To think that 'eat less move more', everything in moderation and CICO is total bollox?

[Honestopinion23]

CICO stands for calories in vs calories out by the way.
I often read the weight loss section on here. Every day there are people embarking on any number of diets and body overhauls and I reckon about 95% of them are unsuccessful. Calorie counting, shake diets, you name it, people always gain the weight back before long. Even celebrities who seem to have done well with weight loss eventually gain it back, e.g. Pauline Quirke. I am watching that new amazon show with Melissa McCarthy and she is also back to being around the same size she was before starting her weight loss. Lisa Riley is another one who lost a lot of weight and most of it is back now. Clearly it's not working and people are making money out of telling fat people that they can be thin if only they want it bad enough or try hard enough. The scientific research shows that once you are morbidly obese, you have an absolutely miniscule chance of getting to and maintaining a normal BMI without surgery. Yes, there will no doubt be people popping up here saying they did just that but you are the exception.

The idea that if you just eat less than you burn is also flawed when a) your body adapts to lower amounts. For instance, those who have gastric bypass and eat v low calories forever still tend to be overweight/mildly obese because their bodies just can't get to a low BMI and b) you're fighting against intense hunger urges that someone who has always been normal weight just can't imagine dealing with.

If I was morbidly obese, I would ditch all the dieting crap, admit that I couldn't fix it and have surgery. I see so many dieting plans just blame the dieter for 'failure' when they're trying to do something impossible. If I was stage 1 obese or overweight, I'd go low carb no-processed for life because I think that is the only thing that switches off the hunger signals in the brain.

The answer to sustainable weight loss is to cut out all junk food for 99% of the time

but that's a diet. Any way of eating that's against what you want to eat is a diet!

Most people are more in charge of their metabolism than they think. If it's wrong, change it. It's one of the reasons exercise works for many, but has little to do with counting the actual calories burned during the exercise itself.

The weight you are at now is, within 5%, the weight you will always be.

My weight swings by well over 5% just during a typical month with no active effort from me beyond tracking. The medical professionals I've seen seem to view this weight range as normal rather than very weird.

I mean, my maths might be wrong, but at 5% I think that would mean that someone who is currently 70kg (what google says is about an average weight for a British woman) will only fluctuate by 3.5kgs. That doesn't seem right, especially when many people's weight over the course of a day fluctuates by 1-2kg.

I think we might need a little less certainty around this, and more recognition that human bodies are complicated (as is physics, the laws of thermodynamics don't work with the same efficiency in all systems).

Would you consider giving up alcohol a diet then?

@JeffVaderneedsatray

I'm currently in a pit of self loathing over my weight. I'm 5 foot 2 and 16 stone 8 lbs. I hate myself. I hate how I look and how I feel. I have been fighting with my weight since I went to university. Which was a loong time ago. I'm 52. I have done SW and WW as well as IF etc etc Recently I dropped to 800 calories a day as I was worried about Type 2 diabetes. For about 4 weeks of the 8 I dropped weight - lost about a stone- and then, despite sticking to 800 calories - low carb etc - I stopped losing weight. I did an experiment and dropped my calories further and a tine bit more weight came off then stopped. I weighed everything and measured everything religiously. I realised then that to get to anything like a 'normal' weight for my height I would have to restrict my calories to a stupidly low amount and I just CAN'T sustain that for the rest of my life. Years of dieting have fucked up my metabolism. I am in complete despair. And if one more person (Mother I'm looking at you) says eat less move more I will go postal.

I do know that when I drop wheat and sugar I feel better.
I've read Why We Eat (Too Much) and found it interesting. I'm going to reread and get back to the principles as I felt better when following htem. I also have The Obesity Code on my bookshelf.

I just hate it. And I hate the attitude that abounds that makes me out to be a lazt lardy arse with no motivation and delusions about my eating habits.

Lovie, don't hate yourself. You've done it for 30 years and it hasn't helped. Try loving yourself instead.

@Macncheeseballs

Would you consider giving up alcohol a diet then?

Depends on why - if it's because they're an alcoholic then it's a treatment for a disease. If it's because it's healthier, then yes, it's a diet.

"And that’s been shown not to work for 95% of dieters."

It hasn't though has it. 95% of the world's dieters aren't followed around with cameras all day to see what they do.

@JeffVaderneedsatray

I'm currently in a pit of self loathing over my weight. I'm 5 foot 2 and 16 stone 8 lbs. I hate myself. I hate how I look and how I feel. I have been fighting with my weight since I went to university. Which was a loong time ago. I'm 52. I have done SW and WW as well as IF etc etc Recently I dropped to 800 calories a day as I was worried about Type 2 diabetes. For about 4 weeks of the 8 I dropped weight - lost about a stone- and then, despite sticking to 800 calories - low carb etc - I stopped losing weight. I did an experiment and dropped my calories further and a tine bit more weight came off then stopped. I weighed everything and measured everything religiously. I realised then that to get to anything like a 'normal' weight for my height I would have to restrict my calories to a stupidly low amount and I just CAN'T sustain that for the rest of my life. Years of dieting have fucked up my metabolism. I am in complete despair. And if one more person (Mother I'm looking at you) says eat less move more I will go postal.

