Anonymous
09/07/2023 17:45
Subject: Re:Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.
Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.
So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.
*I doubt it.
Ooh, this sounds like one of those "motte and bailey" arguments I've heard so much about! Pepsi is unhealthy, therefore CICO is BS.
Literally no one is disputing that different foods have different impacts on your overall health.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 17:44
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
So, which individual is demonstrating more personal responsibility:
Person 1 - Burns calories faster, does not pay attention to diet, eats a lot, exercises little, and remains thin.
Person 2 - Burns calories slower, pays attention to diet, restricts diet, exercises frequently, and becomes obese.
I say Person 2 is demonstrating more personal responsibility. Do you agree or do you disagree?
The CICO people just really really really REALLY hate fat people and nothing fat people do can ever overcome their shame in the eyes of CICO people. I truly hope some of these lovely know it alls experience one of the conditions that actually can cause weight gain sometimes leading to obesity. I really truly hope they do.
If we’re going to shut our eyes and ears to reality, we may as well exclude things like people who have had fecal transplants - and end up developing obesity when their fecal donor was obese.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 17:41
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. Suppose I have 2000 calories a day now. And suppose I’m objectively obese. If I cut everything I eat in half, my calories fall from 2000 a day to 1000 a day. If in doing so, my blood glucose is still such that I produce insulin, I’m going to convert that glucose to fat cells. I won’t lose weight. It’s all about blood glucose.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You’re right. Most people who claim to understand biology don’t actually understand biology either, and this thread is a perfect illustration.
But I am sure all of the overweight ladies of America would still pack on the pounds even in a famine, because… hormones? PCOS? Whatever, it’s not your fault you’re fat, that’s the key takeaway for those who “understand” biology :roll:
+1
It's basically a warped ideology, not much different than being a member of a political party. They have 1,000 excuses why you are fat or poor, and not a single one of those excuses has anything to do with your actions. That's why other countries think we're a joke.
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
+1
If you locked someone in a room for a month and gave them a set low calorie diet they would lose weight. Period. No one leaves survivor at the same weight or having gained weight.
Not arguing that there aren't external factors that make it difficult for people to do this in the real world or that metabolisms and hunger don't vary greatly, but just because people can't eat in a deficit doesn't mean that the principle of CICO are false.
NP, but I would be willing to bet any sum of money up to $1M that if you reduced your caloric intake to 1000 calories/day, you would lose a lot of weight.
+100
I swear people are looking for any excuse as to why they can’t lose weight.
This is idiotic. If you have to drop down to what is essentially starvation in order to lose weight, it’s not much of a theory. And everyone knows what happens after people go back to eating: they gain it all back plus some.
That’s not “physics” or “closed loop” systems or “CICO,” that’s common sense. Something that the CICO people have long since taken leave of.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 17:38
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. Suppose I have 2000 calories a day now. And suppose I’m objectively obese. If I cut everything I eat in half, my calories fall from 2000 a day to 1000 a day. If in doing so, my blood glucose is still such that I produce insulin, I’m going to convert that glucose to fat cells. I won’t lose weight. It’s all about blood glucose.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You’re right. Most people who claim to understand biology don’t actually understand biology either, and this thread is a perfect illustration.
But I am sure all of the overweight ladies of America would still pack on the pounds even in a famine, because… hormones? PCOS? Whatever, it’s not your fault you’re fat, that’s the key takeaway for those who “understand” biology :roll:
+1
It's basically a warped ideology, not much different than being a member of a political party. They have 1,000 excuses why you are fat or poor, and not a single one of those excuses has anything to do with your actions. That's why other countries think we're a joke.
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
+1
If you locked someone in a room for a month and gave them a set low calorie diet they would lose weight. Period. No one leaves survivor at the same weight or having gained weight.
Not arguing that there aren't external factors that make it difficult for people to do this in the real world or that metabolisms and hunger don't vary greatly, but just because people can't eat in a deficit doesn't mean that the principle of CICO are false.
Step away from the TikTok.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 17:16
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. Suppose I have 2000 calories a day now. And suppose I’m objectively obese. If I cut everything I eat in half, my calories fall from 2000 a day to 1000 a day. If in doing so, my blood glucose is still such that I produce insulin, I’m going to convert that glucose to fat cells. I won’t lose weight. It’s all about blood glucose.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You’re right. Most people who claim to understand biology don’t actually understand biology either, and this thread is a perfect illustration.
