Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[Carol in Cal.]

Here is another article that references some of the same data as the OP, but takes it in some different directions:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/opinion/diet-advice-that-ignores-hunger.html

[abcmommy]

dp

[Carol in Cal.]

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

I think it's a question of precise vs. imprecise language.

 

But I will reiterate something I said in another thread.  The only people I know who have maintained weight loss in the long run have been those who used Weight Watchers.  That doesn't mean it will work for everyone, but at least I have seen it work in the long run for some, unlike every single other weight loss method friends of mine have tried.

[EmseB]

I've been thinking about this and I think CICO is simply a mathematical/scientific equation and not a judgement in and of itself.  Some people may be using it as a judgement, but without all the emotional baggage, it just comes down to a scientific reality.  You (general) can't gain weight from food that you don't put in your mouth.  It is physically impossible to gain weight if you are using more energy than you consume.  The body doesn't create cells out of thin air.

 

No, it doesn't address the fact that some people expend calories just by sitting ("high metabolism") and some people have to bust their butts that much harder to expend calories.  It doesn't address that some people have to practically starve themselves and walk 10 miles per day to get CICO to equate to significant weight loss which is not sustainable so they must find the *right* calories in, and they must find the associated hormonal balance because their body isn't functioning optimally at the hormonal level it should.  It simply addresses the idea that our bodies use energy which we consume.  Personally, when I exercise even a little bit I get so hungry that I end up eating way more than I would have if I had not exercised at all (and more calories than the exercise itself actually used), so benefits from exercise are really hard to achieve for me.

 

CICO doesn't address a myriad of factors in what kind of calories are going in and what kind of work must be done to get calories out, or all of the factors Carol in Cal talked about above, but I think that people in general are correct when they state that it does all come down to CICO.  That's not an emotional statement or a judgement as far as I can see, and it is accurate, if incomplete picture of what it means to gain and lose weight.

[abcmommy]

I think it's a question of precise vs. imprecise language.

 

But I will reiterate something I said in another thread.  The only people I know who have maintained weight loss in the long run have been those who used Weight Watchers.  That doesn't mean it will work for everyone, but at least I have seen it work for some, unlike every single other weight loss method friends of mine have tried.

I used WW successfully.  I am a lifetime member.  

 

It worked great when I was 28.

 

Im now 40. No one in WW recommends eating 1100 calories while running/ walking 20 miles a week and going to work out (strength training/ cardio) three times a week.  But that's what it takes.

[Joanne]

Here is another article that references some of the same data as the OP, but takes it in some different directions:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/opinion/diet-advice-that-ignores-hunger.html

 

 

From that article:

 

"We believe so implicitly in the rationale of eat less, move more, that we (at least those of us who are lean) will implicitly fault the obese for their failures to sustain a calorie-restricted regimen, without ever apparently asking ourselves whether we could sustain it either."

[Carol in Cal.]

From that article:

 

"We believe so implicitly in the rationale of eat less, move more, that we (at least those of us who are lean) will implicitly fault the obese for their failures to sustain a calorie-restricted regimen, without ever apparently asking ourselves whether we could sustain it either."

 

I'm thinking that work on setpoint adjustment is going to have to be the Next Big Thing, along with some bowel chemistry stuff.  It's fascinating to see the science develop.

 

ETA:  Or, to put it in terms of this discussion, the Next Big Thing will be working on the CO side of the equation.  Once our bodies become more efficient at fat storage and less able to expend calories, how do we make them expend calories in the way that a thin person does again?  That's what research needs to focus on right now.  

 

The other question I would ask is, why do we let other people's views of us matter so much to ourselves?  I don't personally internalize fat shaming very much.  I think that we can free ourselves of that, and that it's important to try to do so.

[Pawz4me]

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

 

I think maintenance is yet another, separate issue.  Too many people go "on" a diet and lose weight and then they're "off" the diet.  Not enough attention is paid to developing habits and sustaining them, albeit at a slightly higher calorie level for maintenance versus loss.

 

 

I've been thinking about this and I think CICO is simply a mathematical/scientific equation and not a judgement in and of itself.  Some people may be using it as a judgement, but without all the emotional baggage, it just comes down to a scientific reality.  You (general) can't gain weight from food that you don't put in your mouth.  It is physically impossible to gain weight if you are using more energy than you consume.  The body doesn't create cells out of thin air.

