Obesity and Ozempic and more (2 Viewers)

[SoBeDad]

Some of the low carb advice is from a single study by David Ludwig. Wiki has references countering that study as too simplistic and possibly falsified. Ludwig has a diet book, so he may now have a COI.

>>Low-carbohydrate advocacy
Ludwig is the author of the low-carbohydrate diet book Always Hungry?, Always Delicious, Retrain Your Fat Cells, and Lose Weight Permanently, published in 2016.[10][11] He has argued that low-fat high-carbohydrate diets are the underlying cause of obesity.[11]

Ludwig's book Always Hungry? has been criticized for relying heavily on a pilot study that tested his low-carbohydrate diet that ran for only 16 weeks. Ludwig has since commented that the pilot study "was never intended as proof", however, his book cited weight loss "success stories" from the pilot participants to make very specific claims about his diet and weight loss.[10]

Ludwig was a speaker at Low Carb Denver in 2019.[12] He has received royalties for his low-carbohydrate diet books.[13] He is a proponent of the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity, a model which is not supported by good medical evidence.[2][10][14][15]<<

 

[Terminalxylem]

Yeah, I've come around to the idea that the best diet is one that is sustainable, while achieving a healthy weight.

Again, your opinion here is mis-guided. Calories in, calories out. That is all that matters, not weight. Everyone's size is different and attempting to label some sort of "healthy weight" is completely misguided.

Yes, but all calories aren’t created the same. So the types of food you eat matter.

And we’ll have to agree to disagree about the existence of healthy weight. It’s not the only thing that matters, but weight, like BMI, is one proxy for overall health.

Show me any study which explains how all calories are not created the same with respect to metabolism.

Every study I have read (maybe 3?) is calories in, calories out is all that matters for conversion of energy and storage of fat. If you take in 1500 calories of table sugar vs 1500 calories of crisco, your body will convert to energy and store the same deficit/excess of calories. However, the time it takes to convert may be different, the high level metabolic process is the same.

If you want to discuss sustained energy and fiber, which is prolly where you are going, but that has nothing to do with calories and metabolism.

This is a good overview of the thermic effect of food

Total energy expenditure has several components. Basal metabolism is energy expended at rest and accounts for approximately 60% of total daily energy expenditure. The thermic effect of food (TEF), also called specific dynamic action or dietary induced thermogenesis, is the increase in metabolism after a meal and accounts for approximately 10% of total energy expenditure. It represents the energy expenditure of processing and storing food, as well as the metabolic effects of the influx of nutrients. Intentional (e.g., sports-related) exercise accounts for between 0% and 10% of total energy expenditure (3). Non-exercise activity thermo- genesis (e.g., daily living activities, fidgeting, maintenance of posture) accounts for the remaining roughly 20% of total energy expenditure (4).

TEF can influence energy expenditure to a similar extent as intentional exercise, which can have a big impact on body weight over time.

In summary, TEF tends to decrease with age. In contrast, physical activity, higher energy meals, high-carbohydrate and high-protein meals as opposed to high-fat meals, and single large meals tend to increase TEF. In addition, high consumption of fruits, vegetables, and high-fiber-content meals also seem to have a positive effect on TEF. Meal tim- ing and meal duration might play a role but to what extent is not yet clear, while palatability does not seem to have an effect on TEF. More research with larger sample size would be beneficial.

So the composition of our meals (macronutrient composition/food type), meal size +/- meal timing/duration may impact the metabolic demands of eating, such that all calories aren't created equal.

 

[Terminalxylem]

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

Thats my point. Folks are saying VO2 max isnt calculated using HR. Since we were all talking about our watches, I assumed this was the discussion line.

I would have to dig out my mask based Vo2 max test, but I do not believe it had a specific number, though it could have. What I remember is just a range on a line with buckets.

Nobody said this. I said vO2 max isn’t a measure of average HR. Even though it can be estimated using HR, the actual measurement doesn’t require any knowledge of precisely how fast your heart is beating.

All you need to know is the person is trying as hard as possible, and utilize an instrument to measure the volume of oxygen & carbon dioxide inhaled/exhaled during exertion.

Plus their body weight, and a stopwatch. Again, the units of vO2 max are ml of oxygen per minute, per kg. It’s not ml oxygen per heartbeat, or average heart rate.

Maybe I misread your post below?

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

To be more specific: exertion = elevated HR. You can't have physical exertion without elevated HR. Therefore, VO2 max is a measure of HR over time. Meaning, if I have a VO2max of 44, I can tell you exactly what HR zones will achieve this based. Even more specifically, if I am not in a "proper HR zone", VO2 max will not be properly calculated. This is the exact reason I opened with "you cant calculate VO2 max at resting HR". This is the entire concept behind the TrainingPeaks website and TSS/IF.

Some reading if folks would like to learn about this science:

• VO2 Max: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-lt-and-vo2-max/
• Heart Rate zones: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones/
• TSS: https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/articles/204071944-Training-Stress-Scores-TSS-Explained

And no, my name is not Joe either

Yes, you misread my post.

Exertion is a lot more than just elevated HR. You can't have physical exertion without a functioning nervous system, for example. That doesn't make vO2 max a measure of action potentials though.

You're confusing the application of vO2 max with its measurement. Regardless, let's drop it, as this discussion is adding nothing to the OP.

 

[steelerfan1]

IIFYM (NSFW)

What hilarious about this is how true it is!

Frosted Blueberry Pop Tart (1 pastry): 200 calories

So if you have a 2000 calorie daily intake, you can eat 10 of those per day. If someone can manage to only eat 9 of those as their entire daily intake, they will lose weight.

Do you believe the same type of body composition would be achieved? If I need 2500 calories to maintain and I ate 2000 calories of twinkies that would be a pound of weight lost. If the same 2000 calories would come from a Mediterranean type diet, I could still expect to lose a pound. Do you believe it would be the exact same thing. I think people focus too much on weight loss and not fat loss.

Calories are calories. To answer your question regarding weight loss, yes.

Body composition is something completely different. If you would like to be specific, I would need specifics. Things like age, height, weight, fitness level, current workout plan and current non-workout lifestyle, etc.

Thanks, I just wanted clarification on the body comp thing being a different animal.

 

[JAA]

Tbh, not sure how someone can think it's just CICO, 200 calories from pizza is not the same as 200 calories from nuts. I'm surprised someone would argue against that.

It's time to bust the 'calories in, calories out' weight-loss myth

www.sydney.edu.au

Stop counting calories - Harvard Health

Calorie counting isn't the best way to lose weight. How a person's body burns calories depends on a number of factors, including the type of food eaten, metabolism, and even the type of organisms l...

www.health.harvard.edu

Thanks for sharing the op-ed pieces. Neither of those are studies and neither of those are anything more than opinion. They arent studies because they aren't proven. They aren't proven because they can't. be. proven.

I get it that you want to believe them and they make sense to you. However, they are simple misdirections of the real issue here: eat less calories to lose weight or exercise more to keep eating the same amount of calories

That's it, there is nothing more to it.

Here's your research paper, took me about two minutes to find, I'm sure there are plenty others

The calories in, calories out concept is 'tragically flawed,' new research suggests

A new paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition offers an alternative model to the eat-less-move-more message.

www.today.com

Thank you for the response.

Did you read the actual article? Or any of the associated papers? I know for a fact you didn't, more on that below. Well, here is a quick "JAA summation" of the entire article.

1. The brain senses that critical tissues are deprived of energy and in response, sends a signal telling the body to eat more. Additionally, the body will do all it can to conserve the little energy it has and responds by slowing the metabolism.
2. Lower-carbohydrate approaches have been found in studies to not only reduce appetite, but to limit and control the responses of insulin, glucagon and even leptin.
3. Eating foods higher in fiber helps to delay gastric emptying and increase satiety
4. Shifting your macronutrient composition to include more protein and fat will ultimately reduce insulin production by reducing blood sugar spikes.
5. Highly palatable foods lack nutrients and limit our ability to feel hunger. They are often in the form of traditional snack foods or can be found in fast foods as well.
6. Excess sugar consumption has a huge impact on insulin levels and leads to increased cravings and hunger
7. Finding mindfulness in your relationship with food can also help. For example, when you feel hunger, ask yourself if you are truly hungry, or just bored, stressed or distracted.
8. Studies show that getting less than seven hours of sleep on a regular basis can disrupt digestive enzymes, causing difficult-to-control hunger and cravings.

