Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[Twigs]

 

I just want to chime in to say two things- 

1. It's now assumed it takes 7,000 calories to lose a pound (always my experience when carefully tracking such things), which makes me wonder if that would make a huge difference for those who say CICO doesn't work.  http://vitals.lifehacker.com/you-need-to-burn-7-000-calories-to-lose-a-pound-not-3-1719560948 â€¦

 

Here's a quote from that article I think is important to this discussion:

 

“The biggest flaw with the 500-calorie-rule is that it assumes weight loss will continue in a linear fashion over time,†says [mathematician Kevin] Hall. “That’s not the way the body responds. The body is a very dynamic system, and a change in one part of the system always produces changes in other parts.â€

 

Those changes among the different systems of the body are why the solution to weight loss is not simply CICO. Until this truth is understood, the research to find real, lasting answers will not be funded or done.

[Soror]

See, I think is where perspective (and dare I say it -- please don't flame me -- maybe attitude?) matters.

 

I'm 4'10" (on a good day) and am currently eating right around 1100 calories a day (and walking 3-5 miles most days) in order to lose about half a pound a week.  I don't want to lose a lot, just the 10-12 pounds I gained before I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism. I don't see it as being particularly horrible.  It's sure not fun.  But it's do-able and not horrible, and other than my thyroid (which is medicated now and so not an issue) there's nothing "wrong" with my body.  I'm just a short, older female.

 

ETA:  Y'all can feel free to ask me whether or not I think it's horrible in a few months when it's darker and colder.  Not eating when it's hot and humid is a LOT easier for me than when it's colder!

With my hormonal and thyroid rollercoaster I've had such variation here, I've had weeks at a time when I ate 2700 calories+ and was still starving and times when I ate 1500 calories with 5+ hrs of intense exercise a week and been perfectly fine. I didn't change and it was not an issue of moral failing at those times when I was eating that much, just as I didn't do anything special to be able to eat smaller amounts and be able to tolerate it without issue. People are so variable as well, I have a friend with hypo and serious adrenal issues and she never gained any weight, if anything she's had problems losing weight. My personal maintenance level now is around 2000 c a day avg but I've not officially counted anything in a while as I've been maintaining for a couple of months now. 

[leeannpal]

If CICO worked the same for everyone, which some people here are implying, then there would be no skinny people who eat junk food all the time and never exercise. Metabolism and hormones play a huge role in how your body stores fat. I know that the next thing someone will say is that CiCO does work for everyone. It is just that each person needs to find that balance. What I am getting from the ones that are arguing that CICO is not what it is all about is that CICO would not work for them because they would basically have to run marathons each week and eat so few calories that a normal lifestyle would not be sustainable.

 

 

[abba12]

First, if this is true, it would be hard to fix. It would mean feeling hungry all the time for a long time, if it's just htat their appetite is screwed up. 

 

Second, how does this happen,and why doesn't it happen to other people? Why would one sibling eat a reasonable amount and feel full, but the other keeps going and stretches his stomach? IF this is true, and I've seen zero evidence that it is, why is it happening?

 

I have no answers for fixing, only preventing. For me, due to food issues in my younger years, I was already aware of stomach stretching and shrinking and that cycle of eating more making me hungry. For my only-a-few-months screwed up appetite, I had to be hungry for a few days, did like a three day fast and detox, and about another week of very controlled portions and switching lunch for juice, and I was back at being very comfortable eating less, about half the portion size I had been consuming two weeks before and feeling full afterwards. For someone who has been doing it much longer it would probably take a lot longer. Like I said, I don't have answers to fix, only prevent. Physical self awareness and being willing to nip the issue quickly, when it is still only a week or two of discomfort to 'fix'. But I know a lot of people gain weight during stressful periods of life when eating is the last of their concerns.

 

Why would one sibling eat less than another? Many reasons. One may eat until not hungry while the other eats until 'full', there is a difference. One may find food emotionally comforting while another doesn't. One may snack more than another. As adults one may find they are socially eating more, perhaps eating out with friends/coworkers while another doesn't, a situation which can often lead to more food intake. Their body/lifestyle may be such that they are less hungry at certain times, for example I rarely feel hungry until 10am, and my husband NEEDS breakfast but often doesn't want much for lunch. so one may eat to societal norms with a big breakfast or lunch anyway while another listens to their body and only has a piece of fruit or slice of toast because theyre not that hungry. They may be inclined more towards hunger when they have blood sugar fluctuations and one eats more sugar than the other. One may feel the need to 'clean their plate' while another is willing to stop and leave leftovers. One may be eating while distracted (say in front of TV) while another eats intentionally while sitting at a table. One may eat fast and consume more before the body starts giving 'full' signals while another eats slowly and feels full after less because their body has time to catch up. There's so many reasons which may lead to someone beginning to consume more than they need, and the thing is you only need to do it for a short period, and the pattern sticks. For me, just a week of eating too large a portion (Christmas!) will make me less satisfied with a small plate and I begin needing to let myself be a bit hungry for a few days. Perhaps the larger sibling continued to eat a little more after christmas, and then next christmas was adding the extras to their already larger plate, and again began eating the larger portion size after christmas, and so the pattern goes? So many things could cause a little larger portions, and if its not brought back into line it sticks, and builds on itself.  At least, thats how my body seems to work.