 

No, it doesn't address the fact that some people expend calories just by sitting ("high metabolism") and some people have to bust their butts that much harder to expend calories.  It doesn't address that some people have to practically starve themselves and walk 10 miles per day to get CICO to equate to significant weight loss which is not sustainable so they must find the *right* calories in, and they must find the associated hormonal balance because their body isn't functioning optimally at the hormonal level it should.  It simply addresses the idea that our bodies use energy which we consume.  Personally, when I exercise even a little bit I get so hungry that I end up eating way more than I would have if I had not exercised at all (and more calories than the exercise itself actually used), so benefits from exercise are really hard to achieve for me.

 

CICO doesn't address a myriad of factors in what kind of calories are going in and what kind of work must be done to get calories out, or all of the factors Carol in Cal talked about above, but I think that people in general are correct when they state that it does all come down to CICO.  That's not an emotional statement or a judgement as far as I can see, and it is accurate, if incomplete picture of what it means to gain and lose weight.

 

Thank you!

[DawnM]

n/m

 

 

[DawnM]

Please share more.

 

I never lost on WW, but it was because I followed what they said.  

 

As I mentioned, I lost on JC, but they DID tell me to eat aprox. 1000 calories.  Their guidelines have changed and they now say 1200 is min. but the min. used to be 1000.

 

I averaged 1100-1200 but was hungry all the time.  I did eat veggies a lot, etc....but there is only so much of that you can do.

 

So, you did something a bit different than what they recommended?

 

 

I used WW successfully.  I am a lifetime member.  

 

It worked great when I was 28.

 

Im now 40. No one in WW recommends eating 1100 calories while running/ walking 20 miles a week and going to work out (strength training/ cardio) three times a week.  But that's what it takes.

 

[abcmommy]

Please share more.

 

I never lost on WW, but it was because I followed what they said.  

 

As I mentioned, I lost on JC, but they DID tell me to eat aprox. 1000 calories.  Their guidelines have changed and they now say 1200 is min. but the min. used to be 1000.

 

I averaged 1100-1200 but was hungry all the time.  I did eat veggies a lot, etc....but there is only so much of that you can do.

 

So, you did something a bit different than what they recommended?

I was successful on WW I think, bc I was quite young and naturally tended to be thin.  Not because the program was so great.  And I was wrong before.  I used WW after kid2, not kid3.  So I was 24.  It took me 6 mos to get back in a size 6.  About 135 lbs for me (which was 5 lbs too fat for my height according to WW data at the time).  IIRC I got a dr note saying I was thin enough.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I believe different things work for different people.  There is no one way that works for everyone for various reasons.  For example, Weight Watchers would not work for me because I can't stand the food options.  Low carb doesn't work for some because they can't stand the food options.  People also have various confounding factors when it comes to food.  My husband eats when bored or upset.  I don't eat when bored or upset.  That is something he'd have to address if trying to lose weight.  I have other factors I'd have to address.

 

 

[Soror]

I've been thinking about this and I think CICO is simply a mathematical/scientific equation and not a judgement in and of itself.  Some people may be using it as a judgement, but without all the emotional baggage, it just comes down to a scientific reality.  You (general) can't gain weight from food that you don't put in your mouth.  It is physically impossible to gain weight if you are using more energy than you consume.  The body doesn't create cells out of thin air.

 

No, it doesn't address the fact that some people expend calories just by sitting ("high metabolism") and some people have to bust their butts that much harder to expend calories.  It doesn't address that some people have to practically starve themselves and walk 10 miles per day to get CICO to equate to significant weight loss which is not sustainable so they must find the *right* calories in, and they must find the associated hormonal balance because their body isn't functioning optimally at the hormonal level it should.  It simply addresses the idea that our bodies use energy which we consume.  Personally, when I exercise even a little bit I get so hungry that I end up eating way more than I would have if I had not exercised at all (and more calories than the exercise itself actually used), so benefits from exercise are really hard to achieve for me.

 

CICO doesn't address a myriad of factors in what kind of calories are going in and what kind of work must be done to get calories out, or all of the factors Carol in Cal talked about above, but I think that people in general are correct when they state that it does all come down to CICO.  That's not an emotional statement or a judgement as far as I can see, and it is accurate, if incomplete picture of what it means to gain and lose weight.

And all of those factors are why it is oversimplification and unhelpful for many to say, "well, it is simply CICO and nothing more." No it isn't. If it was Greta, me and my friend wouldn't have put on lbs with no change to her activity and food. If how we all burn those calories and how much we eat are effected by such a myriad of factors simplification isn't really helpful and gives but just a snapshot.

[DawnM]

Ah.  I had my first baby at a month shy of age 32.  It all went downhill from there!