So, now that I have your attention and you have actually read the entire article, tell me where in the article it states you can eat more calories than you burn and lose weight? Find me that quote. Please and Thank You. No, you cant. You cant, because it isn't true. The entire article is about metabolism and hunger cravings. It also deals with storing of excess energy when its not used into fat. Nothing new here folks. If you do not use the energy you have consumed, it will be stored.

YES - high glycemic foods will spike your blood sugar. Guess what? Backyard wanna-be endurance athletes like myself consume VAST AMOUNTS of high glycemic, liquid based carbs. YET WE DO NOT GET FAT! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!??!?! Its possible because we are actively working out when we consume. We are BURNING that energy quickly. For example, I consume approximately 300 calories, almost all carbs, for each hour on the bike. If I go on a 4 hour ride, that is no less than 1200, liquid based, high glycemic, calories. I consume the same 100 calories every 37 minutes while running. Yet somehow I am not obese (unless you look at my BMI ). How is any of this possible? How can I consume these evil foods, almost daily, and not get fat?!?!?!? It is because I am using them.

Why choose these processed simple and EVIL carbs? Because they convert to energy much much faster, effectively, and safer than, for example, crisco. Crisco is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, ie fat. I could consume this while running but it wouldn't convert to energy real well now would it? Yet, if I burned the calories for this delicious crisco, my body would eventually convert it and not store it. Because it was needed.

Now, below is how I know you didn't read any of the actual data quoted in the Today article. This is the PDF link to the first study quoted in the Today article: here ya go!

So, to read the study I recommend starting at "Data source and methods". It explains this "study" included "home interviews followed by standardized physical examinations, including measured height and weight, in mobile examination centers". So that is our starting point.

And what were the "key findings of this "study"?

Key findings

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

● In 2013–2016, 49.1% of U.S. adults tried to lose weight in the last 12 months.

● A higher percentage of women (56.4%) than men (41.7%) tried to lose weight.

● A lower percentage of non-Hispanic Asian adults (41.4%) than non-Hispanic white (49.4%), non-Hispanic black (48.0%), and Hispanic (49.1%) adults tried to lose weight.

● The percentage of adults who tried to lose weight increased with family income and with weight status category.

● Among adults who tried to lose weight, the most commonly reported methods were exercising (62.9%) and eating less food (62.9%), followed by consuming more fruits, vegetables, and salads (50.4%).

So, unless I am missing something, the study CLEARLY SHOWS that many people of different ages and demographics tried to lose weight, through different methods, and were ... wait for it ... successful/unsuccessful at different rates. So to wrap this up, the Key Findings here are that many people who try to lose weight aren't always successful.

Next, the Today article also mentions a paper published in "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition". The Today article is broken. I searched "https://ajcn.nutrition.org/" and was not able to find the article, here is my search: https://ajcn.nutrition.org/action/d...ield1=AllField&AfterYear=2020&BeforeYear=2021

Im sure this "paper" (is it actually a study?) has transformed the nutrition world. However, folks cant learn this new science if they cannot find it. If you can find it, I would love to read it.

FWIW this is the best I could find in my search, which took MUCH LONGER than 2 minutes: https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(22)00327-6/fulltext

In conclusion ... Im still waiting for any study which explains how CICO is not true.

Thank you

 

[JAA]

Here is a great paper on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/

Lots of misdirection with the use of the word "may".

First excellent quote

Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution.

So hunger may be de-coupled from weight loss?

For example, even a year after dieting, hormonal mechanisms that stimulate appetite are raised

I got to say though, this is my favorite waving of the hands

As obesity reflects only a small malfunctioning of these mechanisms, there is a need to understand the control of energy balance and how to prevent the regaining of weight after it has been lost. By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.

This line is riveting! I can tell they are about to state I can eat more calories than I burn and I will lose weight!

However, obesity demands a more sophisticated approach than counting calories: It needs to be treated as an interdisciplinary topic. Those giving psychological advice need to be cognizant of aspects of both physiology and nutrition: Their recommendations must be compatible with bodily predispositions.

More specifically it is argued that having a reduction in calorie intake as the central plank of an antiobesity strategy fails to acknowledge the existence of physiological mechanisms that predispose to its failure.

I know there is going to be a conclusion here. Something transformative for the success of the human race during a time where the economics of acquiring calories is basically 0.

Psychologists interested in reducing obesity should consider altering their approach. Why is a reduction in calorie intake recommended when a lower energy intake leads to hormonal changes that stimulate appetite (Lean & Malkova, 2016), reduces metabolic rate (Dulloo & Jacquet, 1998), and stimulates the consumption of more calorific foods (Benton, 2005)? Although it may appear to be common sense to suggest that eating less will reduce the risk of putting on weight, this may not be the optimal approach.

As the approach taken by psychology is to reduce caloric intake, various questions are considered. How does the body respond to a small change in the caloric content of meals? How does obesity develop? What nutritional approach should be taken rather than simply concentrating on calorie intake? Finally, in the context of the resulting conclusions, how should psychologists study obesity?

Anyone less sarcastic want to summarize what the bolded/italicized actually means? I could give my opinion, but I think my sarcastic meter is waaaay off at the moment.

 

[JAA]

IIFYM (NSFW)

What hilarious about this is how true it is!

Frosted Blueberry Pop Tart (1 pastry): 200 calories

So if you have a 2000 calorie daily intake, you can eat 10 of those per day. If someone can manage to only eat 9 of those as their entire daily intake, they will lose weight.

Do you believe the same type of body composition would be achieved? If I need 2500 calories to maintain and I ate 2000 calories of twinkies that would be a pound of weight lost. If the same 2000 calories would come from a Mediterranean type diet, I could still expect to lose a pound. Do you believe it would be the exact same thing. I think people focus too much on weight loss and not fat loss.

Calories are calories. To answer your question regarding weight loss, yes.

Body composition is something completely different. If you would like to be specific, I would need specifics. Things like age, height, weight, fitness level, current workout plan and current non-workout lifestyle, etc.

Thanks, I just wanted clarification on the body comp thing being a different animal.

You are correct. Weight != Nutrition/Health != Body Composition/Fitness

My point of all of this, my entire contribution to this thread, is weight does not matter. That is what started all this. BMI is useless. Focusing on weight is useless. BMI:

I stated what IS important are:

1. Resting Heart Rate
2. VO2 Max

Everything else is mostly genetic in not something anyone will really ever overcome. HR is representative of your overall health.

Hot Take: I could make a case HR is more important than blood pressure as HR drives BP, but I am out of my expertise on that one and would be arguing from Bro Science.

 

[JAA]

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

Thats my point. Folks are saying VO2 max isnt calculated using HR. Since we were all talking about our watches, I assumed this was the discussion line.

I would have to dig out my mask based Vo2 max test, but I do not believe it had a specific number, though it could have. What I remember is just a range on a line with buckets.

Nobody said this. I said vO2 max isn’t a measure of average HR. Even though it can be estimated using HR, the actual measurement doesn’t require any knowledge of precisely how fast your heart is beating.

All you need to know is the person is trying as hard as possible, and utilize an instrument to measure the volume of oxygen & carbon dioxide inhaled/exhaled during exertion.

Plus their body weight, and a stopwatch. Again, the units of vO2 max are ml of oxygen per minute, per kg. It’s not ml oxygen per heartbeat, or average heart rate.

Maybe I misread your post below?

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

To be more specific: exertion = elevated HR. You can't have physical exertion without elevated HR. Therefore, VO2 max is a measure of HR over time. Meaning, if I have a VO2max of 44, I can tell you exactly what HR zones will achieve this based. Even more specifically, if I am not in a "proper HR zone", VO2 max will not be properly calculated. This is the exact reason I opened with "you cant calculate VO2 max at resting HR". This is the entire concept behind the TrainingPeaks website and TSS/IF.

Some reading if folks would like to learn about this science:

• VO2 Max: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-lt-and-vo2-max/
• Heart Rate zones: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones/
• TSS: https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/articles/204071944-Training-Stress-Scores-TSS-Explained

And no, my name is not Joe either

Yes, you misread my post.

Exertion is a lot more than just elevated HR. You can't have physical exertion without a functioning nervous system, for example. That doesn't make vO2 max a measure of action potentials though.

You're confusing the application of vO2 max with its measurement. Regardless, let's drop it, as this discussion is adding nothing to the OP.

I was being kind to you. Your original post clearly states "vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all". Then you backtrack to "Nobody said this. I said vO2 max isn’t a measure of average HR"

If you are going to bring in the nervous system to a discussion on fitness then yea, Im out. I will keep reading and waiting to where my science is disproven.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Here is a great paper on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/

Lots of misdirection with the use of the word "may".