[DawnM]

Right.  That is why I could do Jenny Craig (ok, well being single AND having money to blow on myself like that) and lose weight.  I was never obese before children though.  The kids sucked out my brain cells and replaced it with body fat, I swear.

 

Did you lose weight the same way (similar to what you put down here) from being morbidly obese?

 

I don't think I am morbidly obese yet, but definitely in the obese category.

 

Right now, I would settle for just getting into the overweight category!

 

It looks like your post is around 900 calories without the rice or potato and assuming only one cup of coffee with half and half.  Is there anything else you regularly eat?  Any fruit?

 

 

 

Breakfast is one slice of sourdough toast and one slice of cheese.

Or two eggs cooked in a small amount of butter (a teaspoon or less).

And coffee (always coffee!)

 

Lunch is a salad with (carefully weighed and measured) 3 oz. of cooked chicken breast, 2 T feta cheese and 2 T of a lowish calorie/carb dressing.  The green stuff I don't worry so much about weighing/measuring.  Sometimes I have a Carr's whole wheat cracker or two to go with the salad.

 

I cook the chicken in big batches in the crock pot, shred it and freeze it.  So it's easy to take out a container as needed.

 

Dinner is typically 3 or 4 oz. of meat and more veggies or a green salad.  Maybe a small amount of potato or rice, depending on how hungry I am and if I've done any snacking.  But almost all snacking for me now is coffee with 2 T half and half and a couple of packs of Splenda.  That's a 50 calorie snack that I find very satisfying.

 

And I hear you -- It's hard when you've got other people in the house.  Many years ago I was single and morbidly obese and lost down to normal weight.  That wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination, but not having to buy and prepare food for other people made it easier.

 

[Scarlett]

If CICO worked the same for everyone, which some people here are implying, then there would be no skinny people who eat junk food all the time and never exercise. Metabolism and hormones play a huge role in how your body stores fat. I know that the next thing someone will say is that CiCO does work for everyone. It is just that each person needs to find that balance. What I am getting from the ones that are arguing that CICO is not what it is all about is that CICO would not work for them because they would basically have to run marathons each week and eat so few calories that a normal lifestyle would not be sustainable.

This makes it sound like some people have no choice but to be overweight.

[Catwoman]

Breakfast is one slice of sourdough toast and one slice of cheese.

Or two eggs cooked in a small amount of butter (a teaspoon or less).

And coffee (always coffee!)

 

Lunch is a salad with (carefully weighed and measured) 3 oz. of cooked chicken breast, 2 T feta cheese and 2 T of a lowish calorie/carb dressing. The green stuff I don't worry so much about weighing/measuring. Sometimes I have a Carr's whole wheat cracker or two to go with the salad.

 

I cook the chicken in big batches in the crock pot, shred it and freeze it. So it's easy to take out a container as needed.

 

Dinner is typically 3 or 4 oz. of meat and more veggies or a green salad. Maybe a small amount of potato or rice, depending on how hungry I am and if I've done any snacking. But almost all snacking for me now is coffee with 2 T half and half and a couple of packs of Splenda. That's a 50 calorie snack that I find very satisfying.

 

And I hear you -- It's hard when you've got other people in the house. Many years ago I was single and morbidly obese and lost down to normal weight. That wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination, but not having to buy and prepare food for other people made it easier.

Sorry to hijack the thread for a minute, but can you tell me how you cook the chicken in the crock pot? I know it sounds like an idiotic question, but I don't use my crock pot that often and I would like to be able to do the shredded chicken so I can use it as I need it.

 

Thanks! :)

[Scarlett]

Here's a quote from that article I think is important to this discussion:

 

 

Those changes among the different systems of the body are why the solution to weight loss is not simply CICO. Until this truth is understood, the research to find real, lasting answers will not be funded or done.

This is why when a person is going through extreme stress they lose weight so fast. Their adrenal system kicks into high gear and couple that with no appetite and you get extreme weight loss. It isn't sustainable though. Or healthy.