 

however, my aunt did very well on WW and although she was never obese, she went from about 160 to 120 and kept it off for years.  All on WW.  

 

She told me once she LIKED that feeling of hunger pangs.  It let her know she was losing.

 

I used to like that too.  I now can't tolerate it.

 

I also have blood sugar issues or something.  I am not sure what it is.

 

I was successful on WW I think, bc I was quite young and naturally tended to be thin.  Not because the program was so great.  And I was wrong before.  I used WW after kid2, not kid3.  So I was 24.  It took me 6 mos to get back in a size 6.  About 135 lbs for me (which was 5 lbs too fat for my height according to WW data at the time).  IIRC I got a dr note saying I was thin enough.

 

[mommymilkies]

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.  

:iagree:   My daughter has profound Hashimoto's.  My Mom has had lifelong thyroid issues.  I had thyroidtoxicosis in 2002 post-Depo shot.  I know more people that are on sythroid for diagnosed, tested thyroid problems than I know people NOT on them.  Autoimmune issues are on the rise, but I think environmental pollution, personally, should also be looked into. 

 

 

I think people need to take a deep breath.  I mean, if even science can't give us a 100% answer, then maybe we should acknowledge what works for one person will NOT always work for another, right?  Talking in absolutes is not helping anyone here.  I know at times in my life, one system has worked more than another and vice versa.  Hormones, thyroid, aging, and our genetics are all factors that we like to ignore in order to blame the sufferer for laziness and glutton. 

 

I was also about to post that NYT article, thanks for doing that, Carol.  Starvation should really not be the optimal choice for weight loss with the other risks associated with it.  Not to mention it's not sustainable.  

 

Quite frankly, I'm not even low carb (no thank you, doesn't even work for me), and the 6 day study annoys me.  That's only 6 freaking days and not even actually low carb.  I've seen a lot of excellent results by people eating low carb or paleo, and also a lot of vegan amazing results.  Not everybody is the same. 

[DawnM]

What do you mean?  On WW you can eat anything.  You just have to track your points.

 

Low Carb makes me shaky and light headed.

 

I believe different things work for different people.  There is no one way that works for everyone for various reasons.  For example, Weight Watchers would not work for me because I can't stand the food options.  Low carb doesn't work for some because they can't stand the food options.  People also have various confounding factors when it comes to food.  My husband eats when bored or upset.  I don't eat when bored or upset.  That is something he'd have to address if trying to lose weight.  I have other factors I'd have to address.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

For me one big factor is pleasure and association habits.

 

For instance, yesterday I took DD out for a late lunch at a great Mexican restaurant that I have gone to for over 25 years.  I have a specific dish that I am accustomed to eating there, and I lean hard toward it.  It's really good, and it reminds me of many other fun times over the years.  In fact, the reason I wanted to go there so bad is that it reminds me of my FIL, who is currently in the hospital, and a fun visit with him years ago.  

 

Now, I could pick a healthier dish there, and many people would do so, and sometimes I do, but I didn't, not this time.  It's almost 10AM and I'm still full.  This was not a healthy food choice, but it was a tremendously pleasurable one, and not easily replaced in pleasure with anything else.

 

The thing that often gets me past this is to say, "Food is fuel for me right now," but I'm not willing to say that all the time for the rest of my life.  

 

So one of the things that I think portion size does is it creates those kinds of issues longterm, because the memory associations with good times could just as well be small, healthy meals, but generally they aren't, at least not for me.  They are big restaurant meals or big holiday meals.

[wintermom]

"Eat less and move more" and its infinite variations are insulting.

 

 

I think that the times when Eat less and move more is insulting is when it is no longer a choice; when there is no food, when you are forced to move.  North Korea, Africa, comes to mind. During WWII also comes to mind.

 

Otherwise, both moving and eating at moderate levels is almost always the way to long-term health. 

[abcmommy]

Based on my experiences I would recommend having babies at 21 and 24 (skipping the 3rd at 28!) and not living past 35.

 

This approach would have some serious drawbacks.  :P

[abcmommy]

Man I am so hungry.  I have done laundry, mopped, I am POURING with sweat, and Im getting lunch and a coors light.

[SparklyUnicorn]

What do you mean?  On WW you can eat anything.  You just have to track your points.

 

Low Carb makes me shaky and light headed.

 

Yes, but the foods that make me feel most satisfied I'd only be allowed to have a tiny portion of.  For example, how many eggs fried in butter could I have for breakfast verses how much oatmeal cooked with water?  You might say well it's the same calories, but portion size is also part of it.  I feel dizzy and starved after a bowl of oatmeal.