First excellent quote

Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution.

So hunger may be de-coupled from weight loss?

For example, even a year after dieting, hormonal mechanisms that stimulate appetite are raised

I got to say though, this is my favorite waving of the hands

As obesity reflects only a small malfunctioning of these mechanisms, there is a need to understand the control of energy balance and how to prevent the regaining of weight after it has been lost. By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.

This line is riveting! I can tell they are about to state I can eat more calories than I burn and I will lose weight!

However, obesity demands a more sophisticated approach than counting calories: It needs to be treated as an interdisciplinary topic. Those giving psychological advice need to be cognizant of aspects of both physiology and nutrition: Their recommendations must be compatible with bodily predispositions.

More specifically it is argued that having a reduction in calorie intake as the central plank of an antiobesity strategy fails to acknowledge the existence of physiological mechanisms that predispose to its failure.

I know there is going to be a conclusion here. Something transformative for the success of the human race during a time where the economics of acquiring calories is basically 0.

Psychologists interested in reducing obesity should consider altering their approach. Why is a reduction in calorie intake recommended when a lower energy intake leads to hormonal changes that stimulate appetite (Lean & Malkova, 2016), reduces metabolic rate (Dulloo & Jacquet, 1998), and stimulates the consumption of more calorific foods (Benton, 2005)? Although it may appear to be common sense to suggest that eating less will reduce the risk of putting on weight, this may not be the optimal approach.

As the approach taken by psychology is to reduce caloric intake, various questions are considered. How does the body respond to a small change in the caloric content of meals? How does obesity develop? What nutritional approach should be taken rather than simply concentrating on calorie intake? Finally, in the context of the resulting conclusions, how should psychologists study obesity?

Anyone less sarcastic want to summarize what the bolded/italicized actually means? I could give my opinion, but I think my sarcastic meter is waaaay off at the moment.

The body has counteregulatory mechanisms which resist weight loss, so attention to how these are triggered and avoided may result in more effective management of obesity. They are suggesting what and how you eat matters, versus the oversimplified calories in - out approach.

 

[JAA]

Here is a great paper on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/

Lots of misdirection with the use of the word "may".

First excellent quote

Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution.

So hunger may be de-coupled from weight loss?

For example, even a year after dieting, hormonal mechanisms that stimulate appetite are raised

I got to say though, this is my favorite waving of the hands

As obesity reflects only a small malfunctioning of these mechanisms, there is a need to understand the control of energy balance and how to prevent the regaining of weight after it has been lost. By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.

This line is riveting! I can tell they are about to state I can eat more calories than I burn and I will lose weight!

However, obesity demands a more sophisticated approach than counting calories: It needs to be treated as an interdisciplinary topic. Those giving psychological advice need to be cognizant of aspects of both physiology and nutrition: Their recommendations must be compatible with bodily predispositions.

More specifically it is argued that having a reduction in calorie intake as the central plank of an antiobesity strategy fails to acknowledge the existence of physiological mechanisms that predispose to its failure.

I know there is going to be a conclusion here. Something transformative for the success of the human race during a time where the economics of acquiring calories is basically 0.

Psychologists interested in reducing obesity should consider altering their approach. Why is a reduction in calorie intake recommended when a lower energy intake leads to hormonal changes that stimulate appetite (Lean & Malkova, 2016), reduces metabolic rate (Dulloo & Jacquet, 1998), and stimulates the consumption of more calorific foods (Benton, 2005)? Although it may appear to be common sense to suggest that eating less will reduce the risk of putting on weight, this may not be the optimal approach.

As the approach taken by psychology is to reduce caloric intake, various questions are considered. How does the body respond to a small change in the caloric content of meals? How does obesity develop? What nutritional approach should be taken rather than simply concentrating on calorie intake? Finally, in the context of the resulting conclusions, how should psychologists study obesity?

Anyone less sarcastic want to summarize what the bolded/italicized actually means? I could give my opinion, but I think my sarcastic meter is waaaay off at the moment.

The body has counteregulatory mechanisms which resist weight loss, so attention to how these are triggered and avoided may result in more effective management of obesity. They are suggesting what and how you eat matters, versus the oversimplified calories in - out approach.

Yes, it matters ... but from a psychological perspective, not a physiological one. Because while you will lose weight with CICO, it will be mentally tough to maintain over time. REALLY WHAT IT'S SAYING is losing weight is hard. Its hard because the current economics of acquiring calories is approaching zero. Cavemen didn't have this issue. Cavemen had to endure for scarce calories. However we have culturally and societally evolved faster than our AMAZING genetic composition and thus we consume calories to glutinous levels because we can. Because we were deigned to consume as much as we could find and take in, ie our evolved dopamine responses.

In conclusion it is hard to lose weight because we are basically fighting evolution when we do not eat calories in front of us.

 

[JAA]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

 

[GregR]

For whomever it might help. I'm on my third time around losing a lot of weight. I keep it off ok until I get hit with a major stressor and I just stop caring about my weight and food becomes a coping mechanism again.

Anyway, what Joe said about tracking calories is a key for me. In a nutshell, I use a calorie calculator to find out how many calories my height and weight generally needs to maintain that present weight, assuming a sedentary life.

A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So if I come in 500 under that number for 7 days, I'll lose about a pound, all else being equal. If I come in 1000 under for 7 days, I'd be losing 2 lbs a week. The number I am starting with is for being sedentary. So I can also do exercise to create that calorie deficit.

So in practice it's like this:

5'11" 228 lbs right now = 2276 calories to maintain.

My target is 1k less than that, or about 1275.

I track what I eat. I do not use my Fitbit's calorie estimate of what I burned for the entire day. But I do use what it says I burned in a session of tracked exercise (walk, strength training or exercise bike). I don't use the whole FItbit value, I use half of what it says and that works pretty well.

So in a day I might eat 1700 calories, but burn 300 in strength training and 700 on the exercise bike. 300+700=1000 from exercise, but as I said I only use half that value. So my number at the end of the day, 1700 eaten - 500 exercise = 1200.

And doing this for the last 5+ months I'm consistently losing 2-3 lbs a week. That I was coming in at 3 lbs a week for awhile is what led me to cut the Fitbit calorie readings in half... doing so slowed me to 2 lbs a week.

Of course I was able to eat more calories early on... at 286 lbs where I started, 2591 was my maintain, so about 1600 was my lose 2 lbs a week calorie target. Have to keep adjusting it as you go.



The other thing I'll say is that I eat higher protein to try to help keep muscle. As you'll lose both muscle and fat as you lose weight. Also the higher protein diet reduces my appetite and cravings a lot as it digests more slowly.

I'm down 59 lbs since the holidays basically. The other thing worth mentioning, while I'm not eating much fast food or junk food, I'm not eating salads like a rabbit. I have things that I like. Most meals have some fat which also helps sate my hunger. A lot of sandwiches, homemade burgers, burritos, chicken, etc.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Here is a great paper on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/

Lots of misdirection with the use of the word "may".

First excellent quote

Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution.

So hunger may be de-coupled from weight loss?

For example, even a year after dieting, hormonal mechanisms that stimulate appetite are raised

I got to say though, this is my favorite waving of the hands

As obesity reflects only a small malfunctioning of these mechanisms, there is a need to understand the control of energy balance and how to prevent the regaining of weight after it has been lost. By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.

This line is riveting! I can tell they are about to state I can eat more calories than I burn and I will lose weight!

However, obesity demands a more sophisticated approach than counting calories: It needs to be treated as an interdisciplinary topic. Those giving psychological advice need to be cognizant of aspects of both physiology and nutrition: Their recommendations must be compatible with bodily predispositions.

More specifically it is argued that having a reduction in calorie intake as the central plank of an antiobesity strategy fails to acknowledge the existence of physiological mechanisms that predispose to its failure.

I know there is going to be a conclusion here. Something transformative for the success of the human race during a time where the economics of acquiring calories is basically 0.

Psychologists interested in reducing obesity should consider altering their approach. Why is a reduction in calorie intake recommended when a lower energy intake leads to hormonal changes that stimulate appetite (Lean & Malkova, 2016), reduces metabolic rate (Dulloo & Jacquet, 1998), and stimulates the consumption of more calorific foods (Benton, 2005)? Although it may appear to be common sense to suggest that eating less will reduce the risk of putting on weight, this may not be the optimal approach.

