Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[Joanne]

I've known for years that "calories in/calories out" was not a viable weight loss theory for me. "Eat less and move more" and its infinite variations are insulting.

 

I'm inclined to believe these articles:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2134162/Research-shows-trying-lose-weight-alters-brain-hormones-youre-doomed-pile-again.html

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/03/diets_do_not_work_the_thin_evidence_that_losing_weight_makes_you_healthier.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/18/one-chart-shows-why-its-nearly-impossible-to-lose-weight-and-keep-it-off/

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201103/dieting-can-make-you-lose-your-mind

 

"Maybe a calorie isn't just a calorie. Maybe novel food products cause inflammation and irritation, leading to changes with insulin, leptin, and other appetite hormones. Perhaps that explanation would make more sense than the current one that, somehow, in a few generations, the majority of Americans have become hopeless gluttonous sloths."

[mamaraby]

I think that we tend to be inclined to believe the things we want to because they line up with what we think. I, for instance, find the constant harping on the evils of carbohydrates and the wonders of the low-carb diet tiresome. I'm also not a fan of the Evo Psych crowd.

 

If it's not calories, then why would bariatric surgery work? In essence bariatric surgery is extreme calorie restriction coupled with physical changes to the stomach that make tripping the body's satiety mechanisms a lot easier. There are a lot of folks who regain after bariatric surgery, but Ithink that's less about localized infammation and more about the adaptability and genetic variability of humans.

 

I think that you have to find the tools that work for you - and what tools those maybe will vary depending upon the person. I suspect there are as many ways to lose weight (and maintain that weight loss) as there are people. That does not, however, mean that calories don't matter nor that successful weight loss isn't about calorie restriction to one degree or another.

 

YMMV and all that, but it was liberating to me when I could drop the low carb holy grail that made me nauseous and miserable and embrace the potato.

[kitten18]

I've known for years that "calories in/calories out" was not a viable weight loss theory for me. "Eat less and move more" and its infinite variations are insulting.

 

I'm inclined to believe these articles:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2134162/Research-shows-trying-lose-weight-alters-brain-hormones-youre-doomed-pile-again.html

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/03/diets_do_not_work_the_thin_evidence_that_losing_weight_makes_you_healthier.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/18/one-chart-shows-why-its-nearly-impossible-to-lose-weight-and-keep-it-off/

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201103/dieting-can-make-you-lose-your-mind

 

 

"Maybe a calorie isn't just a calorie. Maybe novel food products cause inflammation and irritation, leading to changes with insulin, leptin, and other appetite hormones. Perhaps that explanation would make more sense than the current one that, somehow, in a few generations, the majority of Americans have become hopeless gluttonous sloths."

I agree.

Thanks for posting. I especially liked the Slate article.

[kitten18]

 

 

YMMV and all that, but it was liberating to me when I could drop the low carb holy grail that made me nauseous and miserable and embrace the potato.

And I felt liberated when I got off the low-fat/high-carb, blood sugar roller coaster.

[Pawz4me]

I think many people confuse "calories in/calories out" with "all calories are equal."

 

They aren't the same thing.

 

And while I just skimmed those articles, I'm not sure any of them would ever truly make the cut as "honest" data.  They're all biased and cite cherry picked studies.

 

I do think there's a lot about obesity we don't yet know.

[Laura Corin]

I'm happy that anyone finds a way of eating/being that works for them.  I do know that I saw China on low calories and China on increased calories and reduced exercise, with the advent of more cars and with more people able to afford bus fares: the people were taller in the later period, but also fatter.  Very little of the calorie increase was 'highly modified' foods (Western fast food, for example, was a once-a-year luxury).  It was more meat, more fat, more dairy.

[kroe1]

We can blame anything we want to make us feel better, but, bottom line, the average daily adult food consumption is 300 calories more per day than what it was in 1960's. Portions are HUGE. As a society, we need to quit eating so much on the plate. That would at least take us back to a less than 10% overweight rate rather than a 50% one. Then, we can start figuring out if there is something truly unique about the 10% still left.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Does it have to be all or nothing?  I think assuming that obesity is EITHER caused by excess calories OR caused by inflammation/hormonal imbalance/etc is a false dichotomy.  It is very likely some combination of both.  

[Carrie12345]

I've known for years that "calories in/calories out" was not a viable weight loss theory for me. "Eat less and move more" and its infinite variations are insulting.