But I am sure all of the overweight ladies of America would still pack on the pounds even in a famine, because… hormones? PCOS? Whatever, it’s not your fault you’re fat, that’s the key takeaway for those who “understand” biology :roll:
+1
It's basically a warped ideology, not much different than being a member of a political party. They have 1,000 excuses why you are fat or poor, and not a single one of those excuses has anything to do with your actions. That's why other countries think we're a joke.
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
+1
If you locked someone in a room for a month and gave them a set low calorie diet they would lose weight. Period. No one leaves survivor at the same weight or having gained weight.
Not arguing that there aren't external factors that make it difficult for people to do this in the real world or that metabolisms and hunger don't vary greatly, but just because people can't eat in a deficit doesn't mean that the principle of CICO are false.
NP, but I would be willing to bet any sum of money up to $1M that if you reduced your caloric intake to 1000 calories/day, you would lose a lot of weight.
+100
I swear people are looking for any excuse as to why they can’t lose weight.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 16:56
Subject: Re:Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.
Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.
So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.
*I doubt it.
Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.
So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.
*I doubt it.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 16:46
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. Suppose I have 2000 calories a day now. And suppose I’m objectively obese. If I cut everything I eat in half, my calories fall from 2000 a day to 1000 a day. If in doing so, my blood glucose is still such that I produce insulin, I’m going to convert that glucose to fat cells. I won’t lose weight. It’s all about blood glucose.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You’re right. Most people who claim to understand biology don’t actually understand biology either, and this thread is a perfect illustration.
But I am sure all of the overweight ladies of America would still pack on the pounds even in a famine, because… hormones? PCOS? Whatever, it’s not your fault you’re fat, that’s the key takeaway for those who “understand” biology :roll:
+1
It's basically a warped ideology, not much different than being a member of a political party. They have 1,000 excuses why you are fat or poor, and not a single one of those excuses has anything to do with your actions. That's why other countries think we're a joke.
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
+1
If you locked someone in a room for a month and gave them a set low calorie diet they would lose weight. Period. No one leaves survivor at the same weight or having gained weight.
Not arguing that there aren't external factors that make it difficult for people to do this in the real world or that metabolisms and hunger don't vary greatly, but just because people can't eat in a deficit doesn't mean that the principle of CICO are false.
NP, but I would be willing to bet any sum of money up to $1M that if you reduced your caloric intake to 1000 calories/day, you would lose a lot of weight.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 16:34
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Not true at all. Suppose I have 2000 calories a day now. And suppose I’m objectively obese. If I cut everything I eat in half, my calories fall from 2000 a day to 1000 a day. If in doing so, my blood glucose is still such that I produce insulin, I’m going to convert that glucose to fat cells. I won’t lose weight. It’s all about blood glucose.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You’re right. Most people who claim to understand biology don’t actually understand biology either, and this thread is a perfect illustration.
But I am sure all of the overweight ladies of America would still pack on the pounds even in a famine, because… hormones? PCOS? Whatever, it’s not your fault you’re fat, that’s the key takeaway for those who “understand” biology :roll:
+1
It's basically a warped ideology, not much different than being a member of a political party. They have 1,000 excuses why you are fat or poor, and not a single one of those excuses has anything to do with your actions. That's why other countries think we're a joke.
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
+1
If you locked someone in a room for a month and gave them a set low calorie diet they would lose weight. Period. No one leaves survivor at the same weight or having gained weight.
Not arguing that there aren't external factors that make it difficult for people to do this in the real world or that metabolisms and hunger don't vary greatly, but just because people can't eat in a deficit doesn't mean that the principle of CICO are false.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 16:33
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
So, which individual is demonstrating more personal responsibility:
Person 1 - Burns calories faster, does not pay attention to diet, eats a lot, exercises little, and remains thin.
Person 2 - Burns calories slower, pays attention to diet, restricts diet, exercises frequently, and becomes obese.
I say Person 2 is demonstrating more personal responsibility. Do you agree or do you disagree?
This is a silly hypothetical. The overwhelming majority of obese Americans are that way because of their lifestyle choices. Go to Costco in Springfield and see what people are buying in bulk.
We really need that show secret eaters here in the US. You can find it on YouTube from the UK. That’s what’s going on for most people.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 16:15
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
So, which individual is demonstrating more personal responsibility:
Person 1 - Burns calories faster, does not pay attention to diet, eats a lot, exercises little, and remains thin.