As the approach taken by psychology is to reduce caloric intake, various questions are considered. How does the body respond to a small change in the caloric content of meals? How does obesity develop? What nutritional approach should be taken rather than simply concentrating on calorie intake? Finally, in the context of the resulting conclusions, how should psychologists study obesity?

Anyone less sarcastic want to summarize what the bolded/italicized actually means? I could give my opinion, but I think my sarcastic meter is waaaay off at the moment.

The body has counteregulatory mechanisms which resist weight loss, so attention to how these are triggered and avoided may result in more effective management of obesity. They are suggesting what and how you eat matters, versus the oversimplified calories in - out approach.

Yes, it matters ... but from a psychological perspective, not a physiological one. Because while you will lose weight with CICO, it will be mentally tough to maintain over time. REALLY WHAT IT'S SAYING is losing weight is hard. Its hard because the current economics of acquiring calories is approaching zero. Cavemen didn't have this issue. Cavemen had to endure for scarce calories. However we have culturally and societally evolved faster than our AMAZING genetic composition and thus we consume calories to glutinous levels because we can. Because we were deigned to consume as much as we could find and take in, ie our evolved dopamine responses.

In conclusion it is hard to lose weight because we are basically fighting evolution when we do not eat calories in front of us.

It matters from both a psychologic and physiologic perspective. To deny the latter, you distill inability to lose weight solely to lack of willpower.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

Please stop with the snark. You know I didn't say CICO is all that matters.

Because foods are metabolized differently, consuming 1000 calories of ice cream is very different than 1000 calories of lettuce.

 

[belljr]

Typical thread

 

[massraider]

Dr. Robert Lustig: How Sugar & Processed Foods Impact Your Health

In this episode, my guest is Dr. Robert Lustig, M.D., neuroendocrinologist, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), an...

youtu.be

Recommend watching this.

 

[JAA]

Here is a great paper on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/

Lots of misdirection with the use of the word "may".

First excellent quote

Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution.

So hunger may be de-coupled from weight loss?

For example, even a year after dieting, hormonal mechanisms that stimulate appetite are raised

I got to say though, this is my favorite waving of the hands

As obesity reflects only a small malfunctioning of these mechanisms, there is a need to understand the control of energy balance and how to prevent the regaining of weight after it has been lost. By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.

This line is riveting! I can tell they are about to state I can eat more calories than I burn and I will lose weight!

However, obesity demands a more sophisticated approach than counting calories: It needs to be treated as an interdisciplinary topic. Those giving psychological advice need to be cognizant of aspects of both physiology and nutrition: Their recommendations must be compatible with bodily predispositions.

More specifically it is argued that having a reduction in calorie intake as the central plank of an antiobesity strategy fails to acknowledge the existence of physiological mechanisms that predispose to its failure.

I know there is going to be a conclusion here. Something transformative for the success of the human race during a time where the economics of acquiring calories is basically 0.

Psychologists interested in reducing obesity should consider altering their approach. Why is a reduction in calorie intake recommended when a lower energy intake leads to hormonal changes that stimulate appetite (Lean & Malkova, 2016), reduces metabolic rate (Dulloo & Jacquet, 1998), and stimulates the consumption of more calorific foods (Benton, 2005)? Although it may appear to be common sense to suggest that eating less will reduce the risk of putting on weight, this may not be the optimal approach.

As the approach taken by psychology is to reduce caloric intake, various questions are considered. How does the body respond to a small change in the caloric content of meals? How does obesity develop? What nutritional approach should be taken rather than simply concentrating on calorie intake? Finally, in the context of the resulting conclusions, how should psychologists study obesity?

Anyone less sarcastic want to summarize what the bolded/italicized actually means? I could give my opinion, but I think my sarcastic meter is waaaay off at the moment.

The body has counteregulatory mechanisms which resist weight loss, so attention to how these are triggered and avoided may result in more effective management of obesity. They are suggesting what and how you eat matters, versus the oversimplified calories in - out approach.

Yes, it matters ... but from a psychological perspective, not a physiological one. Because while you will lose weight with CICO, it will be mentally tough to maintain over time. REALLY WHAT IT'S SAYING is losing weight is hard. Its hard because the current economics of acquiring calories is approaching zero. Cavemen didn't have this issue. Cavemen had to endure for scarce calories. However we have culturally and societally evolved faster than our AMAZING genetic composition and thus we consume calories to glutinous levels because we can. Because we were deigned to consume as much as we could find and take in, ie our evolved dopamine responses.

In conclusion it is hard to lose weight because we are basically fighting evolution when we do not eat calories in front of us.

It matters from both a psychologic and physiologic perspective. To deny the latter, you distill inability to lose weight solely to lack of willpower.

No, CICO is not psychological, it is physiological and how your body loses weight by eating less.

Having the mental capacity to actually eat less so you can lose weight is psychological.

 

[JAA]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

Because foods are metabolized differently, consuming 1000 calories of ice cream is very different than 1000 calories of lettuce.

Not from a weight loss perspective. Your body will store excess calories from lettuce just the same as from donuts. Donut calories are not special and do not get stored any different than every other calories out there, including lettuce. This is not snark.

Not snark again here, but you are walking right up to the crux of all this ... no one can eat 1000 calories of lettuce. Why cant they? But they can easily eat 1000 calories of a Super Sized #1.

 

[JAA]

For whomever it might help. I'm on my third time around losing a lot of weight. I keep it off ok until I get hit with a major stressor and I just stop caring about my weight and food becomes a coping mechanism again.

Anyway, what Joe said about tracking calories is a key for me. In a nutshell, I use a calorie calculator to find out how many calories my height and weight generally needs to maintain that present weight, assuming a sedentary life.

A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So if I come in 500 under that number for 7 days, I'll lose about a pound, all else being equal. If I come in 1000 under for 7 days, I'd be losing 2 lbs a week. The number I am starting with is for being sedentary. So I can also do exercise to create that calorie deficit.

So in practice it's like this:

5'11" 228 lbs right now = 2276 calories to maintain.

My target is 1k less than that, or about 1275.

I track what I eat. I do not use my Fitbit's calorie estimate of what I burned for the entire day. But I do use what it says I burned in a session of tracked exercise (walk, strength training or exercise bike). I don't use the whole FItbit value, I use half of what it says and that works pretty well.

So in a day I might eat 1700 calories, but burn 300 in strength training and 700 on the exercise bike. 300+700=1000 from exercise, but as I said I only use half that value. So my number at the end of the day, 1700 eaten - 500 exercise = 1200.

And doing this for the last 5+ months I'm consistently losing 2-3 lbs a week. That I was coming in at 3 lbs a week for awhile is what led me to cut the Fitbit calorie readings in half... doing so slowed me to 2 lbs a week.

Of course I was able to eat more calories early on... at 286 lbs where I started, 2591 was my maintain, so about 1600 was my lose 2 lbs a week calorie target. Have to keep adjusting it as you go.



The other thing I'll say is that I eat higher protein to try to help keep muscle. As you'll lose both muscle and fat as you lose weight. Also the higher protein diet reduces my appetite and cravings a lot as it digests more slowly.

I'm down 59 lbs since the holidays basically. The other thing worth mentioning, while I'm not eating much fast food or junk food, I'm not eating salads like a rabbit. I have things that I like. Most meals have some fat which also helps sate my hunger. A lot of sandwiches, homemade burgers, burritos, chicken, etc.

Awesome post and excellent advice!

In my experience the most important thing is to simply count the calories you eat/drink. Every one of them. If you do this on a regular basis just this act of accountability will help you to eat less. The reason is most people really dont know how much calories are in things. Its so easy to pop 500 calories without even knowing it. Alcohol is a killer by the way, so many calories. Empty calories because they have no nutritional value and will not help curb hunger, quite the opposite you will want to eat more.

 

[JAA]

Typical thread

 

[JAA]

Dr. Robert Lustig: How Sugar & Processed Foods Impact Your Health

In this episode, my guest is Dr. Robert Lustig, M.D., neuroendocrinologist, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), an...

youtu.be

Recommend watching this.

It is 3.5 hours. Can you give a short synopsis? Im curious as to its content. TY

 

[WVU Alum]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

Because foods are metabolized differently, consuming 1000 calories of ice cream is very different than 1000 calories of lettuce.

Not from a weight loss perspective. Your body will store excess calories from lettuce just the same as from donuts. Donut calories are not special and do not get stored any different than every other calories out there, including lettuce. This is not snark.

Not snark again here, but you are walking right up to the crux of all this ... no one can eat 1000 calories of lettuce. Why cant they? But they can easily eat 1000 calories of a Super Sized #1.