 

 

While I don't believe a calorie is a calorie in the greater sense (candy bars and fast food burgers aren't going to adequately fuel your cells and nourish your biological systems) I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

To me, this is very much like patients with brain chemistry issues finding "you need medication" to be insulting.  Sure, there's no across the board perfect drug and dosage that fits everyone. Sure, environment and lifestyle comes into play.  But, if you trust in the science and work with the art ,there IS relief out there.

That doesn't eliminate the possibility of comorbid factors that might be in play, but it doesn't change the general rules, either.

I don't know why my reply is formatting weird.

[Pegasus]

I do think there's a lot about obesity we don't yet know.

 

I agree,  I'm just very pleased that this is now a topic for discussion, debate, and research, instead of assuming that we already know what needs to be known!

[Soror]

Does it have to be all or nothing?  I think assuming that obesity is EITHER caused by excess calories OR caused by inflammation/hormonal imbalance/etc is a false dichotomy.  It is very likely some combination of both.  

AMEN! Every time some article is posted on here it is the same to sides battling back and forth. It annoys me to no end that people continue to believe that whatever it is that worked for them should work for everyone else. I have hormone issues, thyroid disease, insulin problems, you name it so I live with the effects daily. Yes, I'm a normal weight, on the low end actually, but it wasn't strictly calorie counting or carb counting or anything else by itself that got me here after my thyroid crashed. Many people do have thyroid and insulin issues that are undiagnosed and to have it repeatedly pounded into their heads that they are just eating too much is beyond annoying, while I've never been the type to eat whatever (not since high school anyway) there was a huge difference in what and how much my body tolerated me eating after my crash. I guess those who are not effected/afflicted in those ways can continue to ignore the existence of these issues, the rest of us don't have that luxury. I would say as well that I have no trouble believing that some people thrive on diets that are the exact opposite of mine it is easy for me to see that looking at traditional diet around the world the composition of the macro and micro-nutrients tend to vary so greatly.

 

 

 

(fwiw my current diet is low carb, auto-immune(no dairy, gluten, soy, grains, chocolate, eggs, nightshades, sugar and moderate protein)

[Joanne]

We can blame anything we want to make us feel better, but, bottom line, the average daily adult food consumption is 300 calories more per day than what it was in 1960's. Portions are HUGE. As a society, we need to quit eating so much on the plate. That would at least take us back to a less than 10% overweight rate rather than a 50% one. Then, we can start figuring out if there is something truly unique about the 10% still left.

 

 

Sigh.

 

I don't "blame anything I want to feel better."

And I don't appreciate the insinuation.

 

My body is not explained by "calories in, calories out." Period.  My obesity is not remedied by "eating less, moving more."

 

I'm not alone.

 

I wish that the fat shaming (most is variations on fat = lazy) was understood for the hate it is.

[Pawz4me]

Sigh.

 

I don't "blame anything I want to feel better."

And I don't appreciate the insinuation.

 

My body is not explained by "calories in, calories out." Period.  My obesity is not remedied by "eating less, moving more."

 

I'm not alone.

 

I wish that the fat shaming (most is variations on fat = lazy) was understood for the hate it is.

 

Are you open to hearing that I used to think the exact same thing?  For many years?  Not just think it, but was absolutely convinced of it.

[Soror]

Are you open to hearing that I used to think the exact same thing?  For many years?  Not just think it, but was absolutely convinced of it.

Are you open to hearing that I used to believe in CICO, for many years? Until I lived a different reality that is.

[Joanne]

I agree with you Joanne.  I will also say that one solution is not everyone's solution so calories in/calories out may work for some people, it certainly doesn't work for everyone.  There's a great documentary on this exact subject on Netflix.  I think it's called Fed Up. 

 

Calories in/calories out works for my sister. She has lost and maintained that loss successfully. Unfortunately, she also falls into the recently emerging category of being very food focused to the point of disordered. More *now* than when she was morbidly obese.

[Joanne]

Are you open to hearing that I used to think the exact same thing?  For many years?  Not just think it, but was absolutely convinced of it.

 

 

No, I am really not. Calories in/calories out and eat less/move more was and continues to be the cultural standard for weight loss advice. I don't need to "be open to it."

 

Sure, could I literallly starve my body and lose weight? Of course.

[Pawz4me]

Are you open to hearing that I used to believe in CICO, for many years? Until I lived a different reality that is.

 

Sure.  I thoroughly enjoy all these discussions and reading about different experiences.

[Soror]

Sure.  I thoroughly enjoy all these discussions and reading about different experiences.