Person 2 - Burns calories slower, pays attention to diet, restricts diet, exercises frequently, and becomes obese.
I say Person 2 is demonstrating more personal responsibility. Do you agree or do you disagree?
Anonymous
09/07/2023 16:00
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness, so many “educated”, people in here failing to understand the simple scientific fact that not all bodies require the same number of calories to sustain a healthy weight. Those who are metabolically challenged have it so much harder than anyone wants to admit. Yes it take serious discipline to subsist on fewer than 1200 calories a day. Most people don’t need to do that. Those people need to sit down and be quiet. Some bodies do not like to lose weight.
Nobody disputes the differences. Save for extreme outliers, that are somehow wildly over represented here in this forum, the differences are not on the orders of magnitude that support the worldwide obesity crisis.
… do you think that people who have these challenges might be more likely to visit diet and exercise forums?
I’m unaware of any studies that support your last inference. I would love to see a study showing the range of calories in diets that cause weight loss in obese people vs. non-obese people.
There probably aren’t any, mostly because you would need to control a ton of variables. There are lots of studies demonstrating that people are terrible at estimating their calorie intake.
I don’t think a single non-trolling poster in here is saying it’s strictly calories in and calories out. Many are stating the reality that as a rough guide line it has more relevance than just about anything else.
On the other end are people claiming to consume air and still maintain an obese weight. That’s just not true. It’s not even remotely true. It just isn’t.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 15:59
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Well, my grandmother was a plump lady and her husband was rail thin—during war and famine PP. I promise you, she wasn’t stealing potatoes from him. Some people, especially women, hold onto weight, even eating restricted diets. Of course, they will lose weight eventually with a low enough calorie limit, but it varies greatly for very person. In fact, people can suffer from all kinds of nutritional deficiencies because they aren’t eating much food, and still not *look* emaciated.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 15:54
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You’re right. Most people who claim to understand biology don’t actually understand biology either, and this thread is a perfect illustration.
But I am sure all of the overweight ladies of America would still pack on the pounds even in a famine, because… hormones? PCOS? Whatever, it’s not your fault you’re fat, that’s the key takeaway for those who “understand” biology :roll:
+1
It's basically a warped ideology, not much different than being a member of a political party. They have 1,000 excuses why you are fat or poor, and not a single one of those excuses has anything to do with your actions. That's why other countries think we're a joke.
I’ve said it a thousand times in various threads on this site…personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.
Some people burn calories faster than others. But it’s always going to be CICO. Anyone who says they have restricted their calories by a significant amount for at least a month and never lost weight is lying.
+1
If you locked someone in a room for a month and gave them a set low calorie diet they would lose weight. Period. No one leaves survivor at the same weight or having gained weight.
Not arguing that there aren't external factors that make it difficult for people to do this in the real world or that metabolisms and hunger don't vary greatly, but just because people can't eat in a deficit doesn't mean that the principle of CICO are false.
100%. And yes, in the real world it is actually hard to mimic a calorie-restricted environment, and all of those people from Survivor gain the weight back when they go back to real life.
Anonymous
09/07/2023 15:43
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
I cannot lose weight unless I eat fewer than 1500 calories a day. But my fitness tracker and all of the science says I am in a calorie deficit at 2500 calories a day. No weight loss at that calorie range. At least not this month. Last month I was able to lose weight eating more than that. Interesting huh? Almost like… something … other than calories in and out … is affecting my ability to lose weight. What could it be?
Anonymous
09/07/2023 15:38
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness, so many “educated”, people in here failing to understand the simple scientific fact that not all bodies require the same number of calories to sustain a healthy weight. Those who are metabolically challenged have it so much harder than anyone wants to admit. Yes it take serious discipline to subsist on fewer than 1200 calories a day. Most people don’t need to do that. Those people need to sit down and be quiet. Some bodies do not like to lose weight.
Nobody disputes the differences. Save for extreme outliers, that are somehow wildly over represented here in this forum, the differences are not on the orders of magnitude that support the worldwide obesity crisis.
… do you think that people who have these challenges might be more likely to visit diet and exercise forums?
I’m unaware of any studies that support your last inference. I would love to see a study showing the range of calories in diets that cause weight loss in obese people vs. non-obese people.