I get what you are saying, but CICO is a simplification of nutrition in terms of weight loss. Your body will make temporary adjustments to diet and eating 1000 calories of junk can lead to better lipid numbers, but couldn’t that also be because you aren’t eating 2500 calories of **** instead?

Weight loss does not equate to healthy. I’m actually surprised at the response you have had in this thread. We aren’t discussing simple, confirmed, no-doubt-about-it science like we are flat Earthers. There is a lot of bad science out there and we are fighting against decades of misinformation. I’m not sure that CICO is the hill you should die on.

 

[massraider]

Dr. Robert Lustig: How Sugar & Processed Foods Impact Your Health

In this episode, my guest is Dr. Robert Lustig, M.D., neuroendocrinologist, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), an...

youtu.be

Recommend watching this.

It is 3.5 hours. Can you give a short synopsis? Im curious as to its content. TY

There are time stamps in the description. The first 30 minutes very relevant to this thread.

 

[AAABatteries]

Dr. Robert Lustig: How Sugar & Processed Foods Impact Your Health

In this episode, my guest is Dr. Robert Lustig, M.D., neuroendocrinologist, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), an...

youtu.be

Recommend watching this.

It is 3.5 hours. Can you give a short synopsis? Im curious as to its content. TY

Haven’t watched it but I’ve read and watched a lot of Lustig over the years - I imagine the synopsis is, sugar is the devil.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

5'11" , 228??!? Try 5'10". 250. Quitter.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Typical thread

Well, at least we're all on the same page for what comprises a healthy diet, amiright?

 

[massraider]

Haven’t watched it but I’ve read and watched a lot of Lustig over the years - I imagine the synopsis is, sugar is the devil

Well, that's definitely a theme. Lot of stuff in this discussion, but if people don't know WHY sugar is the devil, CICO seems reasonable.

Real good bit about why calories from an almond is not the same as calories from a twinkie.

 

[belljr]

For whomever it might help. I'm on my third time around losing a lot of weight. I keep it off ok until I get hit with a major stressor and I just stop caring about my weight and food becomes a coping mechanism again.

Anyway, what Joe said about tracking calories is a key for me. In a nutshell, I use a calorie calculator to find out how many calories my height and weight generally needs to maintain that present weight, assuming a sedentary life.

A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So if I come in 500 under that number for 7 days, I'll lose about a pound, all else being equal. If I come in 1000 under for 7 days, I'd be losing 2 lbs a week. The number I am starting with is for being sedentary. So I can also do exercise to create that calorie deficit.

So in practice it's like this:

5'11" 228 lbs right now = 2276 calories to maintain.

My target is 1k less than that, or about 1275.

I track what I eat. I do not use my Fitbit's calorie estimate of what I burned for the entire day. But I do use what it says I burned in a session of tracked exercise (walk, strength training or exercise bike). I don't use the whole FItbit value, I use half of what it says and that works pretty well.

So in a day I might eat 1700 calories, but burn 300 in strength training and 700 on the exercise bike. 300+700=1000 from exercise, but as I said I only use half that value. So my number at the end of the day, 1700 eaten - 500 exercise = 1200.

And doing this for the last 5+ months I'm consistently losing 2-3 lbs a week. That I was coming in at 3 lbs a week for awhile is what led me to cut the Fitbit calorie readings in half... doing so slowed me to 2 lbs a week.

Of course I was able to eat more calories early on... at 286 lbs where I started, 2591 was my maintain, so about 1600 was my lose 2 lbs a week calorie target. Have to keep adjusting it as you go.



The other thing I'll say is that I eat higher protein to try to help keep muscle. As you'll lose both muscle and fat as you lose weight. Also the higher protein diet reduces my appetite and cravings a lot as it digests more slowly.

I'm down 59 lbs since the holidays basically. The other thing worth mentioning, while I'm not eating much fast food or junk food, I'm not eating salads like a rabbit. I have things that I like. Most meals have some fat which also helps sate my hunger. A lot of sandwiches, homemade burgers, burritos, chicken, etc.

I just downloaded the mfp app and reset all my settings (had it before)..... I like the calories adjustment thing. Need to start wearing my watch again. Although I guess technically I can just input the mfp app exercise and half that. I just really need to up my exercise. With the bad back and knee though I can't go too crazy.

Good stuff

 

[GregR]

For whomever it might help. I'm on my third time around losing a lot of weight. I keep it off ok until I get hit with a major stressor and I just stop caring about my weight and food becomes a coping mechanism again.

Anyway, what Joe said about tracking calories is a key for me. In a nutshell, I use a calorie calculator to find out how many calories my height and weight generally needs to maintain that present weight, assuming a sedentary life.

A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So if I come in 500 under that number for 7 days, I'll lose about a pound, all else being equal. If I come in 1000 under for 7 days, I'd be losing 2 lbs a week. The number I am starting with is for being sedentary. So I can also do exercise to create that calorie deficit.

So in practice it's like this:

5'11" 228 lbs right now = 2276 calories to maintain.

My target is 1k less than that, or about 1275.

I track what I eat. I do not use my Fitbit's calorie estimate of what I burned for the entire day. But I do use what it says I burned in a session of tracked exercise (walk, strength training or exercise bike). I don't use the whole FItbit value, I use half of what it says and that works pretty well.

So in a day I might eat 1700 calories, but burn 300 in strength training and 700 on the exercise bike. 300+700=1000 from exercise, but as I said I only use half that value. So my number at the end of the day, 1700 eaten - 500 exercise = 1200.

And doing this for the last 5+ months I'm consistently losing 2-3 lbs a week. That I was coming in at 3 lbs a week for awhile is what led me to cut the Fitbit calorie readings in half... doing so slowed me to 2 lbs a week.

Of course I was able to eat more calories early on... at 286 lbs where I started, 2591 was my maintain, so about 1600 was my lose 2 lbs a week calorie target. Have to keep adjusting it as you go.



The other thing I'll say is that I eat higher protein to try to help keep muscle. As you'll lose both muscle and fat as you lose weight. Also the higher protein diet reduces my appetite and cravings a lot as it digests more slowly.

I'm down 59 lbs since the holidays basically. The other thing worth mentioning, while I'm not eating much fast food or junk food, I'm not eating salads like a rabbit. I have things that I like. Most meals have some fat which also helps sate my hunger. A lot of sandwiches, homemade burgers, burritos, chicken, etc.

Awesome post and excellent advice!

In my experience the most important thing is to simply count the calories you eat/drink. Every one of them. If you do this on a regular basis just this act of accountability will help you to eat less. The reason is most people really dont know how much calories are in things. Its so easy to pop 500 calories without even knowing it. Alcohol is a killer by the way, so many calories. Empty calories because they have no nutritional value and will not help curb hunger, quite the opposite you will want to eat more.

Absolutely. You will start making much better choices in a calorie sense. The buns I was using for burgers and sandwiches were 220 cals. There is another just as good that are 170. I may have 10 meals a week using them. That is 500 cals or 1/7 a pound of fat per week just from a brand change.

Even with fast food, passing on a high calorie side or choosing an entree more wisely can transform the calories for a meal.

 

[culdeus]

For whomever it might help. I'm on my third time around losing a lot of weight. I keep it off ok until I get hit with a major stressor and I just stop caring about my weight and food becomes a coping mechanism again.

Anyway, what Joe said about tracking calories is a key for me. In a nutshell, I use a calorie calculator to find out how many calories my height and weight generally needs to maintain that present weight, assuming a sedentary life.

A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So if I come in 500 under that number for 7 days, I'll lose about a pound, all else being equal. If I come in 1000 under for 7 days, I'd be losing 2 lbs a week. The number I am starting with is for being sedentary. So I can also do exercise to create that calorie deficit.

So in practice it's like this:

5'11" 228 lbs right now = 2276 calories to maintain.

My target is 1k less than that, or about 1275.

I track what I eat. I do not use my Fitbit's calorie estimate of what I burned for the entire day. But I do use what it says I burned in a session of tracked exercise (walk, strength training or exercise bike). I don't use the whole FItbit value, I use half of what it says and that works pretty well.

So in a day I might eat 1700 calories, but burn 300 in strength training and 700 on the exercise bike. 300+700=1000 from exercise, but as I said I only use half that value. So my number at the end of the day, 1700 eaten - 500 exercise = 1200.

And doing this for the last 5+ months I'm consistently losing 2-3 lbs a week. That I was coming in at 3 lbs a week for awhile is what led me to cut the Fitbit calorie readings in half... doing so slowed me to 2 lbs a week.