My experience is this, I was always small in school and then I started college and then Depo shots, the combination led to a 30-ish lb gain over 2 yrs. I worked the traditional way, counted every little thing, started exercising etc and lost most of that within a year, the next 5lbs or so coming off in a year or two, I don't even remember it was a way of life by then. I made it through my 3 pregnancies and got back to my normal weight, although it took much more work than it did for the average person. then well, my last pregnancy my body went crazy, my hormones were crazy off and evidently Hashimotos was triggered and insulin issues. Eating normal totally jacks up my bg and leads to weight gain, even when eating normal amounts(and I know what normal is as I have years of counting calories, portion sizes, eating real foods under my belt by now), not to mention that I feel like crap eating foods that most think are good and healthy foods. I dont' enjoy having such a restricted diet, not by a long shot but functioning is more important to me than eating whatever I want 

[Pawz4me]

My experience is this, I was always small in school and then I started college and then Depo shots, the combination led to a 30-ish lb gain over 2 yrs. I worked the traditional way, counted every little thing, started exercising etc and lost most of that within a year, the next 5lbs or so coming off in a year or two, I don't even remember it was a way of life by then. I made it through my 3 pregnancies and got back to my normal weight, although it took much more work than it did for the average person. then well, my last pregnancy my body went crazy, my hormones were crazy off and evidently Hashimotos was triggered and insulin issues. Eating normal totally jacks up my bg and leads to weight gain, even when eating normal amounts(and I know what normal is as I have years of counting calories, portion sizes, eating real foods under my belt by now), not to mention that I feel like crap eating foods that most think are good and healthy foods. I dont' enjoy having such a restricted diet, not by a long shot but functioning is more important to me than eating whatever I want 

 

Interesting. I've had a somewhat similar experience --under to normal weight as a child but steadily gained throughout teen years. Realized at 25 that I was obese and that if I didn't do something about it then I probably never would.  Also had a father and an aunt with diabetes.  Lost weight using CICO and followed that for 27 years.  Was diagnosed with hypothyroidism two months ago (with concurrent increases in cholesterol and BG) and am still getting medication dosage sorted out.  It was in these past two months that I've really been able to fully understand that CICO irrefutably works.

 

Two people, similar experiences, different conclusions.

[Soror]

Interesting. I've had a somewhat similar experience --under to normal weight as a child but steadily gained throughout teen years. Realized at 25 that I was obese and that if I didn't do something about it then I probably never would.  Also had a father and an aunt with diabetes.  Lost weight using CICO and followed that for 27 years.  Was diagnosed with hypothyroidism two months ago (with concurrent increases in cholesterol and BG) and am still getting medication dosage sorted out.  It was in these past two months that I've really been able to fully understand that CICO irrefutably works.

 

Two people, similar experiences, different conclusions.

YOu do understand similar does not = same. 

 

As I said I have great experience counting carbs and calories. I lost all the weight I gained with 3 babies but my body works differently than it did before. The things I did before didn't work for me. I knew how to maintain my weight in the 120s, for years but as of now I can't eat the standard diet and have that work for me. That is great that it works for you but that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

[AmandaVT]

My experience is this, I was always small in school and then I started college and then Depo shots, the combination led to a 30-ish lb gain over 2 yrs. I worked the traditional way, counted every little thing, started exercising etc and lost most of that within a year, the next 5lbs or so coming off in a year or two, I don't even remember it was a way of life by then. I made it through my 3 pregnancies and got back to my normal weight, although it took much more work than it did for the average person. then well, my last pregnancy my body went crazy, my hormones were crazy off and evidently Hashimotos was triggered and insulin issues. Eating normal totally jacks up my bg and leads to weight gain, even when eating normal amounts(and I know what normal is as I have years of counting calories, portion sizes, eating real foods under my belt by now), not to mention that I feel like crap eating foods that most think are good and healthy foods. I dont' enjoy having such a restricted diet, not by a long shot but functioning is more important to me than eating whatever I want 

 

I hate to 'like' your post, but I had to because I'm another one who gained while on Depo and had a heck of a time (still working on it) losing after! Over 30 lbs in 18 months and my Dr's were trying to blame my eating habits for most of that time. I finally realized it was the depo and it's been such a struggle, especially since my pregnancy. 

 

LCHF does not work for me. Not only do I not lose weight, it also makes me ill and gives me horrible, bathroom experiences - don't need to go into too much detail. 

 

Whole foods, plant based works quite well for me, but I need to keep my calories around 1200-1300 to lose weight. I can maintain at 1500 ok. Anything more and I'll gain. 

