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.

frumpety what a great person you are...you are so right about being in the right place, not looking for quick fixes and acknowledging it will take time to lose weight. Your approach is more likely to lead to long term results rather than quick fixes. Good luck on your journey.

[quote Sarahlou63]@TheFoundations - No, I don’t think you opinions are silly and I do have a basic knowledge of hormones (having had a partial thyroidectomy 3 years ago and having studied level 4 CBT it’s been hard to avoid for a couple of reasons!). My point is that telling people who are unhappy with their weight that it’s not their fault because of their hormones does them no favours whatsoever. All is does it give yet another reason for over eating and being unhappy.

It IS possible to actively change one’s eating patterns. It is possible reject junk food and to make informed nutritional choices. It’s not always easy, granted, but to imply that unhealthy eating is out of our own control is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.[/quote]
You still don’t seem to understand the point that people have made about the nature of cravings that some people get, especially following dieting, where unhealthy food consumes your thoughts to the extent that you feel you have to eat it. What you’re suggesting is akin to telling addicts to ‘just say no’. Well, yes, hypothetically, but in reality, no, they can’t.

Why is it so important that people are blamed for becoming overweight? People are blamed and fat shamed constantly and it doesn’t seem to make the situation better other than lowering esteem. Like I said in my previous post, letting go of the blame was key to me actually losing loads of fat and getting to a healthy BMI so I can’t see where it’s dangerous for me not to sit round thinking about how undisciplined I am. Instead, I understand that mind over matter is not realistic where food is always available and our bodies are hardwired to want it. I understand that I have to eat in such a way as to greatly reduce my hormonal triggers to overeat. And the weight loss method with by far the best success rate - bariatric surgery- also involves an acceptance that the patient has got to a point where they are unable to naturally reduce weight.

I have been the same weight for the last 30 years. 2 kids. Depending on my activities for the day, I eat accordingly. I am a size 6-8. 56kg. I don't graze all day and my friends say a huge part of why I don't put on weight is because I don't have a sweet tooth. Desserts will always be fresh fruit. I would definitely say the modern family certainly eat more than is needed. And I do love to eat good food. I can't imagine eating junk and gaining weight. If I am going to gain, it'd better be for something worth it.

[quote Sarahlou63]@TheFoundations - No, I don’t think you opinions are silly and I do have a basic knowledge of hormones (having had a partial thyroidectomy 3 years ago and having studied level 4 CBT it’s been hard to avoid for a couple of reasons!). My point is that telling people who are unhappy with their weight that it’s not their fault because of their hormones does them no favours whatsoever. All is does it give yet another reason for over eating and being unhappy.

It IS possible to actively change one’s eating patterns. It is possible reject junk food and to make informed nutritional choices. It’s not always easy, granted, but to imply that unhealthy eating is out of our own control is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.[/quote]
You seem to be willfully missing my point. I've never said that ^^. Everybody (aside from those with medical conditions) is in control of their own weight, what they put into their mouth, and how much exercise they take. Nobody can fix it for them.

My point is that the current climate is a bit like forcing someone with alcohol dependency to live 24/7 in a well stocked pub, around people who are drinking all the time, and being told that wine is good for you, but make sure you don't touch the spirits. It makes it so unnecessarily hard to give up the booze, and makes it so much easier to let the person off the hook rather than pointing the unhelpful 'It's your own fault' finger, as you seem to like to do. It is the fault of the environment; it it the responsibility of the individual. We could make it a LOT easier for the individual to educate themselves by not putting out misleading information all the time.