 

And I hate the taste of fat free products. 

[Carol in Cal.]

And all of those factors are why it is oversimplification and unhelpful for many to say, "well, it is simply CICO and nothing more." 

No, it's true but not as helpful as it might be.

 

The nice thing about it is, if you think about it scientifically you can start working on the CO side, not just the CI side.  I hope research turns in that direction.

[Joanne]

I think that the times when Eat less and move more is insulting is when it is no longer a choice; when there is no food, when you are forced to move.  North Korea, Africa, comes to mind. During WWII also comes to mind.

 

Otherwise, both moving and eating at moderate levels is almost always the way to long-term health. 

 

 

Really? I have to live in extreme political circumstances to have a valid viewpoint and feeling?

 

I have eaten and moved "at moderate levels" for a decade and been morbidly obese the entire time.

 

It's ok that you don't believe me. Really, we have been SO indoctrinated that fat people are lazy, stupid, and lack will power and are likely to have emotional problems.

 

You can read past my posts and not believe a word I've reported.

 

I'll just get back to my salad and one of many (on my feet) jobs.

[mommymilkies]

Based on my experiences I would recommend having babies at 21 and 24 (skipping the 3rd at 28!) and not living past 35.

 

This approach would have some serious drawbacks.   :p

:lol:  I guess my advice for 17, 21, and 24 would be a bit young to truly recommend.  19 and 27 did me in and left me with weight gain.  One from thyroid, the last because I guess I'm old and falling apart?  :crying:

[SparklyUnicorn]

Overall I think these details are not entirely known.  What research has been done?  The largest studies involved surveys and self reporting.  That isn't the most reliable method.  Of course conducting actual experiments with eating aren't generally ethical.  So these articles throw in a few random possibilities garnered from "studies", and then conclude a bunch of stuff that they try to pass off as fact, and abracadabra the holy grail of dieting has been "discovered". 

[mommymilkies]

Overall I think these details are not entirely known.  What research has been done?  The largest studies involved surveys and self reporting.  That isn't the most reliable method.  Of course conducting actual experiments with eating aren't generally ethical.  So these articles throw in a few random possibilities garnered from "studies", and then conclude a bunch of stuff that they try to pass off as fact, and abracadabra the holy grail of dieting has been "discovered". 

Not to mention a new holy grail discovered three times a day, often contradicting each other. ;)

[abcmommy]

Yes, but the foods that make me feel most satisfied I'd only be allowed to have a tiny portion of.  For example, how many eggs fried in butter could I have for breakfast verses how much oatmeal cooked with water?  You might say well it's the same calories, but portion size is also part of it.  I feel dizzy and starved after a bowl of oatmeal.

 

And I hate the taste of fat free products. 

This is valid.  WW has long been criticized for the point system and the fact that it encourages use of non natural products.

 

Also when I did WW I subsisted largely on homemade cookies from 8-5 and one good meal a day.  

[creekland]

My weight gain came from aging and kids.  I believe they say the typical adult adds 2 - 3 lbs per year?  Consider me quite typical once I had kids.

 

And I was VERY pleased today to see a weight on the scale that I haven't seen in 10 years... ;)  Taking it off has taken 7 months or so at this point.  I don't consider my changes to be a diet.  To me they are a lifestyle change, though once I get down to where I want to be I'll figure out maintenance vs losing.

 

I'm also incredibly pleased that hubby has now jumped on my bandwagon having seen how much I've lost and telling me he thinks I look good.  ;)  It's nice being able to discuss plans together.

 

I hope everyone out there can find what works for them.  I don't believe there's one solution for all.

 

ps  We are not using any specific plan.  We have switched to mainly veggies, fruit, and meats cutting out a bit of our carbs, but we allow cheating for special occasions - even soda (full sugar) on occasions, just not regularly.  Then we do plenty of walks together - probably more than in some of our weight gaining years (maybe not though - we did a bit with our boys).  We don't count any calories, but we do look at certain foods to see how many are in them.

[Pawz4me]

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.

 

Portion sizes are certainly an issue.  But it goes beyond that.  It seems to be part of being human -- apparently almost ALL of us under estimate our food intake and over estimate our activity.  Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, look at the studies linked in the (2) section of this blog.  I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular (just using your post as a jumping off point, Dawn).  Apparently none of us can be trusted to be accurate, regardless of whether we're normal weight or obese and regardless of how honest and truthful we're trying to be.  And unfortunately it's one of those things that make large scale food/diet studies so difficult to do (or at least to do accurately and with any meaning).