[displace]

I think there are way too many variables in humans, foods, lifestyles, diseases, etc to say one theory encompasses all. And over time what may be good for a person may stop working. The human body is so dynamic.

 

I will say in American culture the amount we eat out compared to other cultures is a lot different (increased in general), and portion sizes are massive compared to many other countries. We tend to eat more processed and junk food which is a lot cheaper than whole food ingredients usually. Travel to other countries and visiting other cultures for any length of time shows a big difference in how Americans eat vs other places. Even international chains like McDonald's shows how different the portion sizes are and costs are much more expensive.

 

I don't think eating at home is the only solution, but I think that if over a lifespan we eat sooooo much more than other people, over time it's detrimental. It would seem advantageous to everyone to live a life without all the excess available in the first place. I hate all the governmental subsidies that make junk food so much cheaper. I wish an apple didn't cost the same amount as a bag of chips.

[Greta]

My personal experience in a very brief nutshell: in my 20's I could eat anything I wanted and never gain a pound. In my 30's carbohydrate restriction (infinitely preferable, to me personally, over calorie restriction) was quite sufficient for me to easily maintain my ideal weight. At the age of 40, I suddenly, over the course of a single week, gained eight pounds. I had not changed my diet one iota (I track my food). I had not changed my activity level at all. What HAD changed was my hormones - I was having many perimenopause symptoms all of a sudden.

 

In other words, calories had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

That happened about ten months ago now, and try as I might, I have not been able to lose the weight that I gained. I'm eating the amount of calories that someone of my sex, size, and activity level is "supposed" to eat. Could I restrict my calories to the point where I'm hungry, weak, and cranky all the time and lose that weight? Sure. Is it worth it to me? Nope.

 

Calories matter. But are they the paramount, primary, most important thing? I do not believe so, and yet that is the status that they hold among many medical professionals, the popular media, and our culture generally.

 

In the documentary FatHead, he points out that when he and his wife sit down to a meal, they both do the same thing: eat until they are full. But he was fat and she was skinny (his assessment, not mine). Unless you honestly believe that obese people are stuffing themselves *beyond* the point of satisfaction, then you have to ask yourself what role hunger, appetite, and satiety play in this equation. Okay, obese people are eating more calories. But WHY? Why isn't their hunger shutting off when they've had sufficient calories?

 

I suspect that the role that hormones play in this issue (insulin, thyroid, sex hormones, etc) is being vastly underestimated.

 

There's also some interesting research about the role that gut bacteria play in this equation. Some doctors now believe that depending on gut biota, some people actually "extract" more calories out of a given meal than others do.

 

And who knows what other factors we have yet to discover.

 

The issue is complicated, and I just don't think it can be reduced to simple little axioms like "calories in vs. calories out".

[abcmommy]

I always thought it was very simple CICO and I have never had a weight problem until recently.

 

In 2013 I began an exercise regimen which was fairly intense, including many many hours of walking and running thru the week.  Eventually I cut calories too.  Weight really did not move.  I tracked every step and bite of food.  When I cut calories to 1100 a day I began to lose weight finally.

 

That little food and that amount of time devoted to exercise is simply not sustainable for me (or anyone else most likely).

 

And the minute I slipped up my weight BALLOONED and now I am fatter than I have EVER been.

 

Its not simple.  At all.

[VaKim]

I know this is going in a different direction entirely, but I can't help but wonder, reading all these threads, why in the world do so many people have thyroid problems now? Did they always and just didn't know it? If so, still, why??

[Greta]

I agree with you Joanne. I will also say that one solution is not everyone's solution so calories in/calories out may work for some people, it certainly doesn't work for everyone. There's a great documentary on this exact subject on Netflix. I think it's called Fed Up.

I've never seen that one. Thanks for mentioning it!

[Soror]

My personal experience in a very brief nutshell: in my 20's I could eat anything I wanted and never gain a pound. In my 30's carbohydrate restriction (infinitely preferable, to me personally, over calorie restriction) was quite sufficient for me to easily maintain my ideal weight. At the age of 40, I suddenly, over the course of a single week, gained eight pounds. I had not changed my diet one iota (I track my food). I had not changed my activity level at all. What HAD changed was my hormones - I was having many perimenopause symptoms all of a sudden.

 

I

I suspect that the role that hormones play in this issue (insulin, thyroid, sex hormones, etc) is being vastly underestimated.

 

Yep, but you must not really know how to track or count, despite the fact that you have been counting and maintaining for years.

