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

[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.

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.

I think what the moral superiority people don’t factor is the subject of this thread is it “eating less”?

Calories in/out is about how many calories your body uptakes, not how many calories enter your mouth,

On these new drugs you can eat the same amount of calories and uptake less calories.

Our bodies do not uptake calories the same based on more factors that can be described in a simple post.

The simple fact is… no you don’t eat less necessarily… for some people. They just have a body now that uptakes and releases food in a healthier manner.

For other people’s they eat less because the food remains in their body longer and their blood sugar is normalized making them need to eat less to function.

[Anonymous]

My teenage dd eats a ton more than I do and is super thin. No she doesn’t purge. It’s definitely not CiCO or I would be as thin as she is

[Anonymous]

and muscle loss.

[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.

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.

I think what the moral superiority people don’t factor is the subject of this thread is it “eating less”?

Calories in/out is about how many calories your body uptakes, not how many calories enter your mouth,

On these new drugs you can eat the same amount of calories and uptake less calories.

Our bodies do not uptake calories the same based on more factors that can be described in a simple post.

The simple fact is… no you don’t eat less necessarily… for some people. They just have a body now that uptakes and releases food in a healthier manner.

For other people’s they eat less because the food remains in their body longer and their blood sugar is normalized making them need to eat less to function.

That's a good way of describing it. Yes, at its most fundamental level, it's CICO. While CI is easily quantifiable, CO is not and varies greatly from person to person with body chemistry. These medications help optimize the uptake as you describe it (i.e., the CO), while simultaneously lessening how much CI will satiate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think what the moral superiority people don’t factor is the subject of this thread is it “eating less”?

Calories in/out is about how many calories your body uptakes, not how many calories enter your mouth,

On these new drugs you can eat the same amount of calories and uptake less calories.

Our bodies do not uptake calories the same based on more factors that can be described in a simple post.

The simple fact is… no you don’t eat less necessarily… for some people. They just have a body now that uptakes and releases food in a healthier manner.

For other people’s they eat less because the food remains in their body longer and their blood sugar is normalized making them need to eat less to function.

That's a good way of describing it. Yes, at its most fundamental level, it's CICO. While CI is easily quantifiable, CO is not and varies greatly from person to person with body chemistry. These medications help optimize the uptake as you describe it (i.e., the CO), while simultaneously lessening how much CI will satiate.

Actually CI is not easily quantifiable, the drugs also controls CI, CI is not how much you eat it’s how much is absorbed.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s the calories.

I moved to an East Asian country almost two weeks ago and don’t have my kitchen set up yet, so have been eating exclusively at the local outdoor hawkers. The traditional food on offer is much lower in calories. I’ve lost 6 pounds without trying. And I had accepted those extra 5 or 6 pounds as permanent when I turned 40. None of the other women in my age group here are overweight, either, and they are eating the same filling, low calorie things.

When I go back to the US I will gain back my 6 pounds of fluff, I am sure. It’s hard to feel satisfied with the foods at home and I eat more calories, even though it is mostly healthy foods.

So Wegovy, move somewhere you are forced to eat at less calories, or develop the self-discipline I never had: all reduce calories and have the same result. It isn’t magic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My teenage dd eats a ton more than I do and is super thin. No she doesn’t purge. It’s definitely not CiCO or I would be as thin as she is

No, you wouldn't. Your assumption is that you, a middle aged woman, have the same energy expenditure and metabolism as a teenager. CICO takes metabolism and energy expenditure into account.

If we could, with 100% accuracy, determine someone's energy expenditure and that was the same every day for 2 people and they ate the same calories as that number they would weigh the same and if they ate that number they would not lose or gain weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My teenage dd eats a ton more than I do and is super thin. No she doesn’t purge. It’s definitely not CiCO or I would be as thin as she is

No, you wouldn't. Your assumption is that you, a middle aged woman, have the same energy expenditure and metabolism as a teenager. CICO takes metabolism and energy expenditure into account.

If we could, with 100% accuracy, determine someone's energy expenditure and that was the same every day for 2 people and they ate the same calories as that number they would weigh the same and if they ate that number they would not lose or gain weight.

OK well then, “CICO” doesn’t seem like a particularly useful metric!

[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.

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.

I think what the moral superiority people don’t factor is the subject of this thread is it “eating less”?

Calories in/out is about how many calories your body uptakes, not how many calories enter your mouth,

On these new drugs you can eat the same amount of calories and uptake less calories.

Our bodies do not uptake calories the same based on more factors that can be described in a simple post.

The simple fact is… no you don’t eat less necessarily… for some people. They just have a body now that uptakes and releases food in a healthier manner.

For other people’s they eat less because the food remains in their body longer and their blood sugar is normalized making them need to eat less to function.

This is actually the opposite of what CICO is. CICO says all that matters is how many calories you eat, not what kind or how much you "uptake". This is why CICO proponents say that low carb/ low fat/ high protein/ high fiber is all noise, the only thing that matters for weight loss is calories. You're trying to bridge a gap by making CICO mean "it's not just about the calories" but there's a real disagreement here. Calories are not all that matters, and in any event calories can only be counted at the point of consumption for the purposes of CICO, not at the stage where your body decides which ones to process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s the calories.

