Anonymous wrote:From reading through this thread it seems there are three possibilities being suggested why semiglutides make you lose weight.

1 You eat fewer calories on them.

2 Your body absorbs fewer calories from the food you eat.

3 Your body burns more calories when you take them.

Or perhaps it is a combination of these things.

What does the science say?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well then I feel like it’s worthless to judge people then, if we do take metabolism into account, because most days I walk many more steps per day than my dd does as part of my job and some weeks I work out a lot more than she does and yet she continues to be a stick when I’m decidedly not. So why do we talk about this as a calculation?

Because CICO people say…

It’s how much you eat

Then we say no it’s how much your body uptakes

Then they say no it’s not

Then you say you eat the same as your daughter and she’s thin

Then they say it’s her caloric uptake is different due to metabolism

And then we say exactly it’s not how much you eat

Then they say no it’s how much you eat

They contradict themselves because they lack basic common sense, knowledge of biology and are gonna die on this hill no matter how wrong.

Are you purposely being obtuse.

It’s uptake and intake and varies from person to person based on metabolism and activity. But it’s really pretty simple.

Your body needs energy. Food/calories are that energy. Eat same amt of energy you use stay there same. Eat more energy then you use to store that energy for later in the form of fat. Take in less energy than you need and your body burns fat to make up the difference.

Figuring out that balance can be hard. Being hungry is hard. Not saying fat loss is easy but the principles are.

If you go on these medication and still eat too much/override the fullness then you will not lose weight and could gain.

Are YOU purposely being obtuse?

Intake and uptake are very different.
Metabolism is calories out not uptake or intake.

Eating the same amount of food does not equal the same amount of energy day to day even with the same amount of energy expended.

There s no set amount of calories for a person to gain or lose weight,

I’ve actually had to deal with 2 family members who could not lose weight and more calories did not help. It not just calories in.. other things in your body matter… sleep, cortisol, gut health, hormones, bowel movements, etc.

It’s more complicated than eat more food or eat less food.

Many people n the drugs eat the same food and lose weight.

My family members went on drugs, ate less and gained weight.

Some people’s le go on SSRI’s, prednisone and chemo… don’t change their diet and gain weight

It’s way to complex for your intellect.

The desire to make all this as complicated as possible is just a way to eliminate any amount of personal responsibility and free agency over the human experience. It’s that simple.

None of these elaborate issues somehow existed just a few short decades ago.

Anonymous wrote:From reading through this thread it seems there are three possibilities being suggested why semiglutides make you lose weight.

1 You eat fewer calories on them.

2 Your body absorbs fewer calories from the food you eat.

3 Your body burns more calories when you take them.

Or perhaps it is a combination of these things.

What does the science say?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Food manufacturing also has something to do with it and may impact people differently. I went to India for work for a couple of months and ate ravenously...meats, vegetables, naan, curries, etc. I loved the food. By the time I returned home, I had lost 15 pounds and my clothes were fitting loosely. It's part of the phenomenon of why a crowd photo from the 70s looks so different than a crowd photo from the 2020s. Even many of the fit people in the modern-day photo are working hard, exercising, diligently tracking their diet, etc. to achieve what many of those in the 70s had natively.

Agree! I struggle to lose a pound here, counting macros, exercising, doing all the supposed right things and I go to Italy—eat all the pasta and wine and somehow lose weight. The fresh, unprocessed food is so much better. Even the wine doesn’t make me feel groggy the next day or sleep poorly.

So eat fresh unprocessed food here and walk more. JFC

It’s the diarrhea, but they won’t admit that.

And lol to there are no fat Italians.

What’s even better is the audacity to go out of the way to explain multiple instances of going to Italy to observe a phenomenon they attribute to fresh unprocessed food. Then as a wealthy person act like they cannot replicate the same thing here in the US, when in reality they are just lazy and like eating processed garage. These same people like to pretend they have the same experience as somebody in an inner city food dessert, and are quick to make some elaborate point about the “horrible US food system.”

You gonna die on your 10 lb hill. Gurl… 10lb? Are you even serious?

Are you planning to make any sense any time soon?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well then I feel like it’s worthless to judge people then, if we do take metabolism into account, because most days I walk many more steps per day than my dd does as part of my job and some weeks I work out a lot more than she does and yet she continues to be a stick when I’m decidedly not. So why do we talk about this as a calculation?

