see this as a moral issue of willpower and are offended that medication does what you think will power should do.

Anyway, you’re wrong about the “studies.” For women, the association between age, hormones and weight gain is well established.