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.

I have always acknowledged that there are some that can successfully diet and then keep it off with just calorie counting. 95% can’t though and that’s been proven.
95% don't work because people slip back to old habits.
If 95% of ex alcoholics had a drink when they felt better looked well they wouldn't feel better or look well for very long.
They'd be yellow and bloated again.
It is an overall lifestyle change forever of healthy eating and exercise.
Diets don't work as they're not consistent.

@lljkk

According to this, the Japanese eat A LOT of carbs.

Hunter-gatherers from moderate latitudes tend to get 30-35% of their calories from carbs.

Carbs made up 66% of Vietnamese women's calorie intake.

55% of calorie intake in urban Thailand.

But sure, make out they just had "a small bowl of rice" if you like.

I did say, a small bowl of rice at each meal.

Interesting comparison with alcoholism.

I always slip back in to "grainatarianism" whether im keto, dirty keto, low cal, cabbage souping 😂

I need to acknowledge that you can long to eat something that you do not need at all but that has power to be harmful to me. Because my body hasnt evolved to deal with supermarkets.

@Honestopinion23

However, those of us who cut them out find that we feel better and lose weight

I think the thing is that you seem to think this is true of everyone, and it's not, always. As I've said over and over on the thread, everybody is different. Our minds are different, as well as our bodies. Our personalities are different. Some people try low carb, but they don't like it, so they don't do it, so by your own stated way of reckoning, that can be classed as 'not working for them'. The people who do it and feel better and lose weight are irrelevant, if you just don't like it.

You seem to be poo-pooing 'CICO', whilst also saying that, yes, at it's base, it does actually work but it's too hard, and at the same time saying that this other diet 'works for everyone'. It's all a bit too 'blanket'

Everybody needs to find their own way. CICO scientifically makes sense, but it's not like we're led to believe because it's almost impossible to count the damn things and their movement, and we can make it harder or easier for ourselves to resist eating them, in our own way.

Low carb/Keto scientifically makes sense, so it's worth trying, and works for many, but not everybody takes to it, and not every body responds in the same way.

Have you considered people who are overweight but don't eat many carbohydrates already? What would you suggest to them? Reduce their kcals, right?

Everything fits into a bigger picture, and what we're told, by the government and by dieting corporations, are jigsaw pieces. And because we can only see little bits of the picture at a time, we class different pieces as conflicting rather than different parts of a big picture. This leaves us confused, and we get threads like this, where people resort to insulting others who prefer a different jigsaw piece to them.

Low carb encourages the body to burn its fat, but it won't burn its fat unless it's in a kcal deficit. The level of encouragement is different per individual.

Measuring kcal in/out has to be a matter of experimentation. How my body uses a meal won't be the same as how your body uses a meal. How my body deals with a half hour run won't be the same as how your body deals with a half hour run. Many have success with MFP etc, but many don't because we are not all average.

We get less energy to lay down as body fat from eating a fat kcal than we do from eating a carb calorie, with protein in between the two. We can't choose, when we go for our run, whether to use the fat calories from our lunch or the carb calories. Bodies predominantly use carbs until they're gone, and then are forced to use fat. But they do this to different degrees, depending on their nature, and how we've had them behave in the preceding hours/days/weeks/years.

Nobody can say that x works and y doesn't. Everybody needs to understand what's happening so that they don't just follow a blanket rule and expect it to work for them. Some people strike it lucky on their first diet. Some try a whole bunch of things over years, but because they don't understand what their body and mind are doing, they don't find the thing that works for them, and it's frustrating and they get personally blamed for it, despite the massive effort they've put in.

I think that we need to stop mis-educating people, but we're not going to get told to eat less of the things that are fueling our agriculture economy, and the pharmaceutical industry. Everybody needs to look beyond what we're told by the powers that be, and if they do, they may well draw conclusions that a) don't agree with the powers that be, and b) work.

@EmeraldShamrock

95% don't work because people slip back to old habits

Where did you get this figure from? Can you post a link?

Low carb absolutely does not work for me. I gain weight very quickly, feel greasy and sluggish. Exercise performance drops.

Your bog standard balanced diet with plenty of fresh fruit and veg is what makes me feel best. If i need to lose weight I need to eat less of it.

It’s that simple for me.

@TheFoundations
I copied the text 95% from OP.

there are some that can successfully diet and then keep it off with just calorie counting. 95% can’t though and that’s been proven. = OP

You can find lots of different figures but they tend to be between 80% and 95%. There's an article about why diets fail here. The example of the 'America's Biggest Loser' programme is often cited, as it is here. The follow-up shows how few people keep the weight off and how many end up heavier than they were to start with (and discuss scientific reasons for why this is pretty much inevitable).

One of the points people are trying to demonstrate is that it's useless and counter-productive to keep blaming failed dieters for their supposed lack of motivation and willpower, when it's actually beyond the ability of the vast majority of human beings to fight the processes and unbuilt drives of their own brains and bodies for the rest of their lives, which is what it takes to lose a significant amount of weight by dieting and keep it off.