[Catwoman]

This makes it sound like some people have no choice but to be overweight.

I hate to say it, but I really do believe that may be the case for some people. :(

 

I have a friend in that situation and I know how hard she tries, and how much she exercises, and how incredibly carefully she watches her diet. I don't think it would be possible for her to try any harder than she does, but losing weight seems to be almost impossible for her.

[ktgrok]

Man, I feel lucky to have only gained 20# during my one year of Depo. But yes, those pounds are incredibly difficult to get off, and come back extremely easily.  Depo really screwed me up.  

 

My body likes being between 145-155 pounds.  It just does (assuming exercise).  Getting below 140 pounds takes a monumental effort that is just not worth it to me (At 145, I usually wear a size 6 skirt...never below an 8-10 blouse/dress needs tailoring).

 

Yup, Depo is evil. Gained 15lbs the first shot, only did one more and was nearly suicidal on it. Ugh. 

 

And yes, that's your set point. The problem is, for an obese person, particularly morbidly obese, their set point might be 200 or 300lbs. Getting below that is as hard as getting below 140 is for you.

[Pawz4me]

Right.  That is why I could do Jenny Craig (ok, well being single AND having money to blow on myself like that) and lose weight.  I was never obese before children though.  The kids sucked out my brain cells and replaced it with body fat, I swear.

 

Did you lose weight the same way (similar to what you put down here) from being morbidly obese?

 

I don't think I am morbidly obese yet, but definitely in the obese category.

 

Right now, I would settle for just getting into the overweight category!

 

It looks like your post is around 900 calories without the rice or potato and assuming only one cup of coffee with half and half.  Is there anything else you regularly eat?  Any fruit?

 

I have more than one cup of coffee.  Usually at least three.  It helps me keep my sanity. ;)  And like I said, sometimes I'll eat a Carr's whole wheat cracker or two with lunch.

 

Ummm . . . we probably shouldn't talk about how I lost weight before.  I did it in an extremely unhealthy way and worked myself right into an almost anorexic situation ("borderline anorexic" according to my doctor).  I starved myself and exercised way too much and became way too obsessed with the whole thing.  Although that experience no doubt accounts for some of my perception that eating 1100 calories a day isn't horrible. ;)  Not recommending it, but I've done much less for an extended period of time.  It's do-able if you're stubborn enough.

 

 

Sorry to hijack the thread for a minute, but can you tell me how you cook the chicken in the crock pot? I know it sounds like an idiotic question, but I don't use my crock pot that often and I would like to be able to do the shredded chicken so I can use it as I need it.

 

Thanks! :)

 

I put them in the crock pot, add just a drizzle of olive oil, salt, pepper and any other spices I'm in the mood for.  The trick is not letting them cook so long that they get dried out (yes, that can happen even in a crock pot!).  I can't say that it's wonderfully tasty chicken, but it works well enough for our purposes.  Other than what I use in my salads we use most of it in soups or quesadillas or stuff like that.  So it's getting extra flavoring then.

[Catwoman]

I put them in the crock pot, add just a drizzle of olive oil, salt, pepper and any other spices I'm in the mood for. The trick is not letting them cook so long that they get dried out (yes, that can happen even in a crock pot!). I can't say that it's wonderfully tasty chicken, but it works well enough for our purposes. Other than what I use in my salads we use most of it in soups or quesadillas or stuff like that. So it's getting extra flavoring then.

Thanks! :)

 

Do you use skinless chicken breasts or do you cook a whole chicken? (Sorry to be so clueless!)

[Soror]

I hate to say it, but I really do believe that may be the case for some people. :(

 

I have a friend in that situation and I know how hard she tries, and how much she exercises, and how incredibly carefully she watches her diet. I don't think it would be possible for her to try any harder than she does, but losing weight seems to be almost impossible for her.

Unfortunately I think you are right, when the best strategy we have, the only chance to succeed for some is to have major surgery then we really don't understand near enough to be making all these proclamations about what works for everyone. The thing is as well, as has been pointed out, what it takes for someone with 10-20 lbs to lose verses 100-200 lbs is radically different and postulating that the severely obese just need to do the same is laughable. Sadly losing weight isn't even the hardest part for those that are severely overweight, it is the maintenance, most everyone can lose weight but unless that weight stays off it isn't doing any good. Personally anyone that is trying to give out advice based on the fact that they've lost weight means nothing unless they've kept it off.

[Pawz4me]

Thanks! :)

 

Do you use skinless chicken breasts or do you cook a whole chicken? (Sorry to be so clueless!)

 

I've done both.  I think a whole chicken is tastier (more fat).  But I'm lazy and hate to do all the de-boning, so I usually do breasts.