 

I had one lady try to give me all this advice, now for the entire time I've known her I've been smaller than her but she was just telling me how I need to track and count yada yada because she had discovered how well this works and I must not know how to do this. No understanding that I understand and know how to do these things very well(and learned this 14+ yrs ago) but my body changed. Sadly ironic now she is having the same issue as perimenopause has started for her, she is having a hard time understanding that was just working is no longer, even though she is still meticulously tracking. I *want* to say, now you understand but that would be awful spiteful, instead I offer my thoughts and experiences the best I can.

[Word Nerd]

Many Americans could benefit from the standard advice to eat less and move more. Although weight loss and maintenance aren't as simple as that and different people have different needs, I don't perceive that general advice as hateful or fat shaming.

[shawthorne44]

I find it interesting that one of the early replies used bariatric surgery as an example of CICO working.   I've always thought it was proof that it doesn't.  Yes, people lose weight in the first year.   The people I've seen that have had the surgery became less fat, but a no where near skinny or ideal range or even out of the obese range.  My mother has a out-of-town friend that visited over a holiday and stayed about a week.   She'd had her stomach removed.  I estimate she ate about 500 calories a day and she was about 300 pounds.  The stomach had been gone for awhile.  If CICO worked and your stomach was removed you'd be emaciated.  

[Joanne]

I

I don't think eating at home is the only solution, but I think that if over a lifespan we eat sooooo much more than other people, over time it's detrimental. It would seem advantageous to everyone to live a life without all the excess available in the first place. I hate all the governmental subsidies that make junk food so much cheaper. I wish an apple didn't cost the same amount as a bag of chips.

 

 

I do think that the politicalization and commercialization(profit) associated with our food supply is an issue that influences health, size, and buying patterns. I also think that research intended to reveal the truth about it is avoided, limited, and under funded.

[Joanne]

I always thought it was very simple CICO and I have never had a weight problem until recently.

 

In 2013 I began an exercise regimen which was fairly intense, including many many hours of walking and running thru the week.  Eventually I cut calories too.  Weight really did not move.  I tracked every step and bite of food.  When I cut calories to 1100 a day I began to lose weight finally.

 

That little food and that amount of time devoted to exercise is simply not sustainable for me (or anyone else most likely).

 

And the minute I slipped up my weight BALLOONED and now I am fatter than I have EVER been.

 

Its not simple.  At all.

 

 

I don't want to "like" your post. But I did want to offer "I understand" feedback.

[displace]

I know this is going in a different direction entirely, but I can't help but wonder, reading all these threads, why in the world do so many people have thyroid problems now? Did they always and just didn't know it? If so, still, why??

Hypothyroidism numbers are increasing but we don't know if it's because it's increasing in the population or it's being discovered on an increased basis. If you're overweight it's more likely to be found because it's s common test dr check for. Rates are est from 5-20% depending on the source checked, I think 10% is a fair est.

[Soror]

I know this is going in a different direction entirely, but I can't help but wonder, reading all these threads, why in the world do so many people have thyroid problems now? Did they always and just didn't know it? If so, still, why??

I have hashimotos, it is herditary, my mom was diagnosed after me in her 50s. My grandmother had thyroid issues too , another cousin has Graves and another with Hashi's, so it is all in my family tree. Likewise my sister in law has hashimotos and my mother in law has unspecified thyroid issues, one could likely presume she is Hashimotos as well, again with genetics it has been passed down the line. (my poor kids have lost the genetic lottery with thyroid and auto-immune diseases! Hashi's is supposed to be just 1-2% of the population but somehow we have it in both our families) Hashimotos wasn't even discovered until 1912 even then most doctors today don't even bother to test for it, let alone in decades past, we are at the tip of the iceberg with our knowledge of the immune system. Also, there is not just genetics at play but environmental factors that we have no clue about. So to answer your question- the existence in our previous ancestors was likely not diagnosed even if they did have it(even now it is likely to take a decade or more to be diagnosed for most people- if they just don't give up), not to mention there are environmental factors at play which determine whether or not that gene is expressed.  

[Joanne]

Many Americans could benefit from the standard advice to eat less and move more. Although weight loss and maintenance aren't as simple as that and different people have different needs, I don't perceive that general advice as hateful or fat shaming.

 

 

I can tell you that it IS hateful and shaming.

 

It assumes that the person has never heard the advice - when "eat less move more" is so indoctrincated in our culture. We've all heard it, over and over.

 

It also assumes that the overweight person overeats (which is not necessarily true) and that they don't move (enough) which is also not true.