We are being actively told that a high carbohydrate diet is good for us (it's more than a third of the current NHS Eatwell plate) We are not being told that carbohydrates contain very little in the way of nourishment, and are pretty much solely for fueling movement. Any other bodily systems are fueled by the nutrients in fat (mostly) and protein (for muscle growth and repair) The human body's requirement for carbohydrate is 0% Any carbohydrate that we eat will be laid down as fat unless we burn it off, so if it's a third of your diet, you need to be moving a lot, and most of us don't. We also don't get educated about how refined carbs (flour in particular) are just as bad for triggering the cravings for more carbs as sugary snacks. Going back to the person with alcohol dependency, that's equivalent to saying 'You can kick this unhealthy habit by avoiding whisky, but it's advisable for you to have gin, vodka, and rum.' It's a plan doomed to fail, and if the person is being told this by the authorities who are meant to educate them in how to quit, it feels much more unreasonable to point the finger at the poor individual who ends up saying 'I did what you said and only drank rum today (or ate bread), and now it seems almost impossible to control my craving for whisky (or chocolate), which I know I need to give up.'

Too much of anything is dangerous. Too much fat leads to problems. Too much protein leads to problems. Too much carbohydrate leads to problems. We are watching society as a whole fall increasingly into the problems of a high carbohydrate diet. The non communicable diseases that are killing us (cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, many mental health conditions, many cancers, obesity related conditions) are all traceable back to a high carb diet, via the triggering of inflammation. Many can be reversed simply by eating less carbs, but we don't get told this.

If you think it's helpful to force the person to live in the pub, and then point the finger at them and say 'It's your own fault', that's your gubbins. I think it's a cruel system which doesn't understand how human minds and bodies work, and is doomed to fail for most. And if you look at society now, we've got a bunch of people like you, pointing their nasty little fingers, and a bunch of people who are in the equivalent of a 24/7 pub, feeling helpless and got at, and not being told that there is a world outside that pub that would make their plight considerably less arduous.

the nature of cravings, hormones, endocrine disorders, disabilities don't change that cico work.

to determine how many calories a person really needs is not and exact science - too many variables, especially for women.

to then find a way to consume the right amount of calories to lose/maintain/gain weight is even harder - lots of snake oil sellers and temptations thrown your way.

and then of course you need to maintain a healthy weight. healthily. forever.
really really hard for many.

@purplesequins

the nature of cravings, hormones, endocrine disorders, disabilities don't change that cico work.

to determine how many calories a person really needs is not and exact science - too many variables, especially for women.

to then find a way to consume the right amount of calories to lose/maintain/gain weight is even harder - lots of snake oil sellers and temptations thrown your way.

and then of course you need to maintain a healthy weight. healthily. forever.
really really hard for many.

Well yeah on paper it works (although not how people think it works) but as a weight loss strategy and a means of combating obesity (which is surely the relevant part and what I meant in my OP) it doesn’t work other than for a very small minority of people. I mean would you think a cancer treatment that only cured a tiny minority of patients was a roaring success?

I think there is a subtle but important difference between 'blaming and shaming' and acknowledging some responsibility. Responsibility meaning the ability to respond in this sense. Which is important. People have got the ability to respond to weight issues. Collectively as a society and individually in what they eat and the activity they do.

Put it this way, broadly speaking, it is good to exercise, to eat at a small calorie deficit if overweight, not to eat more than the calories you burn if at the right weight. It's good to eat plenty of non starchy veg, an fair amount of protein and a small amount of complex carbohydrates. Something is wrong if you are constantly craving food or sweet things and the sort of foods you have eating should probably be addressed because different foods do affect the hunger response differently.

This is a really interesting post. I started lockdown at 18 stone and am now 9 stone. I have lost half my body weight. Did it by meal replacement and strictly no snacking, no deviation. Not even at Xmas etc! It’s now hard to maintain, really hard (it was much easier to lose in the first place!).

Dunno where I’m gonna end up. Might put it all back on again, might not.

I changed my life a lot and my habits. I didn’t follow a diet, but I slowly reduced my snacking and portion sizes and adapted to be more active. I was in a cycle of eating/ drinking late at night, sugary snacks and driving everywhere. It was starting to impact on keeping up with children and being comfortable. I was particularly getting boils around by upper thighs and belly roll due to the rubbing combined with my sensitive skin which made me hugely depressed.