 

[Pawz4me]

Unfortunately I think you are right, when the best strategy we have, the only chance to succeed for some is to have major surgery then we really don't understand near enough to be making all these proclamations about what works for everyone. The thing is as well, as has been pointed out, what it takes for someone with 10-20 lbs to lose verses 100-200 lbs is radically different and postulating that the severely obese just need to do the same is laughable. Sadly losing weight isn't even the hardest part for those that are severely overweight, it is the maintenance, most everyone can lose weight but unless that weight stays off it isn't doing any good. Personally anyone that is trying to give out advice based on the fact that they've lost weight means nothing unless they've kept it off.

 

I think maybe that's why I do feel qualified to speak on this subject.  I did lose a very large amount of weight.  And I kept most of it off for 27 years and through two pregnancies.  Until that darn wonky thyroid .  .  ;)

 

Do I think that makes me an expert?  No.  Not on anything but my own body.  But I do know that before I first lost weight I went through all the denial that many on here are voicing -- I thought my body was somehow special, that I wasn't eating that much, that CICO didn't work for me.  I have so totally BTDT this thread has been like a walk down memory lane.

[ktgrok]

This makes it sound like some people have no choice but to be overweight.

 

Some people at least have no good options, put it that way. They can starve themselves, feel hungry all the time, and be miserable or they can be fat. Or htey can have surgery, or whatever. But yeah, that's what we are saying, is that sometimes, there are no great options. Or even any good ones. 

[KungFuPanda]

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.

I disagree with the last statement. Believing that most people WOULD loose weight if they ate less and moved more is not a judgement or a hateful thought. It's a simple hypothesis that allows for outliers to the general rule. People who say truly nasty things ARE being hateful, however believing that weight gain is directly related to what or how much you eat is not an emotional statement or hate speech. Choosing to take such a thing personally is a different issue entirely.

[Twigs]

This is why when a person is going through extreme stress they lose weight so fast. Their adrenal system kicks into high gear and couple that with no appetite and you get extreme weight loss. It isn't sustainable though. Or healthy.

What about the people (like me) who become ravenously, insatiably hungry under stress? 

[MBM]

Excess cortisol can cause weight gain. People don't have the same cortisol baselines which change when they're exposed to toxic stress (toxic doesn't mean the type of stress but the effect it has on a person's body). The number of calories a person needs to remain at a heathy weight varies in part because baseline cortisol levels differ. Higher levels of cortisol lead to more fat storage, usually visceral fat.

 

[Scarlett]

What about the people (like me) who become ravenously, insatiably hungry under stress?

Beats me. That would be terrible. i am talking about extreme stress though.....like someone is dying or you find out your husband of 26 years is having an affair. I literally could. Ot eat two bites during those times.

[goldberry]

And yet when Joanne corrects the erroneous assumptions regarding the correlation between size and character [the pervasive, albeit often indirect belief that obesity is linked to attributed to being "lazy, stupid, and lacking will power"], it's suggested she's being unnecessarily defensive.

 

Perhaps because I didn't see anyone here making that correlation between size and character.  She made the assumption that anyone who believes CICO as being even *partially* useful for *some* people is equal to believing that obesity is due to being lazy, stupid, and lacking willpower. And therefore CICO needs to be dropped from the discussion.  I believe that to be incorrect. 

 

Maybe I am incorrect, but that seemed to be her argument.  She was asked specifically if there was any use of CICO that would not be considered fat-shaming, and her answer seemed to indicate not. 

[Twigs]

Beats me. That would be terrible. i am talking about extreme stress though.....like someone is dying or you find out your husband of 26 years is having an affair. I literally could. Ot eat two bites during those times.

 

It is terrible.

 

I believe you about your experience. Do you believe me about my experience?

[goldberry]

This makes it sound like some people have no choice but to be overweight.

 

I hate to say it also, but I think this is true for a *very limited* number of people.  People with certain health conditions, espcially thyroid, and people with health conditions that prevent them from getting any significant exercise, plus others.  In order to not be overweight, they would have to be malnourished.

 

This is very real, but I don't think as wide-spread as some would like to believe.

 

ETA, a friend with Hashimodo's has to have very strict portion control just to stay where she is, which is overweight but not obese.  She would have to undereat nurtitionally to lose.  But she is concerned with not becoming morbidly obese enough that she doesn't just give up.  It is frustrating that she has to eat like that just to remain overweight.  But, like others, she has been dealt a crappy hand.

[Joules]

Some insight into the sibling question

http://www.today.com/health/firstborn-girl-scientists-find-one-unexpected-disadvantage-t40921

[goldberry]

Beats me. That would be terrible. i am talking about extreme stress though.....like someone is dying or you find out your husband of 26 years is having an affair. I literally could. Ot eat two bites during those times.