Because CICO people say…

It’s how much you eat

Then we say no it’s how much your body uptakes

Then they say no it’s not

Then you say you eat the same as your daughter and she’s thin

Then they say it’s her caloric uptake is different due to metabolism

And then we say exactly it’s not how much you eat

Then they say no it’s how much you eat

They contradict themselves because they lack basic common sense, knowledge of biology and are gonna die on this hill no matter how wrong.

Are you purposely being obtuse.

It’s uptake and intake and varies from person to person based on metabolism and activity. But it’s really pretty simple.

Your body needs energy. Food/calories are that energy. Eat same amt of energy you use stay there same. Eat more energy then you use to store that energy for later in the form of fat. Take in less energy than you need and your body burns fat to make up the difference.

Figuring out that balance can be hard. Being hungry is hard. Not saying fat loss is easy but the principles are.

If you go on these medication and still eat too much/override the fullness then you will not lose weight and could gain.

Are YOU purposely being obtuse?

Intake and uptake are very different.
Metabolism is calories out not uptake or intake.

Eating the same amount of food does not equal the same amount of energy day to day even with the same amount of energy expended.

There s no set amount of calories for a person to gain or lose weight,

I’ve actually had to deal with 2 family members who could not lose weight and more calories did not help. It not just calories in.. other things in your body matter… sleep, cortisol, gut health, hormones, bowel movements, etc.

It’s more complicated than eat more food or eat less food.

Many people n the drugs eat the same food and lose weight.

My family members went on drugs, ate less and gained weight.

Some people’s le go on SSRI’s, prednisone and chemo… don’t change their diet and gain weight

It’s way to complex for your intellect.

The desire to make all this as complicated as possible is just a way to eliminate any amount of personal responsibility and free agency over the human experience. It’s that simple. None of these elaborate issues somehow existed just a few short decades ago. Yet here we are. A sea change in biology. And a world where vegetables allegedly taste like plastic and cannot be eaten instead of garbage and the blueberries are going to kill you and also cannot be eaten because of pesticides, so just eat mountains of processed garbage instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Food manufacturing also has something to do with it and may impact people differently. I went to India for work for a couple of months and ate ravenously...meats, vegetables, naan, curries, etc. I loved the food. By the time I returned home, I had lost 15 pounds and my clothes were fitting loosely. It's part of the phenomenon of why a crowd photo from the 70s looks so different than a crowd photo from the 2020s. Even many of the fit people in the modern-day photo are working hard, exercising, diligently tracking their diet, etc. to achieve what many of those in the 70s had natively.

Agree! I struggle to lose a pound here, counting macros, exercising, doing all the supposed right things and I go to Italy—eat all the pasta and wine and somehow lose weight. The fresh, unprocessed food is so much better. Even the wine doesn’t make me feel groggy the next day or sleep poorly.

So eat fresh unprocessed food here and walk more. JFC

It’s the diarrhea, but they won’t admit that.

And lol to there are no fat Italians.

What’s even better is the audacity to go out of the way to explain multiple instances of going to Italy to observe a phenomenon they attribute to fresh unprocessed food. Then as a wealthy person act like they cannot replicate the same thing here in the US, when in reality they are just lazy and like eating processed garage. These same people like to pretend they have the same experience as somebody in an inner city food dessert, and are quick to make some elaborate point about the “horrible US food system.”

You gonna die on your 10 lb hill. Gurl… 10lb? Are you even serious?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Food manufacturing also has something to do with it and may impact people differently. I went to India for work for a couple of months and ate ravenously...meats, vegetables, naan, curries, etc. I loved the food. By the time I returned home, I had lost 15 pounds and my clothes were fitting loosely. It's part of the phenomenon of why a crowd photo from the 70s looks so different than a crowd photo from the 2020s. Even many of the fit people in the modern-day photo are working hard, exercising, diligently tracking their diet, etc. to achieve what many of those in the 70s had natively.

Agree! I struggle to lose a pound here, counting macros, exercising, doing all the supposed right things and I go to Italy—eat all the pasta and wine and somehow lose weight. The fresh, unprocessed food is so much better. Even the wine doesn’t make me feel groggy the next day or sleep poorly.

So eat fresh unprocessed food here and walk more. JFC

It’s the diarrhea, but they won’t admit that.

And lol to there are no fat Italians.

What’s even better is the audacity to go out of the way to explain multiple instances of going to Italy to observe a phenomenon they attribute to fresh unprocessed food. Then as a wealthy person act like they cannot replicate the same thing here in the US, when in reality they are just lazy and like eating processed garage. These same people like to pretend they have the same experience as somebody in an inner city food dessert, and are quick to make some elaborate point about the “horrible US food system.”