It was pretty slow but I’ve lost just shy of 4 stone. I know others may have more but I had a bmi of around 32, which is comfortably obese.

I did actually change my cravings and I couldn’t imagine where I am now five years ago. I thought it was part of me. My bmi has been stables now around 23 for some time, I’m not dieting- just different. I eat breakfast lunch and dinner and heavily walk/ cycle instead of using the car.

I’m not saying this to claim I’m great, I’m still obviously saggy bellied and no model- but also that change is possible.

Just listening to another video of a dr zoe harcombe lecture. Interesting.
I'm going to try and do the low carb route now. I think it's more of a middle path than keto which played in to my obsessive way of approaching a diet, ie, givign it everything OR NOTHING.

low carb should be easy in theory after having done keto.

@Lemons1571

This is a really interesting post. I started lockdown at 18 stone and am now 9 stone. I have lost half my body weight. Did it by meal replacement and strictly no snacking, no deviation. Not even at Xmas etc! It’s now hard to maintain, really hard (it was much easier to lose in the first place!).

Dunno where I’m gonna end up. Might put it all back on again, might not.

It'd be so tempting to kick start my weight loss with a ''meal replacement''

I used to do this with porridge but I suppose scrambled egg would be a low carb meal replacement.

I wouldn't buy a meal replacement but I make a ''meal'' and think of like it was a slimfast, like I would have used their products in my 20s when I was 8 stone 5 and trying to lose that five...........sigh.

@Lemons1571 what an amazing achievement btw. Which meal replacement did you use? Is it possible to get a low carb meal replacement?

CICO works, every diet that you lose weight on is down to CICO. However, coming up with the exact calculation is tricky and so is sticking to it. Take 100 cals of protein and 100 cals of sugar, it will take more calories to break down and utilise the protein than it does the sugar. So you are already ahead by choosing the protein. Plus the protein will help you feel full and won’t cause a blood sugar crash that has you tired, sluggish and desperate for another hit. You are less energetic and move less and the difference starts to really add up over time.

A lot of these step counters don’t help either. Whilst it is a good idea in principle if you move your hands a lot your steps can be way off. I see people who do a short walk to work and back, have a sedentary job and say they just do a brisk 30 minute walk to get to 10k steps, in reality they are not getting anywhere near. If you want an accurate picture put the counter on your ankle instead. I do a 2.5k walk to work and back, have a very physical job and then run around after a toddler for 2 hours when I get home. 18-19k is an accurate figure of what I do in a working day. I have a friend with a desk job who apparently does more steps in a day than her sister who is a personal trainer!

For the people that get raging cravings it is mainly because their blood sugar levels are all over the place. That can be mostly combatted by eating low carb, high fat. You don’t need to eat like this for ever once your blood sugar is stable you can have small amounts of carbs in a meal with protein, fat and veg without issue. When it is time for my meal and hungry it is a hunger I can cope with, if something crops up and I can’t eat I will be OK. If I am eating a diet high in carbs I am desperate to eat and feel light headed, shaky and that I need some food in me now!

Another issue is the idea that we should never be hungry, this is totally wrong, we shouldn’t be starving but by the time we eat we should be at. decent level of hunger. Not grabbing a snack as soon as we begin to feel a bit peckish.

Finally people need to get to grips with the emotional aspect and this is probably the hardest. Food is used as a comfort all the time. It doesn’t mean depriving yourself, I love my food but I actually enjoy it more when I savour, eat slowly and am pleasantly full and not stuffed. Any pleasure from eating a full pack of biscuits is fleeting and you pay with it after.

We do live in an environment that encourages obesity, but at the end of the day it does all come down to the individual.

I do think there's a place for meal replacement and @Lemons1571 AMAZING results would suggest it!

I do think food addiction is the hardest of all because you do have to eat, and eating is actually good for you. Other addictions can go cold turkey. For example if you told an alcoholic they had to stop getting drunk but also they had to have 2 shots of vodka each day for their health I can't see it being very effective.

