To think I’ll be stuck at 16 stone forever

That’s not true. Regardless of whether trying to grow muscle a) it makes you feel fuller and b) it uses 40% of its calories to process so even if it’s stored as fat (rather than being used to repair muscle) less of it will be stored due to the high processing cost

When you look up the thermic effect on weight loss of something like 100 calories of crisps (a pack) vs 100 calories of veg, the consensus is that the body uses more energy to digest whole, high-fiber foods like vegetables than it does for highly processed snacks like crisps. So surely it's not actually the case that you could eat a load of Mars Bars instead of a meal (as in someone's example) as long as you're in deficit and lose at the same rate?

Millions of years?😲😲😲

You do realise man has only been on earth for around 300,000 years?

And we have maybe 3000-4000 years of scientific thinking, but more like 300-400 years of modern science.

I don't have a case to argue. You're the one who is spouting rubbish and claiming it's "science"

Or you could say,
"You lost weight, that's evidence that you have eaten foods that stimulate your metabolism "
"You gained weight, that's evidence of your metabolism slowing down"

Science and maths (maths? where does maths come into this? 🤔) working nicely.

I was quite shocked at how big I got, especially because my mum and others told me breastfeeding had them lose loads of weight — I was the opposite, but it made sense to me that my body needed to store fat while nourishing me and child.

Kind of, but eating enough protein should be a goal for anyone on a weightloss diet because it minimises muscle loss.

Nutracheck has macro targets too. I would just try to stay within those for carbs and fat and exceed the protein goal.

The idea of timing carbs to match workouts, drilling down into your macros to the extent that a slice of sourdough might throw you off plan, is for body recomp/building, but the advice on eating more protein in general is solid, but again, this depends on your overall diet. The meal you showed us had a decent amount of protein.

The pasta meals may not, it depends on what is with the pasta.

Although you are right in that if you're in a deficit, it doesn't matter for weight loss in general, just be aware that muscle is also weight on a scale. If you don't eat enough protein, a decent chunk of the weight you drop will be muscle.

I agree, but this is advice meant for athletes or people into body recomp or bodybuilding.

No offence meant to OP at all, I think she's doing great by the sounds of things and is just experiencing a plateau, but if she weighs 16 stones and is eating 1550 calories a day, it doesn't matter whether it's all Mars bars and Snickers or all grilled chicken and steamed spinach, she is in a deficit. A slice of sourdough and some avocado is not going to stall her weightloss as long as she is in a deficit.

If her plateau lasts, then she should consider either upping her calorie expenditure or lowering her calorie intake, but until then, assuming she's not eating nothing but carbs and sugar, none of this is relevant to her.

Once she's closer to her goal weight and looking to fine-tune her muscle-to-fat ratio, she will need to think about this, but I would hope that, if this is something she would be interested in, her PT will help with that.

It’s not the same. It’s widely established that protein has a 40% cost of processing.

The body uses different calories in different ways.

protein takes energy to digest and it’s hard work for the body to store it as fat. Nuts look very calorific but much of it gets pooed out undigested.

But yes if you eat in a true deficit even if it’s all junk you will lose weight but if you don’t eat enough protein (amino acids) some of the weight loss will be muscle.

I've got a question for the anti-CICO people.

Your argument seems to be that even if we are in a deficit, if we overeat carbs and sugar, our body will not use those calories for energy but will store them as fat, which it will then not burn, is that right? Otherwise, it's still CICO, surely?

If that is right, where do we get the energy required to breathe/digest food/walk etc? Do we develop the ability to photosynthesise? Once we develop this ability, do we keep it, or does it evaporate once we stop eating carbs?

Yeah fine but you haven’t answered the question. Did you run or cycle for several hours? Do you have a very physical job? This amount of calorie burn from exercise is not remotely realistic for most people.

Why do people keep saying muscle weighs more than fat??? Did they teach you nothing at school?

A 1lb is a 1lb whether it's fat, muscle, feathers, honey, brick, steel or Smarties!

It's the volume of them that differs – 1lb of feathers will take up far more space than 1lb of brick. But their mass is exactly the same.

this is so good to hear! I didn’t put any weight on when pregnant because I had such awful reflux all the time but since I had him I have put on two stone, and I cannot move it, as soon as I try and reduce my milk production goes down, I am two years in!

My evidence is millions of years of science and maths. Please do go ahead and argue your case on the CICO community. The 300,000 + members would be interested I'm sure.

Well you said that you have lost weight, that's evidence of calorie deficit, and you mentioned that you've gained weight, that's evidence of calorie surplus. Science and maths working quite nicely right there.

You absolutely can argue over science - that IS what scientists do.

You can also misunderstand it, mis-represent it and / or misuse it.

If I understand you correctly you are trying to suggest that there is a simple equation along the lines of
Calories consumed (via food)
minus
calories burned (in exercise or any activity)
equals
fat calories burned up

But that's a HUGE over-simplification. Food consumed has to be processed by the body in order to turn it into a material that the body can use for fuel. That is a chemical process that will be different for different foods (because they have a different chemical composition - we all know that some foods are easier to digest than others): also we don't know the efficiency of that process - and that will vary from one person to another.

Anyone can just make up a simple statement and claim it to be science. But science is EXACTLY about taking a hypothesis and proving (or disproving) it through empirical evidence.

So, @SheSaidHummingbird , Where is your evidence to back up your statement?

We literally have not evolved bar getting shorter after the agricultural revolution and developing dental caries and diabetes. That is the point. We are ill because we eat modern food. Plants full of glyphosate, frankenfoods and seed oils. Tonnes of flour and sugar and preservatives in everything. Our bodies are the same as they were back then. They have not adapted or we, as a species would not lose limbs and our sight to sugar toxicity and neuropathy. We would have adjusted.

I put on so much weight when breastfeeding (which I did for almost 4 years with `DD), that dr was telling me I was overweight, needed to lose weight. I could feel in my body how related to hormones it was and literally two months after stopping feeding, I was back to a 'healthy' weight. The only change I made was stopping breastfeeding. The fact is, my body needed more fat for that time in a culture where that is not in any way understood.

It's not that he's good looking. It's that he radiates health and fitness.

Do you feel hungry before your meals? Do you feel hungry before you go to sleep?

No, science and maths hasn't been debunked since 1995.

Okay, well science and maths works for me but you do you.