 

It is a kinder, gentler variation of the fat and lazy stereotype that fuels fat shaming.

 

It is similar to the advice to "take care of the emotional issues" behind eating. I can tell you that my weight issues are not psychological either (with the exception of the biochemical impact of less sleep and weight which could be fit under a psychological umbrella).

[abcmommy]

Thyroid disorders are and always have been common tho- goiter was practically epidemic at one time, no?

[abcmommy]

I can tell you that it IS hateful and shaming.

 

It assumes that the person has never heard the advice - when "eat less move more" is so indoctrincated in our culture. We've all heard it, over and over.

 

It also assumes that the overweight person overeats (which is not necessarily true) and that they don't move (enough) which is also not true.

 

It is a kinder, gentler variation of the fat and lazy stereotype that fuels fat shaming.

 

It is similar to the advice to "take care of the emotional issues" behind eating. I can tell you that my weight issues are not psychological either (with the exception of the biochemical impact of less sleep and weight which could be fit under a psychological umbrella).

 

 

Agree.

 

And it does not explain the naturally thin people who do not ever move and eat much more.  LOL

[Joanne]

I find it interesting that one of the early replies used bariatric surgery as an example of CICO working.   I've always thought it was proof that it doesn't.  Yes, people lose weight in the first year.   The people I've seen that have had the surgery became less fat, but a no where near skinny or ideal range or even out of the obese range.  My mother has a out-of-town friend that visited over a holiday and stayed about a week.   She'd had her stomach removed.  I estimate she ate about 500 calories a day and she was about 300 pounds.  The stomach had been gone for awhile.  If CICO worked and your stomach was removed you'd be emaciated.  

 

 

I think WLS creates biochemcial/hormonal changes that are not yet understood or adequately researched.

[displace]

Thyroid disorders are and always have been common tho- goiter was practically epidemic at one time, no?

Most goiters in the past were due to iodine deficiency, mostly eradicated in places that have iodinized (sp?) salt.

 

Most hypothyroidism problems now are considered of autoimmune origin.

[Carol in Cal.]

Certainly a bunch of it is portion size.

 

I am old enough to remember the introduction of the Quarter Pounder.  THIS WAS NEWS BECAUSE IT WAS SO BIG.  Most fast food burgers were about 2/3-3/4 this size.

 

Serving sizes for soda tended to be a cup or so.  The Big Gulp was news because it was huge.

 

Now these things are the norm, or smaller than the norm.  This is a big change.

 

 

[DawnM]

This is me too.  I was never skinny per say, but I was within a normal weight range but struggled most of my pre-married life.  

 

The only diet I was on successfully was Jenny Craig.  I was working and single and had the financial resources to do it.  I did lose and get pretty slim for the first time and was able to maintain it for several years, but I will let you in on a secret.  I was hungry every day and I exercised for a min. of 45 min vigorously every day.

 

I just can't maintain that level of exercise and hunger per day now.  

 

When I was single I wasn't around food all the time.  I did go out with friends, but I didn't have to prepare food for others and be around it all the time, so I could eat my little (very little) Jenny Craig meals, and suffer through the hunger.

 

I tried WW.  I didn't lose.  I was told I "wasn't eating enough" and people were horrified with my 1000-1100 calorie diet.  So, I added 300 calories for two solid weeks and gained 4-5 pounds.  I was SO MAD.  It took me another 7-8 weeks to get that back off, which again included hunger and exercise.

 

 

Sigh.

 

 

I always thought it was very simple CICO and I have never had a weight problem until recently.

 

In 2013 I began an exercise regimen which was fairly intense, including many many hours of walking and running thru the week.  Eventually I cut calories too.  Weight really did not move.  I tracked every step and bite of food.  When I cut calories to 1100 a day I began to lose weight finally.

 

That little food and that amount of time devoted to exercise is simply not sustainable for me (or anyone else most likely).

 

And the minute I slipped up my weight BALLOONED and now I am fatter than I have EVER been.

 

Its not simple.  At all.

 

[displace]

Certainly a bunch of it is portion size.

 

I am old enough to remember the introduction of the Quarter Pounder. THIS WAS NEWS BECAUSE IT WAS SO BIG. Most fast food burgers were about 2/3-3/4 this size.

 

Serving sizes for soda tended to be a cup or so. The Big Gulp was news because it was huge.

 

Now these things are the norm, or smaller than the norm. This is a big change.

I was just thinking this yesterday when I heard a commercial for a third-pounder and I remembered when 1/4 pound burgers were really too large. Small French fries were the norm. And now a lot of people eat fast food multiple times per week and multiple times per day.