I have always acknowledged that there are some that can successfully diet and then keep it off with just calorie counting. 95% can’t though and that’s been proven

isn't the same at all as

95% don't work because people slip back to old habits

I was wondering where what you said comes from.

[quote TheFoundations]@Honestopinion23

However, those of us who cut them out find that we feel better and lose weight

I think the thing is that you seem to think this is true of everyone, and it's not, always. As I've said over and over on the thread, everybody is different. Our minds are different, as well as our bodies. Our personalities are different. Some people try low carb, but they don't like it, so they don't do it, so by your own stated way of reckoning, that can be classed as 'not working for them'. The people who do it and feel better and lose weight are irrelevant, if you just don't like it.

You seem to be poo-pooing 'CICO', whilst also saying that, yes, at it's base, it does actually work but it's too hard, and at the same time saying that this other diet 'works for everyone'. It's all a bit too 'blanket'

Everybody needs to find their own way. CICO scientifically makes sense, but it's not like we're led to believe because it's almost impossible to count the damn things and their movement, and we can make it harder or easier for ourselves to resist eating them, in our own way.

Low carb/Keto scientifically makes sense, so it's worth trying, and works for many, but not everybody takes to it, and not every body responds in the same way.

Have you considered people who are overweight but don't eat many carbohydrates already? What would you suggest to them? Reduce their kcals, right?

Everything fits into a bigger picture, and what we're told, by the government and by dieting corporations, are jigsaw pieces. And because we can only see little bits of the picture at a time, we class different pieces as conflicting rather than different parts of a big picture. This leaves us confused, and we get threads like this, where people resort to insulting others who prefer a different jigsaw piece to them.

Low carb encourages the body to burn its fat, but it won't burn its fat unless it's in a kcal deficit. The level of encouragement is different per individual.

Measuring kcal in/out has to be a matter of experimentation. How my body uses a meal won't be the same as how your body uses a meal. How my body deals with a half hour run won't be the same as how your body deals with a half hour run. Many have success with MFP etc, but many don't because we are not all average.

We get less energy to lay down as body fat from eating a fat kcal than we do from eating a carb calorie, with protein in between the two. We can't choose, when we go for our run, whether to use the fat calories from our lunch or the carb calories. Bodies predominantly use carbs until they're gone, and then are forced to use fat. But they do this to different degrees, depending on their nature, and how we've had them behave in the preceding hours/days/weeks/years.

Nobody can say that x works and y doesn't. Everybody needs to understand what's happening so that they don't just follow a blanket rule and expect it to work for them. Some people strike it lucky on their first diet. Some try a whole bunch of things over years, but because they don't understand what their body and mind are doing, they don't find the thing that works for them, and it's frustrating and they get personally blamed for it, despite the massive effort they've put in.

I think that we need to stop mis-educating people, but we're not going to get told to eat less of the things that are fueling our agriculture economy, and the pharmaceutical industry. Everybody needs to look beyond what we're told by the powers that be, and if they do, they may well draw conclusions that a) don't agree with the powers that be, and b) work.[/quote]
I honestly can’t work out your posts on this thread. Most of them seem to be saying the same sort of thing that I’m saying but then you consistently try to tell me that I’m wrong, even though I’m not really saying anything that’s different to you. I have no idea whether it’s something personal or whatever but just to say, I think most of your posts are very informative and I agree with them. Also I have said at various times that it differs for everyone and that I am talking about those who have been failed by the CICO model of which there are many. Anyway, have a nice day.

95% can’t though and that’s been proven

95% don't work because people slip back to old habits
I should have put if.
If 95% don't work it is because people slip back to old habits
The reality is people put back on their weight by returning to old eating patterns.
The emotional and physical reasons for doing it are different for everyone once the momentum is broken the problem returns.
Similarly to alcoholism, drugs addiction, aneroxia.
Every day is a challenge to continue with the momentum to stay in your safe zone.
It is not easy.

Measuring kcal in/out has to be a matter of experimentation. How my body uses a meal won't be the same as how your body uses a meal. How my body deals with a half hour run won't be the same as how your body deals with a half hour run. Many have success with MFP etc, but many don't because we are not all average.

Just curious with the above. In the last ten years sports watches that are tailored specifically towards tracking exercise have become more affordable and precise. Through the monitoring of your heart rate in conjunction with base metrics (height, weight, gender, age, type of activity etc) a fairly accurate picture of your calorie expenditure can be presented. I will burn a different number of calories then you for a 40 min run but if we both had a decent sports watch on and heart rate monitors we would be able see individually what our calorie burn is. I think most people massively underestimate how many calories they consume and that is harder to track but for expenditure it is pretty well defined these days.

@Honestopinion23

I agree with a lot of what you say too, but you're going for the blanket rule thing (like the title of your thread, 'x or y is bollox') which I think is dramatic and unhelpful.