 

I've been watching my weight for decades and logging and tracking and I'd while I'd love to think I'm a special accurate and honest snowflake in this regard -- I can't quite believe that I'm so exceptional.  So I tack on 100 calories/day for mistakes.  And I really hate doing that, 'cause I'd love to eat those 100 calories!

 

(Disclaimer:  The only value judgments made or implied in this post are squarely aimed at myownself. ;))

[SparklyUnicorn]

Low carb is very effective for me.  EXCEPT, it limits a lot of foods.  Going out to eat is a challenge.  There aren't many convenience foods.  I know this sounds like a bunch of excuses, but for one thing I don't have all the time in the world to focus on this stuff.  I was most successful when I lived by myself.  I didn't have to deal with cooking for other people and working around their likes and needs.

 

And there is more to food than just fuel for living.  There are holidays, celebrations, birthdays, "just cuz", etc.  It's a hobby for some.  Some people use it as a comfort item when stressed or upset. 

 

If it were simple, this wouldn't be an issue for anyone. 

 

Most of the time I just want to eat.  I don't want to count, weigh, measure, worry, track, etc.  Turns the whole thing clinical. 

 

Another huge thing for a lot of people is just not having opportunities for exercise built into their day.  I do little things like park far and take the stairs, but it's not really enough.  There is nothing around here within walking distance so walking to the store or library isn't doable.  I've been thinking of joining a gym for awhile, but ugh I hate gyms.  It's so damn boring, but I can't figure anything else out.  I can't do stuff like hiking because of all my damn allergy issues.  Again, excuses I know, but having these things not built in requires a constant effort and that's hard to sustain.  I think most humans naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance. 

[Joanne]

Portion sizes are certainly an issue.  But it goes beyond that.  It seems to be part of being human -- apparently almost ALL of us under estimate our food intake and over estimate our activity.  Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, look at the studies linked in the (2) section of this blog.  I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular (just using your post as a jumping off point, Dawn).  Apparently none of us can be trusted to be accurate, regardless of whether we're normal weight or obese and regardless of how honest and truthful we're trying to be.  And unfortunately it's one of those things that make large scale food/diet studies so difficult to do (or at least to do accurately and with any meaning).

 

I've been watching my weight for decades and logging and tracking and I'd while I'd love to think I'm a special accurate and honest snowflake in this regard -- I can't quite believe that I'm so exceptional.  So I tack on 100 calories/day for mistakes.  And I really hate doing that, 'cause I'd love to eat those 100 calories!

 

(Disclaimer:  The only value judgments made or implied in this post are squarely aimed at myownself. ;))

 

 

I have to watch both calories AND carbs to lose. Both have to be reduced to an absurd and unhealthy levels for me to lose.

 

FWIW, there are staunch "low carb" folks who keep insisting that their science is "right" and that no one needs to count carbs.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have to watch both calories AND carbs to lose. Both have to be reduced to an absurd and unhealthy levels for me to lose.

 

FWIW, there are staunch "low carb" folks who keep insisting that their science is "right" and that no one needs to count carbs.

 

Yeah and no wonder why that's not doable.  How long can a person go feeling starved all the time? 

 

I once was able to go pretty low because with very low carb after awhile your hunger is well controlled.  Except then I started having health issues and my hair started falling out. 

 

There is dieting to lose weight and then there is healthy eating.  These two are not always the same. 

[regentrude]

. "Eat less and move more" and its infinite variations are insulting.

 

I am not sure why that would be insulting. The problem is just that we are designed for a LOT more movement than the average Western adult gets during normal life.

 

Every backpacker who has only the food she can carry on her back is losing weight - because she eats less than she needs to replenish the calories burned. I have not seen any exception.

I just think our idea of how much physical activity corresponds to how much extra food is inaccurate. An hour at the gym or a 2 mile walk don't really do much.

But I do not see how one can argue with the principle is that with enough movement and less food, one loses weight.

[Pawz4me]

I have to watch both calories AND carbs to lose. Both have to be reduced to an absurd and unhealthy levels for me to lose.

 

Me, too.

 

And it well and truly sucketh.  But it is what it is.

[goldberry]

It is insulting to say that CICO is the answer for everyone.  What is insulting about it to say that it works for some, or even the majority?  For every obese person that totally understands food/portion size/etc and still can't lose, there are plenty others who do, in fact, eat too much junk food and don't move enough. 

 

I really don't get what about that equates to fat-shaming or insulting when it is referring to general society.  When referring to a specific person, and the person says, "That doesn't work for me." then of course that person should be believed. 