I moved to an East Asian country almost two weeks ago and don’t have my kitchen set up yet, so have been eating exclusively at the local outdoor hawkers. The traditional food on offer is much lower in calories. I’ve lost 6 pounds without trying. And I had accepted those extra 5 or 6 pounds as permanent when I turned 40. None of the other women in my age group here are overweight, either, and they are eating the same filling, low calorie things.

When I go back to the US I will gain back my 6 pounds of fluff, I am sure. It’s hard to feel satisfied with the foods at home and I eat more calories, even though it is mostly healthy foods.

So Wegovy, move somewhere you are forced to eat at less calories, or develop the self-discipline I never had: all reduce calories and have the same result. It isn’t magic.

No one said it was magic. Quite the opposite. There's more to it than "forced to eat at less calories". This is the point you and other ignorant people refuse to acknowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the eating fewer calories.

You have not really been eating this way for a decade. If you were you wouldn’t need medication.

Wrong. I had insulin resistance that was reversed with these drugs. There are days I eat way less than I have in the past, but over the course of a week, my calorie intake hasn't changed.

This is the main answer. Someone posted on reddit that they meticulously logged every single calorie consumed and from what and then duplicated the diet after beginning the meds and the meds caused weight loss. Insulin resistance has been the issue for many and that is fixed on this drug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s the calories.

I moved to an East Asian country almost two weeks ago and don’t have my kitchen set up yet, so have been eating exclusively at the local outdoor hawkers. The traditional food on offer is much lower in calories. I’ve lost 6 pounds without trying. And I had accepted those extra 5 or 6 pounds as permanent when I turned 40. None of the other women in my age group here are overweight, either, and they are eating the same filling, low calorie things.

When I go back to the US I will gain back my 6 pounds of fluff, I am sure. It’s hard to feel satisfied with the foods at home and I eat more calories, even though it is mostly healthy foods.

So Wegovy, move somewhere you are forced to eat at less calories, or develop the self-discipline I never had: all reduce calories and have the same result. It isn’t magic.

If you eat 1500 calories in French fries vs 1500 calories in hard boiled eggs every day … you won’t weight the same after 10 days.

So no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think what the moral superiority people don’t factor is the subject of this thread is it “eating less”?

Calories in/out is about how many calories your body uptakes, not how many calories enter your mouth,

On these new drugs you can eat the same amount of calories and uptake less calories.

Our bodies do not uptake calories the same based on more factors that can be described in a simple post.

The simple fact is… no you don’t eat less necessarily… for some people. They just have a body now that uptakes and releases food in a healthier manner.

For other people’s they eat less because the food remains in their body longer and their blood sugar is normalized making them need to eat less to function.

This is actually the opposite of what CICO is. CICO says all that matters is how many calories you eat, not what kind or how much you "uptake". This is why CICO proponents say that low carb/ low fat/ high protein/ high fiber is all noise, the only thing that matters for weight loss is calories. You're trying to bridge a gap by making CICO mean "it's not just about the calories" but there's a real disagreement here. Calories are not all that matters, and in any event calories can only be counted at the point of consumption for the purposes of CICO, not at the stage where your body decides which ones to process.

You are categorically incorrect and if you’re too ignorant to understand science vs what vogue magazine tells you I can’t help you.

High fiber calories are mostly pooped out less uptake.

Almond butter uptakes more calories than almonds even if you intake the same calories.

You don’t even understand basic bodily functions let alone the complexity of pancreases, insulin and bowel movements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think what the moral superiority people don’t factor is the subject of this thread is it “eating less”?

Calories in/out is about how many calories your body uptakes, not how many calories enter your mouth,

On these new drugs you can eat the same amount of calories and uptake less calories.

Our bodies do not uptake calories the same based on more factors that can be described in a simple post.

The simple fact is… no you don’t eat less necessarily… for some people. They just have a body now that uptakes and releases food in a healthier manner.

For other people’s they eat less because the food remains in their body longer and their blood sugar is normalized making them need to eat less to function.

This is actually the opposite of what CICO is. CICO says all that matters is how many calories you eat, not what kind or how much you "uptake". This is why CICO proponents say that low carb/ low fat/ high protein/ high fiber is all noise, the only thing that matters for weight loss is calories. You're trying to bridge a gap by making CICO mean "it's not just about the calories" but there's a real disagreement here. Calories are not all that matters, and in any event calories can only be counted at the point of consumption for the purposes of CICO, not at the stage where your body decides which ones to process.

You are categorically incorrect and if you’re too ignorant to understand science vs what vogue magazine tells you I can’t help you.

High fiber calories are mostly pooped out less uptake.

Almond butter uptakes more calories than almonds even if you intake the same calories.

You don’t even understand basic bodily functions let alone the complexity of pancreases, insulin and bowel movements.

No you are wrong. High fiber foods have fewer calories per volume because insoluble fiber is not caloric at all. Not because the calories that exist in insoluble fiber are pooped out. You can call names but you're the one that is mistaken, and in any event you're arguing against the wrong thing anyway - I'm not a CICO proponent I'm just pointing out to PP that you cannot bridge the gap between CICO and the proven effects of semaglutide by pretending that CICO means something other than CICO.

[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.