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.

Why do their bodies not follow the CICO laws

They do, because if they stopped eating altogether, they would get thinner. What you're talking about is the rate at which this happens. Everybody is different. Really, really different. It might take you much much more energy to maintain healthy skin, or regulate water, or stay in a stable mood than it does me. For some people, their base need can be dragged down very low, but that doesn't mean that they're not 'following the laws'. If they were, we would see some overweight people during famines. It doesn't happen.

Every body will respond somehow to a calorie deficit. If the body has cut back on everything it's willing to, and hasn't already begun using fat, it will use the fat.

Do you not see that your logic means that people could learn to not eat, and stay overweight? It has to stop somewhere.

@TheFoundations

Why do their bodies not follow the CICO laws

They do, because if they stopped eating altogether, they would get thinner. What you're talking about is the rate at which this happens. Everybody is different. Really, really different. It might take you much much more energy to maintain healthy skin, or regulate water, or stay in a stable mood than it does me. For some people, their base need can be dragged down very low, but that doesn't mean that they're not 'following the laws'. If they were, we would see some overweight people during famines. It doesn't happen.

Every body will respond somehow to a calorie deficit. If the body has cut back on everything it's willing to, and hasn't already begun using fat, it will use the fat.

Do you not see that your logic means that people could learn to not eat, and stay overweight? It has to stop somewhere.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I don’t doubt that you won’t see fat people in a famine but diets do lead to adaptation which disproves the CICO logic that 3500 cal deficit will lead to a pound of fat loss and that any other outcome is due to people kidding themselves about how much they eat. And in the surgery example, the person will eat at a very high deficit for life (as in child’s portions due to stomach being a small fraction of original size) but will NOT continue to lose weight beyond a certain point.

For most overweight people, loss will slow down, coupled with very strong cravings = weight regain. Obviously if they were in a famine, the loss would start again because there wouldn’t be the food available.

the CICO logic that 3500 cal deficit will lead to a pound of fat loss

This is 2 logics, not one. CICO is actually a thing, it's just ridiculous to try to calculate it, because 3500kcal = 1lb fat is wrong, and the way the fuel is burned is interpreted far too simply.

Obviously if they were in a famine, the loss would start again because there wouldn’t be the food available

This is CICO.

because 3500kcal = 1lb fat is wrong

At it's most basic, it doesn't take into account that your body doesn't start burning fat until it's used up both simple and then complex carbs. Only then will it start fueling the body from fat stores.

@Sparklfairy

because 3500kcal = 1lb fat is wrong

At it's most basic, it doesn't take into account that your body doesn't start burning fat until it's used up both simple and then complex carbs. Only then will it start fueling the body from fat stores.

Yes, and when it burns it, it doesn't burn it at a rate of 1lb per 3500kcal. And fat doesn't have 3500kcal per lb. It's total nonsense.

www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/04/where-does-the-3500-calorie-theory-come-from/

Unfortunately, for years,it's been stated men need 2.5k cals per day women 2k.its now known this isn't correct. You can work out your BMR anything over that has to be accounted for,by burning off the extra cals.

You can work out your BMR

Even calculators for this are unreliable, because we all use different amounts of energy to do each of the thousands of functions.

Totally agree @nannybeach. Although I take my Fitbit stats with a big pinch of salt, despite working out for 40mins every day (heart rate mid 150s consistently), I'm usually around 1900 calories a day. They really should stop putting this 'recommended 2000/2500 calories' as if it's some sort of target or minimum - in the same way that you see RDA for vitamins etc.

bmr and tdee you calculaters can only give a rough estimate based on the numbers you type in.
it gets a little more acurate if you add a fitness tracker/heartrate monitor. but still too many variables.

I think the only way you can really do it is by experimentation. Do something, stick with it for long enough to see if it works, and if it doesn't work, do something different. It might be less food, or different food, or more exercise of this sort or that sort... everyone needs to experiment for themselves, because we all respond to different things (in different ways)

This is why you'll get people adamant that CICO works, and people adamant that it doesn't. People saying that running made the weight drop off them, and others saying it didn't make a blind bit of difference. Why some people lose tons when they cut out carbs, and others just feel awful and it's unsustainable.

The diet industry is onto this. They know we're confused. They know we will pay them MILLIONS if they can just say 'Finally: We have come up with the answer!' and then it works for 17% of people who try it, and they all sing its praises, while the other 83% sit crying and feeling like (skint) failures.

It's a racket.

very wise foundations

Spot on @TheFoundations.

@TheFoundations

I think the only way you can really do it is by experimentation. Do something, stick with it for long enough to see if it works, and if it doesn't work, do something different. It might be less food, or different food, or more exercise of this sort or that sort... everyone needs to experiment for themselves, because we all respond to different things (in different ways)

This is why you'll get people adamant that CICO works, and people adamant that it doesn't. People saying that running made the weight drop off them, and others saying it didn't make a blind bit of difference. Why some people lose tons when they cut out carbs, and others just feel awful and it's unsustainable.

The diet industry is onto this. They know we're confused. They know we will pay them MILLIONS if they can just say 'Finally: We have come up with the answer!' and then it works for 17% of people who try it, and they all sing its praises, while the other 83% sit crying and feeling like (skint) failures.

It's a racket.

Perfect advice.

How long do people try a diet for , a few weeks, a couple of months, longer ? All the people I know who have been successful have done it for a prolonged period of time, so a year or more. Does the research mention how long people on diets remain on them ?