 

No different than if I am talking with someone about depression, and they tell me all about how they solved it without medication.  My response is not, "That is insulting to those of us who have to take medication!"  My response it, "I'm glad that worked for you.  I happen to need medication."  Now if that person decided to argue with me that I didn't really need medication, then yes, there is an issue.

 

 So yes, if someone tells *you* in particular, that you are wrong, that's insulting.  But the general concept just existing?  Nothing makes it *inherently* insulting.  The fact is that it does work for some people.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Portion sizes are certainly an issue.  But it goes beyond that.  It seems to be part of being human -- apparently almost ALL of us under estimate our food intake and over estimate our activity.  Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, look at the studies linked in the (2) section of this blog.  I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular (just using your post as a jumping off point, Dawn).  Apparently none of us can be trusted to be accurate, regardless of whether we're normal weight or obese and regardless of how honest and truthful we're trying to be.  And unfortunately it's one of those things that make large scale food/diet studies so difficult to do (or at least to do accurately and with any meaning).

 

I've been watching my weight for decades and logging and tracking and I'd while I'd love to think I'm a special accurate and honest snowflake in this regard -- I can't quite believe that I'm so exceptional.  So I tack on 100 calories/day for mistakes.  And I really hate doing that, 'cause I'd love to eat those 100 calories!

 

(Disclaimer:  The only value judgments made or implied in this post are squarely aimed at myownself. ;))

 

DH has been losing weight for a while after putting on quite a bit.  He would plateau quite often and after putting more effort into logging his food and activity, he is fairly certain that he was tracking incorrectly during those plateaus.  If you aren't taking note of everything (and weighing it) it is so easy to eat an extra 400 calories and not realize it.  A lot of the fitness apps and calculators also over estimate calorie burn.  Long story short - he started doing what you do but adjust as high as 300 calories/day.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Low carb is very effective for me.  EXCEPT, it limits a lot of foods.  Going out to eat is a challenge.  There aren't many convenience foods.  I know this sounds like a bunch of excuses, but for one thing I don't have all the time in the world to focus on this stuff.  I was most successful when I lived by myself.  I didn't have to deal with cooking for other people and working around their likes and needs.

 

And there is more to food than just fuel for living.  There are holidays, celebrations, birthdays, "just cuz", etc.  It's a hobby for some.  Some people use it as a comfort item when stressed or upset. 

 

If it were simple, this wouldn't be an issue for anyone. 

 

Most of the time I just want to eat.  I don't want to count, weigh, measure, worry, track, etc.  Turns the whole thing clinical. 

 

Another huge thing for a lot of people is just not having opportunities for exercise built into their day.  I do little things like park far and take the stairs, but it's not really enough.  There is nothing around here within walking distance so walking to the store or library isn't doable.  I've been thinking of joining a gym for awhile, but ugh I hate gyms.  It's so damn boring, but I can't figure anything else out.  I can't do stuff like hiking because of all my damn allergy issues.  Again, excuses I know, but having these things not built in requires a constant effort and that's hard to sustain.  I think most humans naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance. 

 

The thing is that unless you have a really active lifestyle/job/daily routine, then yes, the exercise required to burn a lot of calories is boring.  And yes, I think most of us (myself included) default to the path of least resistance.

[VaKim]

If food did not have any taste, I would be very skinny. Not adding to the conversation much, but just wanted to state that.

[LucyStoner]

I think many people have lifestyles that are wholly incompatible with "move more". Most of us used to spend the better part of our days involved in heavy physical work. So much so that obesity was associated with wealth and royalty. When someone isn't sleeping enough and working many, largely sedentary hours, there's really not a ton of ways to move more. It also doesn't mean they are lazy because it's not like workers who use their minds aren't working. It's just a fact of life and for many, they may not have much choice in changing that.

 

I took off weight just from not working crazy office hours and getting more sleep. Part of that was self care and hormonal- less stress, more rest. Part of that was that my job was no longer tying me to a chair, screen and phone for a significant chunk of my waking hours. Quitting one's job is not often a practical choice for many. So when someone asks me about weightloss I never offer pointless advice like "quit your job."

[Alessandra]

I haven't read all the articles or posts (yet), but the Slate one was fascinating in that a lot of the ideas were new to me.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It is insulting to say that CICO is the answer for everyone.  What is insulting about it to say that it works for some, or even the majority?  For every obese person that totally understands food/portion size/etc and still can't lose, there are plenty others who do, in fact, eat too much junk food and don't move enough. 