Meal replacements sort of say food isn't allowed and you have these drinks instead. I can see how psychologically that could work. Although, you still have to have an amount of food I guess so not entirely.

[quote ManifestingJoy]@Lemons1571 what an amazing achievement btw. Which meal replacement did you use? Is it possible to get a low carb meal replacement?[/quote]
The Fast800 shakes would fit that bill - designed to be low carb and high protein

Fast800 shakes nutritional content

My point is that the current climate is a bit like forcing someone with alcohol dependency to live 24/7 in a well stocked pub, around people who are drinking all the time, and being told that wine is good for you, but make sure you don't touch the spirits.

Such a good post. All those brightly coloured chocolate bars in the petrol station, Calorie counted ready meals with long ingredients lists, Hifi bars from SlimmingWorld, the food pyramid with carbs at the bottom, the price of vegetable oil compared to low omega 6 oils, the demonisation of saturated fat which is so engrained in the NHS that you can’t argue once they start talking about cholesterol, low fat yogurts with far too much sugar in them.

If we changed the environment it would help so much. Chocolate bars in plain packaging behind the counter with pictures of diabetic ulcers on would put me off.

Ok, going to pick up the fast800 shakes to jump start my 20lbs extra pounds and then I'm going to be low carb. I cannot cope with full on keto though.

@BIWI

Fast800 shakes nutritional content

Thanks BIWI

All those brightly coloured chocolate bars in the petrol station, Calorie counted ready meals with long ingredients lists, Hifi bars from SlimmingWorld, the food pyramid with carbs at the bottom, the price of vegetable oil compared to low omega 6 oils, the demonisation of saturated fat which is so engrained in the NHS that you can’t argue once they start talking about cholesterol, low fat yogurts with far too much sugar in them.

If we changed the environment it would help so much. Chocolate bars in plain packaging behind the counter with pictures of diabetic ulcers on would put me off.

This stopped being a problem for me after a stint working at a chocolatier's. Not only did I develop a taste for very good but expensive chocolate but also got used to being around it and not eating it. Cheap mass produced stuff really doesn't tempt me. It tastes bland and claggy and slimy. If I ever forget and have a bite I am soon reminded! I don't really consider it food any more. I am the same with cheap biscuits and cakes made with vegetable oils not butter.

It's like being a wine buff and sitting in a room full of the the cheapest type of boxed wines! No temptation!

@ManifestingJoy I'll be starting the next Low Carb Bootcamp some time in October, if you want to join up? I'll be posting the sign-up thread shortly.

An extract from some info from Zoe Harcombe, reporting on some recent research, which explains why 'eat less/move more' doesn't work - I've bolded the key explanatioin:

Energy compensation & adiposity
Executive summary

A paper was published in August 2021, which generated the headline "Exercise reduces the number of calories burned at rest in obese people, study finds."

The researchers used the world's largest database on human energy expenditure. Data for 1,754 adults were used in this study

• Total energy expenditure comprises two main elements: basal energy expenditure and activity energy expenditure and two smaller elements: the thermic effect of feeding and non-exercise activity thermogenesis.

• Three energy expenditure models were hypothesised and then tested for validity. The researchers found that the energy compensation model was the valid one. Energy compensation was defined as “the concept that not all the energy spent when activity levels increase translates to additional energy spent that day.”

• The two key findings were that 1) approximately 72% of the extra calories spent on additional activity translated into extra calories burned that day and 2) energy compensation is particularly high in people with higher BMIs.

• The EarlyBird study (which dates back to the mid-1990s) also found that extra activity is compensated for by reduced activity elsewhere during the day.

• There are thus a number of ways in which do more (and also eat less) conspire against us so that the body does less rather than giving up body fat. The additional (cruel) finding of this study is that the compensation is larger in those with higher BMIs.