 

I've definitely known people who over-eat during extreme stress, including death.  I've also been in the position of not eating very much at all yet due to stress *not* losing anything.  To me that does not prove CICO is false, but does prove that other factors can interfere with CICO.  Again, I believe CICO is the natural state of a healthy body.  Not all bodies are healthy and extreme stress is not a natural state.

[regentrude]

If CICO worked the same for everyone, which some people here are implying, then there would be no skinny people who eat junk food all the time and never exercise. Metabolism and hormones play a huge role in how your body stores fat. I know that the next thing someone will say is that CiCO does work for everyone. It is just that each person needs to find that balance. What I am getting from the ones that are arguing that CICO is not what it is all about is that CICO would not work for them because they would basically have to run marathons each week and eat so few calories that a normal lifestyle would not be sustainable.

 

CICO means simply the net energy balance. The person who stays skinny while eating junk food an not exercising has a metabolism that burns these calories. The net balance is still the same - otherwise that person would store an excess of energy on the form of fat.

It can only either be burned or stored. Metabolism and hormones affect how much energy is burned ("fast metabolism " means calories out is very large), but basic thermodynamics cannot be overruled.

 

The misconception lies in the assumption that "calories out" refers only to exercise. this is incorrect. A huge amount of energy goes into maintaining body temperature. It is difficult to increase intrinsic resting metabolism - but all the "other" weight loss techniques do just that, so that CICO works on a sustainable level. When you go low carb or paleo or whatever to lose weight, you alter you body's response so that  more calories are burned, or, in other words, "calories out" increase. But you don't overrule thermodynamics.

[Carol in Cal.]

If CICO worked the same for everyone, which some people here are implying, then there would be no skinny people who eat junk food all the time and never exercise. 

Nobody here is implying this.

It's just that some are saying that the CO part of the equation self-adjusts to a new setpoint, making it harder to lose, but that that doesn't mean that CICO doesn't still apply; it just means that we have to study more to fully understand the setpoint phenomenon.

[Scarlett]

It is terrible.

 

I believe you about your experience. Do you believe me about my experience?

Yes. :). Did you think I was doubting you?

[Carol in Cal.]

This makes it sound like some people have no choice but to be overweight.

I am absolutely positive that this is true.

There are some people who have to adopt starvation mode eating and a ton of exercise to get CICO to produce a calorie deficit, in a way that is completely unrealistic.  That's where the research is badly needed.

[Murphy101]

I know this has been true for me with whole30.

 

No calorie counting.

 

I do think input/output matters, but I agree it's not as simple as count these many calories in and burn these many more calories out.

[Murphy101]

This makes it sound like some people have no choice but to be overweight.

For a few that might be true. Same as type one diabetics don't have a choice about being type one diabetic.

 

But mostly, that's not what it means. Saying formula A doesn't work for all problems doesn't mean that the problem is unsolvable. It means it needs a different formula.

[DawnM]

What has been true for you?

 

 

I know this has been true for me with whole30.

No calorie counting.

I do think input/output matters, but I agree it's not as simple as count these many calories in and burn these many more calories out.

 

[pinkmint]

It seems that a part of the problem of people wanting and not being able to lose weight is that the foods which are the cheapest, tastiest and easiest to prepare pack a lot of calories but little nutrition and satiation. That's been my experience anyway... in recent years something started going on with my body where "eat when you're hungry, stop when you're full" would only lead to weight gain. I could eat 8 pieces of toast (healthy whole grain) and just barely take the edge off my hunger-rage. Eating a very low carb/ high fat diet is what I found works for me to lose weight without being crazed with hunger, even though I feel guilty buying foods to eat that way since money is so tight. I could save money by buying less meat and more pasta and bread with the resulting overweightness that goes with how my body reacts to those foods... or I could be shaky and rage-y trying to restrict calories. It's a hard balance to achieve. 

[Twigs]

Yes. :). Did you think I was doubting you?

 

Yes, mostly based on your comments:

 

#210 - This is why when a person is going through extreme stress they lose weight so fast. …

 

#224 - … i am talking about extreme stress though …

 

 

I know I have a hard time reading "into" the written words, but it looks to me like you are making a blanket statement about all people, and that all people who undergo extreme stress will lose weight. That just is not the case for all people.

 

I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

[Murphy101]

First, if this is true, it would be hard to fix. It would mean feeling hungry all the time for a long time, if it's just htat their appetite is screwed up.