Of course I was able to eat more calories early on... at 286 lbs where I started, 2591 was my maintain, so about 1600 was my lose 2 lbs a week calorie target. Have to keep adjusting it as you go.



The other thing I'll say is that I eat higher protein to try to help keep muscle. As you'll lose both muscle and fat as you lose weight. Also the higher protein diet reduces my appetite and cravings a lot as it digests more slowly.

I'm down 59 lbs since the holidays basically. The other thing worth mentioning, while I'm not eating much fast food or junk food, I'm not eating salads like a rabbit. I have things that I like. Most meals have some fat which also helps sate my hunger. A lot of sandwiches, homemade burgers, burritos, chicken, etc.

Awesome post and excellent advice!

In my experience the most important thing is to simply count the calories you eat/drink. Every one of them. If you do this on a regular basis just this act of accountability will help you to eat less. The reason is most people really dont know how much calories are in things. Its so easy to pop 500 calories without even knowing it. Alcohol is a killer by the way, so many calories. Empty calories because they have no nutritional value and will not help curb hunger, quite the opposite you will want to eat more.

Absolutely. You will start making much better choices in a calorie sense. The buns I was using for burgers and sandwiches were 220 cals. There is another just as good that are 170. 8 may have 10 meals a week using them. That is 500 cals or 1/7 a pound of fat per week jist from a brand change.

Even with fast food, passing on a high calorie side or choosing an entree more wisely can transform the calories for a meal.

MFP has a weakness that there is self reporting, but no back end to monitor if your inputs are off. Some pay apps like macro factor try to help with this. Restaurant meals for one can be just a moving target on those, and you damn near need a scale to get anywhere.

 

[Terminalxylem]

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I linked a review earlier, but full text wasn’t available. Here is one of the meta analyses included in that review, which looked at the impact of varying protein composition of isocaloric diets:

Objective: The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared energy-restricted, isocaloric, high-protein, low-fat (HP) diets with standard-protein, low-fat (SP) diets on weight loss, body composition, resting energy expenditure (REE), satiety and appetite, and cardiometabolic risk factors.Design: Systematic searches were conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify weight-loss trials that compared isocalorically prescribed diets matched for fat intake but that differed in protein and carbohydrate intakes in participants aged ≥18 y. Twenty-four trials that included 1063 individuals satisfied the inclusion criteria.Results: Mean (±SD) diet duration was 12.1 ± 9.3 wk. Compared with an SP diet, an HP diet produced more favorable changes in weighted mean differences for reductions in body weight (−0.79 kg; 95% CI: −1.50, −0.08 kg), fat mass (FM; −0.87 kg; 95% CI: −1.26, −0.48 kg), and triglycerides (−0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.33, −0.12 mmol/L) and mitigation of reductions in fat-free mass (FFM; 0.43 kg; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.78 kg) and REE (595.5 kJ/d; 95% CI: 67.0, 1124.1 kJ/d). Changes in fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin, blood pressure, and total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol were similar across dietary treatments (P ≥ 0.20). Greater satiety with HP was reported in 3 of 5 studies.Conclusion: Compared with an energy-restricted SP diet, an isocalorically prescribed HP diet provides modest benefits for reductions in body weight, FM, and triglycerides and for mitigating reductions in FFM and REE.

So the pooled data showed 0.79 kg greater weight loss in subjects consuming diets with equal total calories, but different protein composition. This difference is likely a consequence of the thermic effect of food I mentioned earlier, as protein metabolism is more energy intensive than fat (and carbohydrate, to a lesser extent).

 

[Joe Bryant]

MFP has a weakness that there is self reporting, but no back end to monitor if your inputs are off. Some pay apps like macro factor try to help with this. Restaurant meals for one can be just a moving target on those, and you damn near need a scale to get anywhere.

MyFitnessPal is definitely not fool proof. Having a dietician in person plan every meal would be best but too expensive.

But I've found the verified entries for calories to be good. Fortunately, the internet makes it super easy to check.

I also think it doesn't have to perfect. Just the act of tracking things was an eye opener for me. Mostly with snacking.

 

[culdeus]

MFP has a weakness that there is self reporting, but no back end to monitor if your inputs are off. Some pay apps like macro factor try to help with this. Restaurant meals for one can be just a moving target on those, and you damn near need a scale to get anywhere.

MyFitnessPal is definitely not fool proof. Having a dietician in person plan every meal would be best but too expensive.

But I've found the verified entries for calories to be good. Fortunately, the internet makes it super easy to check.

I also think it doesn't have to perfect. Just the act of tracking things was an eye opener for me. Mostly with snacking

Macro factor more or less tries to extraoplate scale weight as a fix for how much you lie and adjusts. It's not the only one with that concept.

 

[Joe Bryant]

MFP has a weakness that there is self reporting, but no back end to monitor if your inputs are off. Some pay apps like macro factor try to help with this. Restaurant meals for one can be just a moving target on those, and you damn near need a scale to get anywhere.

MyFitnessPal is definitely not fool proof. Having a dietician in person plan every meal would be best but too expensive.

But I've found the verified entries for calories to be good. Fortunately, the internet makes it super easy to check.

I also think it doesn't have to perfect. Just the act of tracking things was an eye opener for me. Mostly with snacking

Macro factor more or less tries to extraoplate scale weight as a fix for how much you lie and adjusts. It's not the only one with that concept.

Cool. The main thing I think for sure is just to get started with something.

 

[JAA]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

Because foods are metabolized differently, consuming 1000 calories of ice cream is very different than 1000 calories of lettuce.

Not from a weight loss perspective. Your body will store excess calories from lettuce just the same as from donuts. Donut calories are not special and do not get stored any different than every other calories out there, including lettuce. This is not snark.

Not snark again here, but you are walking right up to the crux of all this ... no one can eat 1000 calories of lettuce. Why cant they? But they can easily eat 1000 calories of a Super Sized #1.

I get what you are saying, but CICO is a simplification of nutrition in terms of weight loss. Your body will make temporary adjustments to diet and eating 1000 calories of junk can lead to better lipid numbers, but couldn’t that also be because you aren’t eating 2500 calories of **** instead?

Weight loss does not equate to healthy. I’m actually surprised at the response you have had in this thread. We aren’t discussing simple, confirmed, no-doubt-about-it science like we are flat Earthers. There is a lot of bad science out there and we are fighting against decades of misinformation. I’m not sure that CICO is the hill you should die on.

CICO is weight loss. Please do not conflate weight loss with nutrition. They are completely different things.

It was mentioned earlier, you can be "skinny fat".

Ill repeat, my entire point of all of this, all my spewing here is ... weight, does, not, matter. If you want to lose weight, eat less or eat same and burn more. Those are facts.

If you want to be "healthy", focus on resting HR. If you want to be "fit" (whatever that means), focus on VO2 max. Thats it.

Weight does not come into those equations.

 

[JAA]

Dr. Robert Lustig: How Sugar & Processed Foods Impact Your Health

In this episode, my guest is Dr. Robert Lustig, M.D., neuroendocrinologist, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), an...

youtu.be

Recommend watching this.

It is 3.5 hours. Can you give a short synopsis? Im curious as to its content. TY

Haven’t watched it but I’ve read and watched a lot of Lustig over the years - I imagine the synopsis is, sugar is the devil.

Sugar is not the devil.

Refined sugar is corporate america, which at times can be the devil.

Natural sugar, like fruit, is amazing. Ive got bro-science friends who claim you can eat as much fruit as you want. Theory being the fiber in the fruit combats eating too much of the fruit, and other food, to be overly harmful.

 

[JAA]

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I linked a review earlier, but full text wasn’t available. Here is one of the meta analyses included in that review, which looked at the impact of varying protein composition of isocaloric diets:

Objective: The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared energy-restricted, isocaloric, high-protein, low-fat (HP) diets with standard-protein, low-fat (SP) diets on weight loss, body composition, resting energy expenditure (REE), satiety and appetite, and cardiometabolic risk factors.Design: Systematic searches were conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify weight-loss trials that compared isocalorically prescribed diets matched for fat intake but that differed in protein and carbohydrate intakes in participants aged ≥18 y. Twenty-four trials that included 1063 individuals satisfied the inclusion criteria.Results: Mean (±SD) diet duration was 12.1 ± 9.3 wk. Compared with an SP diet, an HP diet produced more favorable changes in weighted mean differences for reductions in body weight (−0.79 kg; 95% CI: −1.50, −0.08 kg), fat mass (FM; −0.87 kg; 95% CI: −1.26, −0.48 kg), and triglycerides (−0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.33, −0.12 mmol/L) and mitigation of reductions in fat-free mass (FFM; 0.43 kg; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.78 kg) and REE (595.5 kJ/d; 95% CI: 67.0, 1124.1 kJ/d). Changes in fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin, blood pressure, and total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol were similar across dietary treatments (P ≥ 0.20). Greater satiety with HP was reported in 3 of 5 studies.Conclusion: Compared with an energy-restricted SP diet, an isocalorically prescribed HP diet provides modest benefits for reductions in body weight, FM, and triglycerides and for mitigating reductions in FFM and REE.