The theories you're using are often right for many people. It's the way you're presenting them I disagree with. Nothing is ever 100% true, and that's what the problem is, so, in trying to highlight the problem, with some strong points, you are also being part of the problem.

• You are talking bollox!
• No! You are talking bollox!

doesn't help or encourage people to actually investigate what's wrong.

It's certainly nothing personal, I don't know you I just enjoy a debate on the subject.

@DillonPanthersTexas

You can't tell from those watches whether you're burning from your fat or you sugar stores, though, which is a vital part of the equation. I'm not sure how accurate they really are (surely they tell you what an average body of your stats would burn? Are you average in this way? How do you know?) but even if they're 100% accurate, burning 300kcal from your sugar stores will make no difference to your weight, and will make you crave sugar. Burning 300kcal from your fat stores will get rid of fat, and you will lose weight.

This is what I mean when I say we only work with jigsaw pieces, rather than understanding the whole picture.

@ManifestingJoy keto seems quite extreme tbh. I was just really disappointed when I didn't see the scales budge at all when I'd tried really hard and from everything I've heard low-carb is meant to be the bee's knees. I did do stricter low carb back in January (and lost 5lbs instantly) but it's not really sustainable cooking something entirely different for myself to the rest of my family.

I've never done it but I believe Slimming World plain pasta is 'free' food and a family member lost 6 stone on this (but has since put it back on). I really think that different people just need different things (except shaming which has never worked ime of all the overweight people I know).

[quote TheFoundations]@Honestopinion23

I agree with a lot of what you say too, but you're going for the blanket rule thing (like the title of your thread, 'x or y is bollox') which I think is dramatic and unhelpful.

The theories you're using are often right for many people. It's the way you're presenting them I disagree with. Nothing is ever 100% true, and that's what the problem is, so, in trying to highlight the problem, with some strong points, you are also being part of the problem.

• You are talking bollox!
• No! You are talking bollox!

doesn't help or encourage people to actually investigate what's wrong.

It's certainly nothing personal, I don't know you I just enjoy a debate on the subject.[/quote]
Okay for clarification I don’t think it applies to absolutely everyone. And the bit I think is bollocks (in most cases) is the diet industry and government advice and the tendency to blame people for not succeeding using their methods. That is what my point was. Maybe the title is a bit click-baity but I have said on several occasions that I don’t think it applies to everyone and that some will have success with it. There’s also a difference between CICO in scientific terms and CICO as a term used by the diet industry (eg Team RH or James Smith) where they basically say that if you aren’t losing weight, you’re lying about what you are eating. My gripe is with the latter form. I’m not saying that there isn’t a scientific relationship between energy consumption and weight loss (there is but it’s far more complex than what people understand).

Yes, @Honestopinion23, I see what you're saying and agree. Quite a few of your posts don't make those caveats clear, though, and those are the ones I've responded to negatively. The whole point here is that people are being miseducated. Coming in with blanket statements and not explaining that they're not actually blanket is misleading for those people who are already confused.

If 95% don't work it is because people slip back to old habits

Partly, yes, because it's almost impossible not to. That's why the vast majority of diets fail. And unless humans somehow evolve out of the powerful biological drives and processes that stop us losing weight, that's not going to change any time soon.

How about agreeing that all calories are not equal?

Now that may sound mathematically dubious but we need more than calories to thrive: we need a rounder view of nutrition that reemphasises that quality counts (and that not everybody reacts for example to starchy carbohydrates in the same way.)

@AGreenerShadeofKale

How about agreeing that all calories are not equal?

Now that may sound mathematically dubious but we need more than calories to thrive: we need a rounder view of nutrition that reemphasises that quality counts (and that not everybody reacts for example to starchy carbohydrates in the same way.)

Yes, I’d agree with that.

How about agreeing that all calories are not equal?

Well that's certainly true. Anyone who thinks 500 calories of Haribo are equal to 500 calories of chicken and vegetable soup in terms of nutritional value and effects on your appetite and blood sugar levels is perhaps a tad misguided .

@AGreenerShadeofKale

How about agreeing that all calories are not equal?

Now that may sound mathematically dubious but we need more than calories to thrive: we need a rounder view of nutrition that reemphasises that quality counts (and that not everybody reacts for example to starchy carbohydrates in the same way.)

That's true. Although I doubt you'll get everyone to agree to it, it's still a hotly debated one.

I love your user name, by the way

@lazylinguist

How about agreeing that all calories are not equal?

Well that's certainly true. Anyone who thinks 500 calories of Haribo are equal to 500 calories of chicken and vegetable soup in terms of nutritional value and effects on your appetite and blood sugar levels is perhaps a tad misguided .

Yes, but the question is whether they're the same for weight loss/gain. It's definitely possible to be thin and eat unhealthily.

Yes, but the question is whether they're the same for weight loss/gain. It's definitely possible to be thin and eat unhealthily.

Absolutely there are many people I know who do that.