 

Second, how does this happen,and why doesn't it happen to other people? Why would one sibling eat a reasonable amount and feel full, but the other keeps going and stretches his stomach? IF this is true, and I've seen zero evidence that it is, why is it happening?

You might as well ask why one sibling would never like beer or just have one and be done and another would be an addict. I doubt it happens simply or immediately.

 

Because a sibling isn't the same thing as a clone.

 

Other than a questionable motley of genetics, I have very little in common with my siblings.

[Murphy101]

What has been true for you?

Sorry. I was referencing this quote in the OP:

 

"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."

[ktgrok]

You might as well ask why one sibling would never like beer or just have one and be done and another would be an addict. I doubt it happens simply or immediately.

 

Because a sibling isn't the same thing as a clone.

 

Other than a questionable motley of genetics, I have very little in common with my siblings.

 

What I meant was exactly that. That two people can do the same thing and have different reactions. One beer can make the non alcoholic feel nice, but can trigger a desire for more and more in the other. But they DID the same thing. The alcoholic didn't become an alcoholic because he drank so much, he drinks so much because he's an alcoholic. 

[displace]

Also for those who count CICO, nutrition labels by law allow up to 120% error in calculations. So that 500 cal product could contain 600 cal.

[Pawz4me]

Also for those who count CICO, nutrition labels by law allow up to 120% error in calculations. So that 500 cal product could contain 600 cal.

 

Yet another reason to stick with whole, unprocessed foods as much as possible. ;)

[albeto.]

Perhaps because I didn't see anyone here making that correlation between size and character. 

 

Joanne is pointing out examples of the CICO it in this thread. She's replying to those examples. She's explaining how this moralizes fat and weight, and she's hearing she shouldn't be so defensive. 

 

My question for you is the same as it is for CAT. Why is the onus on someone like Joanne to be politely quiet, and not on someone passing along erroneous and potentially hurtful messages to consider their position? 

 

She made the assumption that anyone who believes CICO as being even *partially* useful for *some* people is equal to believing that obesity is due to being lazy, stupid, and lacking willpower. And therefore CICO needs to be dropped from the discussion.  I believe that to be incorrect. 

 

She's explained her reasons, and for her efforts is being told her response is "wrong." This does not address facts and information, but rather her behavior.

 

Maybe I am incorrect, but that seemed to be her argument.  She was asked specifically if there was any use of CICO that would not be considered fat-shaming, and her answer seemed to indicate not. 

 

That's not what I take away from her argument at all. In fact, I reread her posts and can't find one that suggests or even implies this. 

[Word Nerd]

 

That's not what I take away from her argument at all. In fact, I reread her posts and can't find one that suggests or even implies this.

For one, her response to me in #35 is absolute and without exception. She stated explicitly that the the standard advice to eat less and move more "IS hateful and shaming." Full stop.

[Greta]

CICO means simply the net energy balance. The person who stays skinny while eating junk food an not exercising has a metabolism that burns these calories. The net balance is still the same - otherwise that person would store an excess of energy on the form of fat.

It can only either be burned or stored. Metabolism and hormones affect how much energy is burned ("fast metabolism " means calories out is very large), but basic thermodynamics cannot be overruled.

 

The misconception lies in the assumption that "calories out" refers only to exercise. this is incorrect. A huge amount of energy goes into maintaining body temperature. It is difficult to increase intrinsic resting metabolism - but all the "other" weight loss techniques do just that, so that CICO works on a sustainable level. When you go low carb or paleo or whatever to lose weight, you alter you body's response so that more calories are burned, or, in other words, "calories out" increase. But you don't overrule thermodynamics.

I absolutely agree with this.

 

So given that we all know that because of metabolic differences, one person can eat 2000 calories per day and be skinny, while another person of the same sex and frame-size can eat 1200 calories per day and be fat, and given that we are also discovering just how little exercise may affect the "CO" part of the equation, WHY do we (not you personally regentrude! we as a culture) still insist that CICO is a valid and helpfull weight loss philosophy. I'm not doubting its truth in terms of thermodynamics. But as a treatment option.

 

I'm sure that CICO is a fantastic treatment option for people who:

have healthy hormone levels

have not developed insulin resistance

have healthy gut flora

don't suffer from severe food allergies or intolerances

have normally functioning appetite and satiety mechanisms

don't have chronic inflammation issues

have never been morbidly obese (which often seems to permanently alter a person's fat storage mechanisms)

are not on any medications which affect appetite, metabsolism, etc.

and so on

 

But for the rest of us, it falls short.

 

As someone wiser than me put it, CICO tells us what is happening, but it doesn't tell us why.

[Catwoman]

Joanne is pointing out examples of the CICO it in this thread. She's replying to those examples. She's explaining how this moralizes fat and weight, and she's hearing she shouldn't be so defensive.