I do know that when I drop wheat and sugar I feel better.
I've read Why We Eat (Too Much) and found it interesting. I'm going to reread and get back to the principles as I felt better when following htem. I also have The Obesity Code on my bookshelf.

I just hate it. And I hate the attitude that abounds that makes me out to be a lazt lardy arse with no motivation and delusions about my eating habits.

I wish you luck and I think the Andrew Jenkinson book is great. I believe you 100% that you were eating very low calories and still weren't losing. People love to make out that it's because we're in denial about what we eat and dumb programmes like Secret Eaters help to promote the theory that we all lie to ourselves and eat 5 times as much as we think. What would be the point of that? Hopefully you can develop a healthier relationship to food. I like the Fast800 but find it quite restrictive and I think you can get equally good results on something like Low Carb Bootcamp where you can eat loads more. But damaged metabolism is a real thing and the body can be so insistent that it wants to hang onto extra pounds.

For those talking about 'set points' of weight, can you explain this theory? Surely for most people, since the 'obesity epidemic' began, they've gained weight gradually over the years, so how has their body decided on a set point during that trajectory?

I know that that trajectory is changing for many because more kids are overweight now, so more people are already overweight when they reach adulthood, but it's still not the case for the majority.

Well even then, all it can do is make them eat less...and there are ways to game even that system.

Not things like the vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It resets your hormonal levels for hunger-hormones. Yes, it leads to eating less but it's very different from things like a gastric band that just reduce the stomach size. The VSG tends to reverse type 2 diabetes in days, before the patient has lost any weight yet.

Those saying just do (insert advice here) are ignoring that the body sets up Incredible adible cravings when you try to loose significant weight. It isn’t just a matter of will power, any more than holding your breath for a long time is will power. We are all addicted to food, but if obese or MO then the addiction is even stronger.

Society needs to look at why people become obese and tackle it much earlier, not wait until it is such a hard issue to solve.

@TheFoundations

For those talking about 'set points' of weight, can you explain this theory? Surely for most people, since the 'obesity epidemic' began, they've gained weight gradually over the years, so how has their body decided on a set point during that trajectory?

I know that that trajectory is changing for many because more kids are overweight now, so more people are already overweight when they reach adulthood, but it's still not the case for the majority.

Yep. Another bit I've never gotten is that if the set point theory is real, surely we should've been seeing larger people coming out of concentration camps or in places like Biafra, Ethiopia, Sudan etc during their respective famines. But I've yet to hear of any stories like that.

"So much of obesity is also genetic but people don’t want to admit that because it suits everyone better to pretend that fat people are just lazy and undisciplined and have brought their problems on themselves."

I do accept that some of it is genetic, but not all. It would be too much of a coincidence that all the people with fat genes live in countries where the average diet is really bad.

@TheFoundations

For those talking about 'set points' of weight, can you explain this theory? Surely for most people, since the 'obesity epidemic' began, they've gained weight gradually over the years, so how has their body decided on a set point during that trajectory?

I know that that trajectory is changing for many because more kids are overweight now, so more people are already overweight when they reach adulthood, but it's still not the case for the majority.

Yo-yo dieting comes into the increasing set point over the years. Every time you restrict calories for a period your body responds by preparing better for the next famine.

Yep. Another bit I've never gotten is that if the set point theory is real, surely we should've been seeing larger people coming out of concentration camps or in places like Biafra, Ethiopia, Sudan etc during their respective famines. But I've yet to hear of any stories like that.

According to the CICO theory, nobody would be able to survive a lengthy period of famine because they would lose 1 pound of fat for every 3500 calorie deficit, meaning that there would rapidly be nothing left of them.

Not hings like the vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It resets your hormonal levels for hunger-hormones. Yes, it leads to eating less
I think this should be offered to anyone morbidly obese after counselling, it is an addiction a disease similarly to drug or alcohol addiction.
It has been a life saver for my friend.
It isn't without risk but her weight was high risk anyway.
She is down 5st, she had a night out recently picking random clothes from the wardrobe, before the op nights out took weeks of planning.
I'm so happy for her, her confidence is amazing after taking control.
People shouldn't be made to suffer and battle daily.

@SerenadeOfTheSchoolRun

Yo-yo dieting comes into the increasing set point over the years. Every time you restrict calories for a period your body responds by preparing better for the next famine

Thank you. But surely this would just mean it would be harder and harder to lose weight, regardless of any specific weight 'point'?

@Honestopinion23

Yep. Another bit I've never gotten is that if the set point theory is real, surely we should've been seeing larger people coming out of concentration camps or in places like Biafra, Ethiopia, Sudan etc during their respective famines. But I've yet to hear of any stories like that.