So the pooled data showed 0.79 kg greater weight loss in subjects consuming diets with equal total calories, but different protein composition. This difference is likely a consequence of the thermic effect of food I mentioned earlier, as protein metabolism is more energy intensive than fat (and carbohydrate, to a lesser extent).

Thank you for the response.

For the record, TEF is part of CO, Calories Out. Meaning, you can think of the TEF of food as "burning calories". link

For the sake of this thread, and our sanity ... I will take a "draw" when dealing with the concept of "thermic effect" of food. I was wondering if this would come up, because it is a fair point. With a strict adherence to CICO, here are the points and counter-points of TEF:

1. Some foods are better because the way the body must metabolize them means more calorie burning
2. The energy the body uses to metabolize to food is part of the "Calorie Out" formula and thus is part of the calorie burning process

There are some foods which the body must work harder to convert, absolutely true. I am in the camp that this is part of our energy expenditure cycle. I realize this is nuanced as I pointed out in the link, but even though I disagree with you, I will concede there kinda are "better calories" for the body. That said, it is still a fact that "all calories are the same with respect to weight loss" since TEF is a small, if not tiny, benefit. This is a direct quote from the study (thank you again for sharing) which explains the true minimal benefit of TEF:

Because energy-matched diets were compared, the relatively small difference in weight loss observed between diets was not surprising. Nevertheless, a significant 0.79-kg greater weight loss produced with the HP diet was still evident. Although the effect size is relatively modest, a greater weight loss of this magnitude may still represent clinical relevance on a population level.

There is a good bit of research on the TEF of food, especially fruit. My reasoning for not agreeing with TEF being a calorie differentiator is that if thermal effect is really a thing, they why aren't we recommending the eating of frozen food to help with weight loss? For example, if you eat a frozen strawberry, the TEF would increase a good bit. So why don't we do this? Ill let you read about it and share with the group.

 

[GregR]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

Because foods are metabolized differently, consuming 1000 calories of ice cream is very different than 1000 calories of lettuce.

Not from a weight loss perspective. Your body will store excess calories from lettuce just the same as from donuts. Donut calories are not special and do not get stored any different than every other calories out there, including lettuce. This is not snark.

Not snark again here, but you are walking right up to the crux of all this ... no one can eat 1000 calories of lettuce. Why cant they? But they can easily eat 1000 calories of a Super Sized #1.

I get what you are saying, but CICO is a simplification of nutrition in terms of weight loss. Your body will make temporary adjustments to diet and eating 1000 calories of junk can lead to better lipid numbers, but couldn’t that also be because you aren’t eating 2500 calories of **** instead?

Weight loss does not equate to healthy. I’m actually surprised at the response you have had in this thread. We aren’t discussing simple, confirmed, no-doubt-about-it science like we are flat Earthers. There is a lot of bad science out there and we are fighting against decades of misinformation. I’m not sure that CICO is the hill you should die on.

CICO is weight loss. Please do not conflate weight loss with nutrition. They are completely different things.

It was mentioned earlier, you can be "skinny fat".

Ill repeat, my entire point of all of this, all my spewing here is ... weight, does, not, matter. If you want to lose weight, eat less or eat same and burn more. Those are facts.

If you want to be "healthy", focus on resting HR. If you want to be "fit" (whatever that means), focus on VO2 max. Thats it.

Weight does not come into those equations.

But it is worth saying that being overweight can affect resting heart rate. And VO2.

 

[JAA]

MFP has a weakness that there is self reporting, but no back end to monitor if your inputs are off. Some pay apps like macro factor try to help with this. Restaurant meals for one can be just a moving target on those, and you damn near need a scale to get anywhere.

MyFitnessPal is definitely not fool proof. Having a dietician in person plan every meal would be best but too expensive.

But I've found the verified entries for calories to be good. Fortunately, the internet makes it super easy to check.

I also think it doesn't have to perfect. Just the act of tracking things was an eye opener for me. Mostly with snacking.

Lemme add one thing from my experience

To track calories, daily is important. To track your actual consumption, I think weekly is best way to measure (as GregR explains). Meaning, add up all the daily's and plan for a weekly.

My experience is based on the concept of "cheat days". When I was training for my Ironman (HEY EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME!!!) I gave myself a cheat day. What I found over time is I could consume 2 days of calories on my cheat day. Basically, all the deficit I created was lost as I "caught up" on Sunday, my rest day. For me, I am an eater which means I must be vigilant throughout the week. Otherwise its very easy for me to overdue it. My biggest risk is Ice Cream. What I try to do is if I had ice cream the night before, try to skip, or go light, on breakfast the next day. Eat less as the calories are there, I just need to convert them. To sum up, look at your calories over a week as they can sneak up on you (as GregR continues to point out also) and blow up your plan.

 

[Terminalxylem]

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I linked a review earlier, but full text wasn’t available. Here is one of the meta analyses included in that review, which looked at the impact of varying protein composition of isocaloric diets:

Objective: The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared energy-restricted, isocaloric, high-protein, low-fat (HP) diets with standard-protein, low-fat (SP) diets on weight loss, body composition, resting energy expenditure (REE), satiety and appetite, and cardiometabolic risk factors.Design: Systematic searches were conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify weight-loss trials that compared isocalorically prescribed diets matched for fat intake but that differed in protein and carbohydrate intakes in participants aged ≥18 y. Twenty-four trials that included 1063 individuals satisfied the inclusion criteria.Results: Mean (±SD) diet duration was 12.1 ± 9.3 wk. Compared with an SP diet, an HP diet produced more favorable changes in weighted mean differences for reductions in body weight (−0.79 kg; 95% CI: −1.50, −0.08 kg), fat mass (FM; −0.87 kg; 95% CI: −1.26, −0.48 kg), and triglycerides (−0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.33, −0.12 mmol/L) and mitigation of reductions in fat-free mass (FFM; 0.43 kg; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.78 kg) and REE (595.5 kJ/d; 95% CI: 67.0, 1124.1 kJ/d). Changes in fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin, blood pressure, and total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol were similar across dietary treatments (P ≥ 0.20). Greater satiety with HP was reported in 3 of 5 studies.Conclusion: Compared with an energy-restricted SP diet, an isocalorically prescribed HP diet provides modest benefits for reductions in body weight, FM, and triglycerides and for mitigating reductions in FFM and REE.

So the pooled data showed 0.79 kg greater weight loss in subjects consuming diets with equal total calories, but different protein composition. This difference is likely a consequence of the thermic effect of food I mentioned earlier, as protein metabolism is more energy intensive than fat (and carbohydrate, to a lesser extent).

Thank you for the response.

For the record, TEF is part of CO, Calories Out. Meaning, you can think of the TEF of food as "burning calories". link

For the sake of this thread, and our sanity ... I will take a "draw" when dealing with the concept of "thermic effect" of food. I was wondering if this would come up, because it is a fair point. With a strict adherence to CICO, here are the points and counter-points of TEF:

1. Some foods are better because the way the body must metabolize them means more calorie burning
2. The energy the body uses to metabolize to food is part of the "Calorie Out" formula and thus is part of the calorie burning process

There are some foods which the body must work harder to convert, absolutely true. I am in the camp that this is part of our energy expenditure cycle. I realize this is nuanced as I pointed out in the link, but even though I disagree with you, I will concede there kinda are "better calories" for the body. That said, it is still a fact that "all calories are the same with respect to weight loss" since TEF is a small, if not tiny, benefit. This is a direct quote from the study (thank you again for sharing) which explains the true minimal benefit of TEF:

Because energy-matched diets were compared, the relatively small difference in weight loss observed between diets was not surprising. Nevertheless, a significant 0.79-kg greater weight loss produced with the HP diet was still evident. Although the effect size is relatively modest, a greater weight loss of this magnitude may still represent clinical relevance on a population level.