 

I really don't get what about that equates to fat-shaming or insulting when it is referring to general society.  When referring to a specific person, and the person says, "That doesn't work for me." then of course that person should be believed. 

 

No different than if I am talking with someone about depression, and they tell me all about how they solved it without medication.  My response is not, "That is insulting to those of us who have to take medication!"  My response it, "I'm glad that worked for you.  I happen to need medication."  Now if that person decided to argue with me that I didn't really need medication, then yes, there is an issue.

 

 So yes, if someone tells *you* in particular, that you are wrong, that's insulting.  But the general concept just existing?  Nothing makes it *inherently* insulting.  The fact is that it does work for some people.

 

Although did someone say it is the answer for everyone? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

The thing is that unless you have a really active lifestyle/job/daily routine, then yes, the exercise required to burn a lot of calories is boring.  And yes, I think most of us (myself included) default to the path of least resistance.

 

Right, but how long can I sustain something so completely boring?  Ya know in the dead of winter when it's -10 F and I gotta shlep to the gym...eek..talk about fighting an uphill battle. 

[Bluegoat]

I've been thinking about this and I think CICO is simply a mathematical/scientific equation and not a judgement in and of itself.  Some people may be using it as a judgement, but without all the emotional baggage, it just comes down to a scientific reality.  You (general) can't gain weight from food that you don't put in your mouth.  It is physically impossible to gain weight if you are using more energy than you consume.  The body doesn't create cells out of thin air.

 

No, it doesn't address the fact that some people expend calories just by sitting ("high metabolism") and some people have to bust their butts that much harder to expend calories.  It doesn't address that some people have to practically starve themselves and walk 10 miles per day to get CICO to equate to significant weight loss which is not sustainable so they must find the *right* calories in, and they must find the associated hormonal balance because their body isn't functioning optimally at the hormonal level it should.  It simply addresses the idea that our bodies use energy which we consume.  Personally, when I exercise even a little bit I get so hungry that I end up eating way more than I would have if I had not exercised at all (and more calories than the exercise itself actually used), so benefits from exercise are really hard to achieve for me.

 

CICO doesn't address a myriad of factors in what kind of calories are going in and what kind of work must be done to get calories out, or all of the factors Carol in Cal talked about above, but I think that people in general are correct when they state that it does all come down to CICO.  That's not an emotional statement or a judgement as far as I can see, and it is accurate, if incomplete picture of what it means to gain and lose weight.

 

And then this raises questions like - would it be better to be heavier but in shape?

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

And then this raises questions like - would it be better to be heavier but in shape?

 

 

seems highly possible to me

[LisaKinVA]

I do best on a whole foods diet.

 

By whole food, I mean, grind my own wheat, make my own whole-fat yogurt, eat lots of veggies and minimal fruits.  I also need the same amount of protein as a man.  

 

If I:  

 

1) Eat only when I'm hungry.

2) Eat a high-protein, high-fat diet (usually achieved either through some sort of egg-scramble with veggies, a bit of turkey sausage or ham, and some cheese)

3) Drink a homemade protein shake with some coconut oil or a green smoothie (with some coconut milk)

4) Limit breads to my homemade whole grain and only eat about 1 serving, maybe 2 a day (I find I don't need more of these)

 

I do great.  Limiting my carbs to 100g or lower is best for weight loss, I can go up to about 150g and not gain (this is an average).  I do not have a limit on how much protein I can eat, I do not limit my daily food choices, and I do not keep snacks around the house, and keep sweets and sodas a rare treat.  Eating this way in my early 40's -- WITHOUT lots of exercise -- allowed me to lose 40# and maintain it for years.  In my 20's on a calorie-restricted, low-fat diet, I had to exercise 2 hours a day, 6-7x a week (exercise included weight training) to lose 40# in the same amount of time.  I hated the food I ate.  I ate because I had to.  I didn't enjoy it.  I really like to enjoy my food these days.  My life is half over.  I figured I spent the first half eating crappy, low-fat, fat-free food substitutes, I should spent my last half enjoying the taste of the food I eat.  And the best part is that I LIKE the food we're making.  

 

My hormones are now fluctuating a bit more than they were 7 years ago.  And, I'm taking steps to correct that.  In addition, I am swimming/exercising 3x a week at the gym, 2x a week at home.  I am really excited about the coming 9 months, because my dh and I are going to kick this move in the BUTT (instead of allowing it to beat us 2 years ago).

 

And now, I need to go to bed.  School tomorrow.  

