Anonymous
Post 09/06/2023 15:48     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:I'm ready for the death of the gospel of CICO. It has never been the full story, but science sure can move slowly.



Me too! It all breaks down when you compare 100 calories of gummy bears to 100 calories of an apple. The apple has fiber and will metabolize differently than the gummy bear.
Anonymous
Post 09/06/2023 14:08     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Of course it is CICO.


It is simple laws of thermodynamics.
Anonymous
Post 09/06/2023 09:42     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.


Because they assume overweight people are overeating unhealthy food, when that is not universally true. Some have inefficient or even ineffective metabolisms, and that is where we need better research. Not more diet fads.


In my personal experience, twice I went off hormonal birth control and gained 10+ lbs in a ridiculously short period of time (less than one month) while remaining active and eating normally. I have PCOS and depending on what my hormones are doing I am either easily at the low end of my weight range or trying so hard and staying stuck at the top. For women, or at least many of us, hormones play such a large role. I’m lucky in that the top of my weight range is not overweight bmi, but it’s all in my middle which is the most unhealthy place to store fat and impacts how I feel about my body.


+1 Amen to the bolded.
Anonymous
Post 09/06/2023 09:40     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Most people with any basic knowledge of diet and nutrition don't believe in CICO


Most people with any basic knowledge of thermodynamics and closed loop systems do…


Biology isn’t physics. No one who understands biology would say something as stupid as this. But many people can’t tell the difference.


IME most people who understand physics understand biology, and most people who understand biology do NOT understand physics.


Nope.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 21:13     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.


Because they assume overweight people are overeating unhealthy food, when that is not universally true. Some have inefficient or even ineffective metabolisms, and that is where we need better research. Not more diet fads.


In my personal experience, twice I went off hormonal birth control and gained 10+ lbs in a ridiculously short period of time (less than one month) while remaining active and eating normally. I have PCOS and depending on what my hormones are doing I am either easily at the low end of my weight range or trying so hard and staying stuck at the top. For women, or at least many of us, hormones play such a large role. I’m lucky in that the top of my weight range is not overweight bmi, but it’s all in my middle which is the most unhealthy place to store fat and impacts how I feel about my body.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 21:00     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it… did it make a sound?

If someone eats healthily and not too much, and doesn’t count their calories .. did they really lose weight?

Counting in and of itself is not necessary.

If I eat x y and z, and count it.. and lose weight.
If I eat x y and z, and don’t count it.. and lose weight.

It’s the same.

If you can find another path other than counting, you can still lose. It could be intuitive eating, staying away from sugar, never eating in front of a screen, eating food that takes longer to chew (as Noom teaches), etc etc. Choose methods you like, but it is not necessary for you to count.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 20:53     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The most weight I’ve lost in my life—the last year—I did not count a single thing. (Well, low to zero sugar, I did count that. But that’s not really counting.)

If the trick is “calories in calories out” that doesn’t mean you have to succeed by counting it


So how did you do it?

I did 0 to low sugar.
I did 0 to low bread.
I did 0 to .0001 soda.
I ate when my stomach growled a tiny bit (realized how often I used to eat when I don’t feel hungry)
I ate until a fullness scale of 4. (The feeling as though I couldn’t immediately go on a run)
I ate 3 meals a day. 0 to little snacking.

What I counted was easier to count.

If I exercised, it was the same stuff I did before but wasn’t losing weight. So I know the eating was the major contribution, whereas the exercise helped/keeps me heart healthy, and muscles stronger.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 20:20     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.


Because that insinuate that the choices people made in regards to their diet, portions, and lifestyle is what landed them into their weight predicament.


Yep. Some people don’t like to acknowledge they have actual control over what they put in their mouth.


Crazy talk!
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 20:08     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.


Because that insinuate that the choices people made in regards to their diet, portions, and lifestyle is what landed them into their weight predicament.


Yep. Some people don’t like to acknowledge they have actual control over what they put in their mouth.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 18:20     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.


Because they assume overweight people are overeating unhealthy food, when that is not universally true. Some have inefficient or even ineffective metabolisms, and that is where we need better research. Not more diet fads.


It may not be universally true, but it’s pretty easy to see in the data on percentage of diet comprised of processed food. It’s right there. Acting like this is some unsolvable mystery is intellectually disingenuous.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 17:42     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:The most weight I’ve lost in my life—the last year—I did not count a single thing. (Well, low to zero sugar, I did count that. But that’s not really counting.)

If the trick is “calories in calories out” that doesn’t mean you have to succeed by counting it


So how did you do it?
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 17:41     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this topic, why is CICO threatening to the posters in this thread? I mean, it's clearly true in some sense (it's literally tautological) even if there can be additional context.


Because they assume overweight people are overeating unhealthy food, when that is not universally true. Some have inefficient or even ineffective metabolisms, and that is where we need better research. Not more diet fads.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 17:37     Subject: Re:Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Well how about this?

CICO is true for most people. However, there are some individuals who don't metabolize their food intake as efficiently as most of us. They can input more food than average and still not gain weight. I happen to have known someone like that. She could eat, say, 4000 Cs or so every day and still keep her trim figure, even without spending much time exercising. She said she didn't know why this was so, but she had always been like that. Of course, she was the envy of every other woman in the office.

But most of us aren't like that. That's why people who succeed at losing weight and KEEPING IT OFF are much more likely to be those who accept the fact that they must keep track of calories, no matter what their source.


The opposite also exists. Some people’s bodies do not effectively use the calories they consume, no matter how few. Two people running a 5k do not burn the exact same amount of calories or store the same amount of fat in spite of the run. That is the variable at play that most people ignore. And it is a spectrum.
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 17:33     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is calories in, calories out. But people don't like to count because it's a huge pain to keep track off. We cook from scratch and I've counted calories before. I don't do it now because I can guesstimate, from all the calories-counting I did before.

Low carb, low sugar and/or low fat is an easy, more general way of... reducing calories. Carbs are very caloric. If you eat the fish and the broccoli but don't eat the rice on your plate, then that cuts maybe half the calories, and you don't even need to weigh and count! So that's why these methods are popular.

That's all. You do it the hard way or the easy way, but it's always calories in and calories out.





I completely disagree with you. I’ve always counted calories. While pregnant I ate the exact same amount of calories, gained 30lbs. After pregnancy I ate more but I was breastfeeding. Continued breastfeeding but ate the exact same amount and lost weight.

It’s about when you eat and I do think it’s about carbs not calories


Hahaha what. You can’t be serious
Anonymous
Post 09/05/2023 17:24     Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in


And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.


I wish more people understood that.

My sister and I grew up in the same house, eating the same foods. We are 18 months apart and even went to the same college and lived together later in life. CICO for me isn't the same for her. She's much bigger than me and always has been.


+1

Also, controlling calories in is mediated in part by things outside of a person's control, e.g., levels of leptin and ghrelin. The CICO crowd seem to assume that every aspect of CICO is under a person's control, and it's absolutely not.


It’s still under your control. It’s just more difficult for some people than others. Leptin and ghrelin levels don’t force you to eat more, even if they do make you want to eat more…

Again, CICO is individual, and the most control you have is over the CI part of the equation, so you have to experiment on yourself to determine what that number is FOR YOU.