 

My question for you is the same as it is for CAT. Why is the onus on someone like Joanne to be politely quiet, and not on someone passing along erroneous and potentially hurtful messages to consider their position?

 

 

She's explained her reasons, and for her efforts is being told her response is "wrong." This does not address facts and information, but rather her behavior.

 

 

That's not what I take away from her argument at all. In fact, I reread her posts and can't find one that suggests or even implies this.

I don't think anyone is telling Joanne to be "politely quiet." I certainly didn't tell her or anyone else to be quiet.

 

Differing opinions do not necessarily equal fat-shaming. I didn't express any opinion on the best way for anyone to lose weight because I simply don't know, but I didn't feel that the people who believe that CICO works were trying to fat-shame the people who say that it doesn't work for them. They were posting their opinions, not calling anyone names or insinuating that they were stupid or lazy (or any of the other things that Joanne mentioned earlier in the thread about the feelings she believes people in general have toward overweight people.)

 

I think it is very nice of you to defend Joanne. I like Joanne, too, and I don't care how much she or anyone else weighs. I think it's terrible that people judge others based on their weight, and I think it's fine that Joanne discusses it here and talks about her personal experiences with being shamed about her weight. But I'm not seeing that shaming from the posters in this thread.

[Joanne]

Some thoughts, and I am not going to quote to answer the questions.

 

One person asked, basically, what do I want/expect from this - how do I expect to lose weight?

 

I know I can lose weight with extreme calorie and carb restriction. There would be nothing healthy or balanced about it. It would be at near starvation levels, and that would *also* have long term metabolic and possible psychological impact. My  body, for complex and under-researched reasons, won't lose weight on the commonly offered suggestions. From either "side", btw. Not from the reasonable, balanced WW approach and not from the approach suggested by many low carb advocates and not by the approach suggested by the paleo crowd.

 

Another response: I do not think that posters talking about the science of CICO are intentionally fat shaming. I do think that (as I stated in another post) CICO can't be bifurcated from the culture around fat/weight issues in women. And I do think that fat-shaming and moralizing exists in unacknowledged abundance in the US and therefore on this forum as well. There exists a quite large number of persons who still 1) disbelieve when posters share that a balanced, reduced calorie (or reduced carb or reduced junk) doesn't work for them. There still exists the insinuation and hint that we eat too much/move too little. This, in spite of the self disclosures to the opposite. For anyone interested, the web has many decent articles that share what it is like to live as a fat person in the US.

 

I never said to not "discuss CICO" - other than that, I am not saying anything.

 

Don't worry about me, and this thread does belies the importance of how WTM posters influence my self identity. It is interesting, though, the degree to which as a culture we hold onto what we've been told regarding nutritional science and how unaware many are of the fat discrimination and moralizing.

 

For me personally, the choice to lose weight will be a trade off. I can keep the issues related to my health and being fat in this culture. OR I can take extreme measures and lose weight and accept the consequences of that (which are not benign and not necessarily a "better trade.")

 

I do plan to increase health with an intentional fitness regimen. I am traveling to Europe in April with an educational tour and those tours are known to have a lot of walking. I would like to be in better shape. I was in poor shape due to life and stress before the accident and have not been able to organize intentional exercise since.

 

(ETA: Thanks for the distinction and points made around getting to obesity needs to be considered differently from becoming non obese and that maintaining non obesity is yet another consideration.)

 

And thanks, Albeto, for the support. And who thought I'd agree with ArticMama about anything!

 

[Joanne]

For one, her response to me in #35 is absolute and without exception. She stated explicitly that the the standard advice to eat less and move more "IS hateful and shaming." Full stop.

 

Yes, and I stand by that. The assumption that fat people are fat due to over-eating and undermoving moralizes obesity and aligns with assumptions and stereotypes.  It is also, as evidenced by recent research and anecdotally this thread, false scientifically.

[Laurie4b]

What I meant was exactly that. That two people can do the same thing and have different reactions. One beer can make the non alcoholic feel nice, but can trigger a desire for more and more in the other. But they DID the same thing. The alcoholic didn't become an alcoholic because he drank so much, he drinks so much because he's an alcoholic. 

 

I think this captures things in a nutshell. 

 

I like to figure out what people agree on. Do we agree on the following? 

 

Fat-shaming and discrimination based on perceived level of obesity is real, pervasive, and harmful to people who are overweight and obese. 

 

Fat-shaming is fed (haha) by the perception that being overweight/obese is a matter of pure choice and thus a moral problem and if people would "just" eat less and exercise more, there would be no fat people. 