According to the CICO theory, nobody would be able to survive a lengthy period of famine because they would lose 1 pound of fat for every 3500 calorie deficit, meaning that there would rapidly be nothing left of them.

???? Eh?

There is nothing left of them. Many of them died for this exact reason. Wtf

One of the best points in "why we eat" is that if cico was so mathematically fixed the average American man would be something like 300 ibs - I can't remember the exact figure but a lot heavier than what it is - the point being we should be a lot larger than we are if the maths of cico is all there is to it.

To answer the starvation point - one of the earliest studies done was on a group of men - I think conscientious objectors - they put them on a starvation diet then refed them - they all gained more weight than they were before the study even when they went back to normal eating.

Not to mention the biggest loser follow ups - it's not that they eat more than before it's that it has a worst effect

Restricting calories will result in weight loss - then you eat too much and go up a weight - it is harder to lose and you need less calories to lose the same weight - it's not as simple as "it's physics" - hormones play a big part also.

One theory was that because our parents grew up in post war Britain and food was scarce - when their children were conceived certain genes were turned on so that our bodies would put on weight with less food - in reaction to that - very much a theory but interesting

So cico is a mechanism in the body that effects weight but completely agree with pp with the tennis ball in the exhaust analogy - it's just not that simple.

According to the CICO theory, nobody would be able to survive a lengthy period of famine because they would lose 1 pound of fat for every 3500 calorie deficit, meaning that there would rapidly be nothing left of them.

I'd still expect to see evidence of that in all honesty. Whether that be through a family having one larger member with a higher set point and thus being visibly different from the rest, or a family differing from neighbours. Perhaps not from concentration camps but surely there would be documentation of it in recent famines? Perhaps there is, I wouldn't know.

Yep. Another bit I've never gotten is that if the set point theory is real, surely we should've been seeing larger people coming out of concentration camps or in places like Biafra, Ethiopia, Sudan etc during their respective famines. But I've yet to hear of any stories like that.

My stepfather (who was an objectionable man and one who started me on my diet journey when I was, in fact, a good and healthy weight at 16) used yo say that no fat person ever came out of Belsen. I suspect that if I was in such a situation I'd shed weight but I'd lay odds that it would take me longer than others AND that once food became available again I'd be first to be fat.

dumb programmes like Secret Eaters help to promote the theory that we all lie to ourselves and eat 5 times as much as we think. What would be the point of that?

The nutrition advice on Secret Eaters is very outdated and inaccurate, but so many people who 'calorie count' don't calorie count at all. They guesstimate or ignore the splash(es) of oil or handful of cheese or 'tasting' constantly as they cook. I cba with MFP and the like, it's fiddly and often inaccurate anyway as the database is user-built.

The problem with 'diets' is the mentality that you're 'undereating' temporarily. Then when you hit your target weight you go back to eating more. Eating more caused you to put on weight in the first place and now your metabolism is even slower because you're lighter.

I put on weight in lockdown. I was eating more and moving less. I lost it by not snacking all the bloody time, reducing carbs and working out most days.

I can't speak to the morbidly obese, I suppose it may make sense that when you get to that stage you could be doing permanent damage to your metabolism, just as an alcoholic gets to a point when they can't reverse the damage to their liver. I also feel that when you need a 3500 calorie deficit just to lose one pound, it can feel like a huge impossible feat to lose multiple stones, and all to easy to cheat or fall off the wagon.

To answer the starvation point - one of the earliest studies done was on a group of men - I think conscientious objectors - they put them on a starvation diet then refed them - they all gained more weight than they were before the study even when they went back to normal eating.

That sounds really interesting, I must try to find an article on it!

Personally I don't think it can be as simple as CICO (or set point theory for that matter, too many factors interacting in human bodies to pinpoint it to one issue), so evidence from studies is really interesting to me.

@VorpalSword

Those saying just do (insert advice here) are ignoring that the body sets up Incredible adible cravings when you try to loose significant weight. It isn’t just a matter of will power, any more than holding your breath for a long time is will power. We are all addicted to food, but if obese or MO then the addiction is even stronger.

Society needs to look at why people become obese and tackle it much earlier, not wait until it is such a hard issue to solve.

The body sets cravings according to what and when you eat, not according to weight loss. If feeling hungry had anything to do with body fat levels, overweight people wouldn't ever get hungry until their excess fat stores had been used up.

The best way to lose weight is in the way that doesn't make you hungry.

There's an American TV show called Survivor where the contestants pretty much live off half a cup of rice a day. They weigh them at the beginning and end of the show and generally the bigger contestants lose a lot of weight. Contestants who are already thin, lose less weight, but everyone loses weight. It's not healthy though. I have a friend who is really slim but eats what he wants. The thing is, he really doesn't eat that much. He'll have a regular breakfast and lunch and maybe a big dinner, but he doesn't snack, so I think his calorie intake is probably pretty low.