 

Probably a derailment of OP as she was emphasizing how there are people doing the right thing and not losing weight.

[abcmommy]

I also want to say that I think my mad exercise and dieting in 2013 was a BIG mistake partially fueled by an unhealthy "friendship".  I also think it has had a direct and negative impact on my ability to maintain a reasonable weight and I suspect it reset my set point about 10 lbs higher than before.

[abcmommy]

I was just thinking this yesterday when I heard a commercial for a third-pounder and I remembered when 1/4 pound burgers were really too large. Small French fries were the norm. And now a lot of people eat fast food multiple times per week and multiple times per day.

 

Probably a derailment of OP as she was emphasizing how there are people doing the right thing and not losing weight.

 

 

ok fine, so maybe some people do.

 

But do you really think most weight conscious people on this thread (ie me, Joanne, Dawn) are eating giant fast food burgers and fries and wondering why we are fat?  I dont even drink soda.  

[Carol in Cal.]

ok fine, so maybe some people do.

 

But do you really think most weight conscious people on this thread (ie me, Joanne, Dawn) are eating giant fast food burgers and fries and wondering why we are fat?  I dont even drink soda.  

I don't think that I'm so big because of quarter pounders, but certainly the portion size inflation and increase in eating out that I did in my thirties is a significant factor.

 

There is quite a bit of data that seems to imply that once someone is obese their setpoint adjusts to that, and that it's very difficult to move it back down again.  If I had taken this seriously when it started instead of saying, well, I'm just going to eat healthy and let the chips fall where they may, maybe I wouldn't be so big and entrenched in being so.  But I accept the fact that it's going to be a lot harder for me to lose weight and keep it off now that I'm so big.  The two (how people gain weight vs. how hard it is to lose it) are separate but related issues.

[Greta]

Another problem with the CICO model is that it implies that you can change one factor, while all the other factors except your weight remain constant, and that isn't the case. What I mean is, the clear implication is that if you reduce your caloric intake, your caloric output will remain steady and your weight will decrease. But this isn't what happens. When you reduce your caloric intake, many times your body reduces your caloric output (reduces your metabolic rate, makes you subconsciously reduce your non-exercise activity levels, etc.) so your weight remains the same. The other side of the CICO equation is that if you increase your caloric output (exercise), and keep your caloric input the same, then you'll lose weight. But this utterly fails to acknowledge that when you exercise, your body increases your appetite in response.

[Pawz4me]

I know this is going in a different direction entirely, but I can't help but wonder, reading all these threads, why in the world do so many people have thyroid problems now? Did they always and just didn't know it? If so, still, why??

 

 

Thyroid disorders are and always have been common tho- goiter was practically epidemic at one time, no?

 

I'm not sure they're more common.  I've only paid attention to my own family and friends, but as an example my grandmother and several aunts and even one uncle were hypothyroid.  And yet as far as I know I'm the only one in the family in my generation who has been diagnosed with it.  And I have 20+ cousins.

[DawnM]

Some of us have been weighing and measuring for years and are very well aware of what our portion sizes are.

 

I can eat a happy meal and think it is a huge treat because I know that it still has almost 500 calories even with a diet drink.

 

Yup, I am very calorie conscious.  

That doesn't mean I am always good, it just means that one can't possibly think that those of us who have been dieting for many years don't understand portion sizes.

 

 

Certainly a bunch of it is portion size.

 

I am old enough to remember the introduction of the Quarter Pounder.  THIS WAS NEWS BECAUSE IT WAS SO BIG.  Most fast food burgers were about 2/3-3/4 this size.

 

Serving sizes for soda tended to be a cup or so.  The Big Gulp was news because it was huge.

 

Now these things are the norm, or smaller than the norm.  This is a big change.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

That doesn't mean I am always good, it just means that one can't possibly think that those of us who have been dieting for many years don't understand portion sizes.

Again, what I'm saying is that portion size norms are a big factor in weight gain, not in weight loss.

 

I think that the two (weight gain contributors and weight loss effectiveness) are related but not the same.

 

I think that once people overwhelm their bodies' weight control mechanisms, they change in ways that make it far harder to lose weight and keep it off than if they had never gained it in the first place.  There is quite a bit of evidence for that, even in the OP articles.  

 

It's kind of like how ivy grows--it sends out shoots all over the place, but once it achieves the top of some tree or big structure, it changes in character, permanently and irrevocably.  From then on it is a new structure, no matter where it grows.  The environment triggered the change, but going back to the old environment does not reverse it.  