Introduction

The paper, which is the subject of this week’s note, was published at the end of August 2021 (Ref 1). It complements last week’s note nicely, as it’s the flip side of the energy balance coin. It received good media coverage with the headline “Exercise reduces the amount (sic) of calories burned at rest in obese people, study finds” (Ref 2)

Before we get into the study, we need to revisit the calorie theory and the current belief that holds for weight loss. It is believed that the creation of a deficit of 3,500 calories will result in the loss of one pound of body fat. In all my years of research, this is probably the most absurd thing that I have ever come across. As Blackadder would say “it is wronger than a very wrong thing!” The theory says that it doesn’t matter who you are (age, sex, BMI, body fat, previous dieting history, other conditions etc.), create a 3,500-calorie deficit and you will be rewarded with a loss of one pound of body fat. The fact that the body needs to be in a physiological state to be able to burn body fat (no insulin present, no glucose/glycogen available, a requirement for fuel and glucagon able to be called upon) is completely ignored, as are so many other factors

The 3,500-calorie theory assumes that the body is a cash machine for fat. For every 3,500-calorie deficit, one pound will be released. One of the many assumptions upon which the calorie theory relies, is the notion that the body cannot and does not adjust in any way. The body can and does adjust. The body has a number of systems (nervous, skeletal, endocrine, reproductive, digestive, circulatory, lymphatic, urinary, respiratory), which can and do adjust. The condition of anorexia illustrates what can happen at extreme calorie deficits. The reproductive system shuts down within weeks of significant calorie deprivation. The person becomes cold, the brain functions less well, the skeletal system is impaired and long-term damage can start, the digestive system becomes sluggish – everything can and is put into survival mode

If we take the typical female as is our usual example – she needs approximately 2,000 calories daily. For simplicity we will view those calories as needed for basal metabolic purposes (approximately 75% i.e., 1,500 calories) and for energy (approximately 25% i.e., 500). The calorie theory assumes that, if she cuts back by 500 calories daily, she will have lost one pound of body fat by the end of the week. This assumes no adjustment whatsoever. Evidence shows that the body can be ‘tricked’ in the very short term and weight loss does occur with a calorie deficit diet initially. (It does not adhere to any formula, however, and it occurs less well for each and every subsequent calorie deficit diet). It doesn’t take long for systems to adjust to the reduced energy intake. The body then responds to ‘eat less’ with ‘do less.’ If we don’t provide the fuel (the right amount and the right kind) for the body systems, the body will turn them off (reproduction) or turn them down (building bone density). Eating 500 fewer calories can lead to 500 fewer calories worth of repair and maintenance being done

This week’s paper has shown that, just as eating less can lead to the body doing less, so doing more can lead to the body doing less. If calories are expended in deliberate activity (exercise), the body doesn’t just give up body fat – it can do less of what it planned to do that day (fighting infection, cell repair and so on). This makes complete sense, but it still needed to be shown and this paper has done so

"the price of vegetable oil compared to low omega 6 oils" I agree. I think a lot of population obesity comes down to poverty as well. I know a bunch of fresh carrots doesn't cost much but in terms of getting enough calories to feed a normal family, junk food tends to be cheaper (I keep trying to argue this with my parents who say things like 'an aubergine costs less than a pizza' or whatever). If a large family has a very small food budget (and is without the cash in the bank to bulk buy) the 30p pizzas will be the dinner over the home cooked fresh fish.

Many poorer people are also facing other barriers to good quality fresh food. I watched a programme once (maybe 'Doctor in the House'?) and there was a family struggling with significant obesity. They worked brutal shift patterns and really didn't have much time and energy to cook, yet an outsider might just think "fat and lazy" when they were anything but.

@BIWI

That's the bit that gets missed, I think, in people's general understanding. It's just assumed that all the body does with calories is to gain or lose fat, and that there's a steady baseline each body is working from. It's simply not the case. The body is doing so much else that it makes it impossible to calculate. How do we know that when we eat calories, the body is going to choose fat gain, when it could choose to put those calories to so many other uses? Well, one way to guarantee it is to use carbs and not move much, because carbs can provide little else for us than energy to move.