[Joanne]

It is insulting to say that CICO is the answer for everyone.  What is insulting about it to say that it works for some, or even the majority?  For every obese person that totally understands food/portion size/etc and still can't lose, there are plenty others who do, in fact, eat too much junk food and don't move enough. 

 

I really don't get what about that equates to fat-shaming or insulting when it is referring to general society.  When referring to a specific person, and the person says, "That doesn't work for me." then of course that person should be believed. 

 

No different than if I am talking with someone about depression, and they tell me all about how they solved it without medication.  My response is not, "That is insulting to those of us who have to take medication!"  My response it, "I'm glad that worked for you.  I happen to need medication."  Now if that person decided to argue with me that I didn't really need medication, then yes, there is an issue.

 

 So yes, if someone tells *you* in particular, that you are wrong, that's insulting.  But the general concept just existing?  Nothing makes it *inherently* insulting.  The fact is that it does work for some people.

 

Except that this post leaves out the culturally sanctioned and supported (and inaccurate) stereotyping and "fat myths" that are specific to this issue. Being fat, in the US and other cultures, has a lot of associations and assumptions tied to it.

 

Continuing to assert medically and scientifically incomplete or inaccurate data that imply the overweight person lacks will power, has emotional issues, or is minimallly active is insulting in the whole context.

 

It's never as simple as saying CICO or eat less, move more. Those (dubious) suggestions are more nuanced and carry more weight than straight science.

[Joker]

If food did not have any taste, I would be very skinny. Not adding to the conversation much, but just wanted to state that.

I lost taste and smell three years ago and gained weight. I eat healthier than ever, only when hungry, and never too much. Doesn't matter at all.

[Bluegoat]

I think it's important to differentiate between general advice or principles, and talking about a particular individual's problem.  I do think lack of exercise, portion size, excess sugar, and constant snacking, are serious problems in North America that are causing people weight problems.  I think it is really important to bring this up because a lot of people really don't realize how inappropriate normal portion sizes are.

 

I don't really consider CICO wrong.  I think that counting calories as a primary means to lose weight is very often not going to work.  I don't think those are the same thing.  I also think that exercise primarily to lose weight is probably not going to work, simply because it is too external to people's lives.  If you have to get up and go to the gym, you are already fighting a battle. I think that its got to be something that becomes an intrinsic part of the day to be sustainable long term for most people.

 

I also think, that although it may be annoying to have people doubt when you say you are eating proper amounts, it is really best to not take it personally.  Because chances are, it is not personal - it comes from seeing people who think they are eating well who are not. It is just so common, that I think people can't help but take any statement about what someone eats with a grain of salt.  And as someone else mentioned, even research tends to show that real awareness of what we are eating is not that common.)  So - it just isn't personal in most cases, even if it isn't applicable to us. 

 

I also agree with Carol that once someone has a weight problem, getting rid of the weight can be much more complex.  Figuring out what is most efficient and also sustainable is not simple. Especially when you add in cultural elements and things you can't change - like living in a community where driving all the time is the norm because it isn't laid out to walk places. 

 

There is no question in my mind that for many people who have had weight issues,, maintaining a healthy weight will mean a long term diet that would be nasty for most people to maintain, and few will be able to.  I would argue that it may well not be worth it - I would not do it, though I would take care with my eating and exercise.  But saying that CICO is not really a significant issue, to me seems misleading.

 

 

[ktgrok]

 

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.

 

 

 

first, actually bariatric patients are put on a low carb diet, so it's still not just calorie restriction. To get enough protein you have to very much limit carbs because you can only eat so much. Also, they are finding that gut hormones NOT calorie restriction, are the biggest factors. Also, a big change in gut bacteria. We are probably only a generation away from a non surgical bariatric surgery. The things they are focusing on are gut bacteria, certain liver enzymes, bile acid changes, and changes in ghrelin, glucagon like peptide, and another peptide I can't remember the name of. They find that weight loss does NOT correlate with the size of the new stomach (gastric sleeve patients like myself can have sleeves made with various size bougies/tubes, and size doesn't seem to make a difference), but is triggered by how much of the food reaches the intestine unabsorbed, how fast the transit time is, and a zillion other things. But yeah, bariatric surgeons are the first to tell you it's not just about calories in/out. 

[ktgrok]

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.

 

But why are people eating it? Why don't they just feel full on a smaller amount of calories? Why do some people eat half and say "wow, I'm stuffed" and other people eat the whole thing and want dessert? It's not just that the food is there. There is something driving some people to eat more and more and never be satisfied.