Those successful people have also increased and maintained a level of exercise that was greater than before. I do think there is a fat people are lazy vibe in society, but that in itself is a lazy way of thinking, if I gave a 10 stone person a rucksack to wear on their back with 5 stones in and one to wear on their front with 5 stones in ( to quantify this imagine carrying 75 cans of baked beans as an equivalent to 5 stone) and then asked them to go about their day and do all the things they would normally do, most if not all would be knackered from the effort, it just isn't the same as going to a gym and doing some dedicated weight training session, for the obese this is their reality, all day, everyday and it is actually hard work.

FWIW I don't see myself on a diet as such, I have just recognised that the diet I previously ate wasn't giving me the nourishment I need and actually made me feel a bit shit. I am not counting calories, but I know I am eating a lot less calories, but also more importantly, nutritionally better calories.

All the people I know who have been successful have done it for a prolonged period of time, so a year or more

It wouldn't take this long to see if a particular change in regime worked, though. It might be quite good to have a year of exploration, maybe... Pick 6 healthy weight loss methods (so that's Slimfast gone) and spend 2 moths on each, unless one works, and then you stick to it. If any method is going to work, anyone would get measurable positive results within 8 weeks, I reckon.

CICO works.

There are different ways of making it work - keto, high protein, IF, etc. But those are all just different forms of CICO, which is what it comes down to.

Not everyone can stick to it, either. And everyone has different set points and metabolisms. But CICO still does work.

@georgarina

CICO works.

There are different ways of making it work - keto, high protein, IF, etc. But those are all just different forms of CICO, which is what it comes down to.

Not everyone can stick to it, either. And everyone has different set points and metabolisms. But CICO still does work.

And again. Have you read any of the links on this thread?

@georgarina

CICO works

Have you rtft? It doesn't always, as evidenced by many PPs, and various academic videos posted throughout the thread.

Well, it doesn't work in the way we think we're meant to calculate it, anyway.

It wouldn't take this long to see if a particular change in regime worked, though

True, but I see a lot of people embarking on a change in regime for a couple of weeks/months and then they fall off the wagon, go back to their previous regime and regain the weight, that's why I mentioned the people who kept going for a much longer period of time and asked about what timeframes the research studied.

But if you 'fall off the wagon' that means that that change in regime doesn't work for you. There's no use finding a way you can make your body lose weight if you can't do it; I mean, everybody has the option of giving up food, but that doesn't mean it's a healthy idea for any of us.

What research are you referring to?

@Honestopinion23, adaptation is the new lighter body needing less calories and you add to that less food needing to be processed.
after all metabolism the the body's way of taking food and turning it into stored or used energy.
if you are eating less, the body processes less.

chewing a steak uses the mouth and jaw muscles, the stomach itself needs to work more to break down the chunks of meat, all along the way to the intestines more "work" is needed and energy consumed doing this work VS popping the steak in the blender and drinking it up. maybe the same calories but way less mechanical work.
@TheFoundations i suspect the yoyo issue isn't the diet itself but the psychological aspect of "eating" and food choices (often lack of willpower).

i suspect the yoyo issue isn't the diet itself but the psychological aspect of "eating" and food choices (often lack of willpower

There's a hell of a lot of people with the self discipline and will to meet enormous challenges in their life, who have solely this one causing them trouble. Not having the will power to defeat natural urges in perpetuity is normal.

Blaming the individual is as helpful as saying 'Why don't you just calm down?' to a woman with raging PMT. We know it's her responsibility to respond appropriately to her hormonal fluctuations, but it's far more helpful to look into what's going on in her body 'behind the scenes' to cause the imbalance in the first place, rather than the 'You're just bad at controlling your moods', finger-pointy response.

@TheFoundations

i suspect the yoyo issue isn't the diet itself but the psychological aspect of "eating" and food choices (often lack of willpower

There's a hell of a lot of people with the self discipline and will to meet enormous challenges in their life, who have solely this one causing them trouble. Not having the will power to defeat natural urges in perpetuity is normal.

Blaming the individual is as helpful as saying 'Why don't you just calm down?' to a woman with raging PMT. We know it's her responsibility to respond appropriately to her hormonal fluctuations, but it's far more helpful to look into what's going on in her body 'behind the scenes' to cause the imbalance in the first place, rather than the 'You're just bad at controlling your moods', finger-pointy response.

But, unfortunately, willpower is literally the only thing that's ever going to work. There is no other solution, every weight loss method relies on commitment to some level of change, sustained over a long period of time/forever. Even for people who've had surgery.

So the question is, WHY is it so hard to exercise willpower around eating? What societal level changes need to be put in place to treat what is basically a mass addiction?

Personally I think limiting the sale of really shit, high fat/sugar, nutritionally void food would be a really good start, but that would be very unpopular.

@TheFoundations, self discipline in one area doesn't equal self discipline in all area's of health. some people show strength with work situations or financial situations but when the going gets tough they drink too much alcohol or eat a bit much and crash in front of the computer or tv.
food it hard to give up because we need it to survive and over time have come up with some yummy combinations.

The composition of your microbiome really affects how your body handles food.

For example, people who have methanogens in their microbiome can extract more calories from food than people without them.

It’s thought to be an adaptation that allowed people to survive significant periods of famine.

About 20% of people have methanogens present in their gut.