 

Calories in/calories out is a  simplification of a very complex process that happens within our bodies. At its worst, it is a simplification that leads to the moral judgment above. At its best, it's often misunderstood to mean something much simpler (eating and exercising) than reality (what our bodies do with what/how much we eat and how they respond to exercise). 

 

Looking epidemiologically at groups, one can make general statements that do not apply to individuals. (This is the nature of statistics. No statistician would want to take statistics about a group and apply those predictively to an individual. We see this in other areas: the elderly are more likely to die of flu, but some 30 year olds die and some elderly do not). One such epidemiological observation is that portion sizes increased vastly in the last couple decades and this correlated with an increase in obesity. Observational studies cannot prove cause and effect. It's possible that restaurants responded to a general increase in appetite (customers complaining that portions are too small)  with larger portions. That general increase in appetite would need to be explained and could possibly be due to environmental pollution etc to which we are now exposed and to which people's bodies respond differently. This does not mean that it is not a plausible hypothesis to test whether offered portion sizes affect how much individuals actually eat, nor that there isn't some interactive component. 

 

We are really in beginning stages of finding out about the role of things such as gut bacteria, hormones, etc. and the effects on weight .  (Thus calories in/out might technically apply; however, when we find out someone has gained weight due to thyroid disease, I think few people experience the same temptation to moral judgment as when there is no known medical explanation. What a lot of people on this thread are saying is, "Things happen in my body for which there is no known medical explanation, but being overweight is NOT a result of being a pig or a lazy bum or not trying/caring/wanting to be different.) 

 

Medicine knows a good bit about losing weight but precious little about  1) keeping it off, or 2) long term effects of losing weight  (as opposed to short-term effects) or 3) of losing weight and regaining it. This creates a perception that if obese people simply tried hard enough and followed medical advice, that they would not be overweight and would be healthier. 

[Greta]

I don't equate CICO with fat-shaming. But I do think it gives *some* people a sense of feeling justified in blaming people for their own obesity. This can even happen with doctors. Here's a really good TED Talk in which one doctor very bravely admits to having treated an obese patient with less compassion, because he felt that she brought her diseases upon herself.

 

[creekland]

Salt and water are related. Have you experimented with water intake vs salt intake? 

...

One thing I wanted to add to is the estimation mention by another poster. Not only are calorie values estimates, but the blood work zones are too. B12 and Vit D levels are controversial. I have fatigue if my b12 is in the zone...I have to be on a supplement to be above as I cant ingest enough calories to get it all from diet. Being above works for me, and I thank the physician who made the recommendation. That alone adds about 400 fitbit estimated movement calories to my day.

 

I haven't.  I suspect many times my water intake is a bit low.  Due to this conversation I've actually been wondering just how often I "feel" thirsty.  I've been out working all morning getting stuff from our garden and weeds from our pasture and came in nice and sweaty.  I grabbed a water from the fridge (our water has too many nitrates to want to drink it regularly) before my shower, but even now - an hour and a shower later - that water is only half gone (sitting on a table next to me) and I'm not thirsty...  I am about to get an apple for lunch, but only because I think I should eat something and I brought the apples in earlier. (I also offered to clean one up for hubby, so will do one for myself when I do one for him.)  I could easily go without.  Yesterday I had visions of eating a pear for lunch and totally forgot...

 

I don't think Vit D or B12 levels are issues for me.  Both have been tested and are doing fine.  I'm out in the sun often enough - not in the midday like now - but mornings and evenings.

 

I'm rarely tired except when expected in the evenings.  There are days when I get unexpectedly tired, but those usually have other really weird things going on too.  I doubt it has anything to do with diet.  I have tried doctors for those "other things"... they've been stumped.  That's frustrating TBH, but there's not much choice in dealing with it.

[Bluegoat]

If CICO worked the same for everyone, which some people here are implying, then there would be no skinny people who eat junk food all the time and never exercise. Metabolism and hormones play a huge role in how your body stores fat. I know that the next thing someone will say is that CiCO does work for everyone. It is just that each person needs to find that balance. What I am getting from the ones that are arguing that CICO is not what it is all about is that CICO would not work for them because they would basically have to run marathons each week and eat so few calories that a normal lifestyle would not be sustainable.

 

I don't think anyone has said that it works in the same way for everyone.

[Scarlett]

Yes, mostly based on your comments:

 

 

I know I have a hard time reading "into" the written words, but it looks to me like you are making a blanket statement about all people, and that all people who undergo extreme stress will lose weight. That just is not the case for all people.

 

I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

Well I was thinking of my own experience, but I assume most people can't eat much under extreme stress. I don't have the statistics on it, but I guess it isn't true for everyon.