 

Similarly, most of the time people who gain a bunch of weight and keep it for a long time find it far more difficult to lose it and keep it off than others do.  And a factor in that original gain, for many, is the bigger portion sizes that have become the norm.  I wish that I had known this sooner.

 

The preponderance of the evidence at this point is that weight gain and weight loss are separate phenomena that act differently.  That's not really all that surprising when you consider the OP criticism of CICO.  Weight gain might originally be CICO, and weight loss after an early excursion might be as well, but weight loss after sustained high weight is a different animal.  It makes sense, then, to question portion sizes in general, for preventative purposes, which is what I'm doing.  But that doesn't mean that portion size reduction will be sufficient for weight loss, which is far more difficult and complex than preventing weight gain in the first place.

[Pawz4me]

My personal experience in a very brief nutshell: in my 20's I could eat anything I wanted and never gain a pound. In my 30's carbohydrate restriction (infinitely preferable, to me personally, over calorie restriction) was quite sufficient for me to easily maintain my ideal weight. At the age of 40, I suddenly, over the course of a single week, gained eight pounds. I had not changed my diet one iota (I track my food). I had not changed my activity level at all. What HAD changed was my hormones - I was having many perimenopause symptoms all of a sudden.

 

In other words, calories had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

That happened about ten months ago now, and try as I might, I have not been able to lose the weight that I gained. I'm eating the amount of calories that someone of my sex, size, and activity level is "supposed" to eat. Could I restrict my calories to the point where I'm hungry, weak, and cranky all the time and lose that weight? Sure. Is it worth it to me? Nope.

 

Calories matter. But are they the paramount, primary, most important thing? I do not believe so, and yet that is the status that they hold among many medical professionals, the popular media, and our culture generally.

 

In the documentary FatHead, he points out that when he and his wife sit down to a meal, they both do the same thing: eat until they are full. But he was fat and she was skinny (his assessment, not mine). Unless you honestly believe that obese people are stuffing themselves *beyond* the point of satisfaction, then you have to ask yourself what role hunger, appetite, and satiety play in this equation. Okay, obese people are eating more calories. But WHY? Why isn't their hunger shutting off when they've had sufficient calories?

 

I suspect that the role that hormones play in this issue (insulin, thyroid, sex hormones, etc) is being vastly underestimated.

 

There's also some interesting research about the role that gut bacteria play in this equation. Some doctors now believe that depending on gut biota, some people actually "extract" more calories out of a given meal than others do.

 

And who knows what other factors we have yet to discover.

 

The issue is complicated, and I just don't think it can be reduced to simple little axioms like "calories in vs. calories out".

 

But your experience (and several others that have been posted) corroborates that CICO does indeed work.  It simply does.  There's no one who wouldn't lose weight if they restricted their calories enough (or exercised enough to create a deficit).  There's not a single person here who, if placed in a famine situation, wouldn't lose weight.

 

Now perhaps we're debating at cross purposes, because I am not nor have I ever claimed that maintaining a sufficient caloric deficit to lose weight is easy, or that it's not apparently harder for some than for others.

 

But to me that is a totally different issue than saying CICO doesn't work for weight loss.  It does.

 

Now the "why" of why it's apparently so much harder for some to eat (and/or exercise) at a deficit in a modern, wealthy society is worthy of discussion.  IMO, of course.  As are issues like the role of genetics, hormones, gut bacteria, etc.  No doubt some or all of them play a role in why it's harder for some than for others.

[abcmommy]

But your experience (and several others that have been posted) corroborates that CICO does indeed work.  It simply does.  There's no one who wouldn't lose weight if they restricted their calories enough (or exercised enough to create a deficit).  There's not a single person here who, if placed in a famine situation, wouldn't lose weight.

 

Now perhaps we're debating at cross purposes, because I am not nor have I ever claimed that maintaining a sufficient caloric deficit to lose weight is easy, or that it's not apparently harder for some than for others.

 

But to me that is a totally different issue than saying CICO doesn't work for weight loss.  It does.

 

Now the "why" of why it's apparently so much harder for some to eat (and/or exercise) at a deficit in a modern, wealthy society is worthy of discussion.  IMO, of course.  As are issues like the role of genetics, hormones, gut bacteria, etc.  No doubt some or all of them play a role in why it's harder for some than for others.

 

 

I guess your definition of "work" must be different from mine.  Weight loss doesn't mean something worked.  Maintenance would mean it worked.