There is a good bit of research on the TEF of food, especially fruit. My reasoning for not agreeing with TEF being a calorie differentiator is that if thermal effect is really a thing, they why aren't we recommending the eating of frozen food to help with weight loss? For example, if you eat a frozen strawberry, the TEF would increase a good bit. So why don't we do this? I’ll let you read about it and share with the group.

Those studies were only three months, on average. Just like weight gain creeps up on people over decades, incremental weight loss due to TEF can add up over time.

No idea about eating frozen food (or fruit being a focus of TEF research), but shivering while eating certainly qualifies as extra calories out.

 

[JAA]

Typical thread

Well, at least we're all on the same page for what comprises a healthy diet, amiright?

Real food, that's it.

 

[JAA]

Haven’t watched it but I’ve read and watched a lot of Lustig over the years - I imagine the synopsis is, sugar is the devil

Real good bit about why calories from an almond is not the same as calories from a twinkie.

I'm getting triggered by this statement

Definition of a calorie: The calorie is a unit of energy that originated from the caloric theory of heat.

True: calories from an almond ARE EXACTLY THE SAME as calories from a twinkie
False: nutritional content of a twinkie is the same as an almond

Calories have nothing to do with nutrition and everything to do with energy.

 

[JAA]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

Because foods are metabolized differently, consuming 1000 calories of ice cream is very different than 1000 calories of lettuce.

Not from a weight loss perspective. Your body will store excess calories from lettuce just the same as from donuts. Donut calories are not special and do not get stored any different than every other calories out there, including lettuce. This is not snark.

Not snark again here, but you are walking right up to the crux of all this ... no one can eat 1000 calories of lettuce. Why cant they? But they can easily eat 1000 calories of a Super Sized #1.

I get what you are saying, but CICO is a simplification of nutrition in terms of weight loss. Your body will make temporary adjustments to diet and eating 1000 calories of junk can lead to better lipid numbers, but couldn’t that also be because you aren’t eating 2500 calories of **** instead?

Weight loss does not equate to healthy. I’m actually surprised at the response you have had in this thread. We aren’t discussing simple, confirmed, no-doubt-about-it science like we are flat Earthers. There is a lot of bad science out there and we are fighting against decades of misinformation. I’m not sure that CICO is the hill you should die on.

CICO is weight loss. Please do not conflate weight loss with nutrition. They are completely different things.

It was mentioned earlier, you can be "skinny fat".

Ill repeat, my entire point of all of this, all my spewing here is ... weight, does, not, matter. If you want to lose weight, eat less or eat same and burn more. Those are facts.

If you want to be "healthy", focus on resting HR. If you want to be "fit" (whatever that means), focus on VO2 max. Thats it.

Weight does not come into those equations.

But it is worth saying that being overweight can affect resting heart rate. And VO2.

Exactly.

There are many reasons for high resting HR, all are unhealthy (whatever that means). What we can agree on though, is if you have a high resting HR the best way to overcome this is to elevate your HR for periods of time. Elevating your HR will burn more calories, as well as many other positive things. Keep this up for 6 months in a safe manner and the rest will work itself out.

The best strategy on this concept is: Couch to 5K. It is truly a plan for everyone. Even if you never make the 5k, just putting in the work is paramount and something everyone should be doing

 

[massraider]

Real food, that's it.

It should be.

But it's a billion dollar industry telling people that it's OK to eat less garbage. If you are trying to lose weight, why is that stuff even in your house?

I'm getting triggered by this statement

Definition of a calorie: The calorie is a unit of energy that originated from the caloric theory of heat.

True: calories from an almond ARE EXACTLY THE SAME as calories from a twinkie
False: nutritional content of a twinkie is vastly different than an almond

Calories have nothing to do with nutrition and everything to do with energy

You are right of course. But people use this semantic distinction to justify eating poorly. They stop at calories.

Learning what happens to refined sugars, preservatives, etc when they hit your body really kinda makes the calorie in calorie out basis for dieting seem so antiquated.

 

[massraider]

Every hypocaloric diet will result in weight loss. So even the Twinkie diet can work.

That isn’t the same as saying all calories are created equal. Isocaloric diets (same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss. How is that possible, if all calories are processed identically?

Thank you for confirming CICO is all that matters for weight loss.

With respect to weight loss, I would love to see a study which proves what you said above, "(same total calories) with different macronutrient composition result in differing amounts of weight loss"

I never said all calories were metabolised the same inside the body, I said all calories were the same with respect to CICO. If you are aware of some "special calorie" which is not processed the same for weight loss, let me know as I want to start a business.

Because foods are metabolized differently, consuming 1000 calories of ice cream is very different than 1000 calories of lettuce.

Not from a weight loss perspective. Your body will store excess calories from lettuce just the same as from donuts. Donut calories are not special and do not get stored any different than every other calories out there, including lettuce. This is not snark.

Not snark again here, but you are walking right up to the crux of all this ... no one can eat 1000 calories of lettuce. Why cant they? But they can easily eat 1000 calories of a Super Sized #1.

I get what you are saying, but CICO is a simplification of nutrition in terms of weight loss. Your body will make temporary adjustments to diet and eating 1000 calories of junk can lead to better lipid numbers, but couldn’t that also be because you aren’t eating 2500 calories of **** instead?

Weight loss does not equate to healthy. I’m actually surprised at the response you have had in this thread. We aren’t discussing simple, confirmed, no-doubt-about-it science like we are flat Earthers. There is a lot of bad science out there and we are fighting against decades of misinformation. I’m not sure that CICO is the hill you should die on.

CICO is weight loss. Please do not conflate weight loss with nutrition. They are completely different things.

It was mentioned earlier, you can be "skinny fat".

Ill repeat, my entire point of all of this, all my spewing here is ... weight, does, not, matter. If you want to lose weight, eat less or eat same and burn more. Those are facts.

If you want to be "healthy", focus on resting HR. If you want to be "fit" (whatever that means), focus on VO2 max. Thats it.

Weight does not come into those equations.

But it is worth saying that being overweight can affect resting heart rate. And VO2.

Exactly.

There are many reasons for high resting HR, all are unhealthy (whatever that means). What we can agree on though, is if you have a high resting HR the best way to overcome this is to elevate your HR for periods of time. Elevating your HR will burn more calories, as well as many other positive things. Keep this up for 6 months in a safe manner and the rest will work itself out.

The best strategy on this concept is: Couch to 5K. It is truly a plan for everyone. Even if you never make the 5k, just putting in the work is paramount and something everyone should be doing

Also, I cannot be the only person that finds it much easier to eat well if I am eexercising. !!!As long as you are hydrating!!!

 

[JAA]

Real food, that's it.

It should be.

But it's a billion dollar industry telling people that it's OK to eat less garbage. If you are trying to lose weight, why is that stuff even in your house?

I'm getting triggered by this statement

Definition of a calorie: The calorie is a unit of energy that originated from the caloric theory of heat.

True: calories from an almond ARE EXACTLY THE SAME as calories from a twinkie
False: nutritional content of a twinkie is vastly different than an almond

Calories have nothing to do with nutrition and everything to do with energy

You are right of course. But people use this semantic distinction to justify eating poorly. They stop at calories.

Learning what happens to refined sugars, preservatives, etc when they hit your body really kinda makes the calorie in calorie out basis for dieting seem so antiquated.

AND DON'T FORGET THE SUPPLEMENT AND ENERGY DRINK INDUSTRY!!1!!11!!

It's yet another scam on people which we accept:

1. Fill grocery stores with cheap, processed, amazing tasting, "food" which does not satisfy and keeps people hungry
2. Provide vitamin supplements to people who eat processed food as all their micro-nutrients are now down
3. Recommend exercise to counteract the extra eating of processed food
4. Provide caloric energy drinks for the prescribed exercise which then counteracts the calorie burning from said exercise
5. rinse and repeat

and I completely agree with refined sugar. This could be its own thread as we could discuss inflammation and dopamine ad nauseam. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FARMERS AND THE CORN INDUSTRY!!1!!11!!

 

[Doug B]

My reasoning for not agreeing with TEF being a calorie differentiator is that if thermal effect is really a thing, they why aren't we recommending the eating of frozen food to help with weight loss? For example, if you eat a frozen strawberry, the TEF would increase a good bit. So why don't we do this?

Is the ice and frozen fruit added to a homemade smoothie (a healthy one, not a sugar bomb) kind of leaning into this a bit?

But otherwise, you have to remember that very, very few people think of food as fuel first, second, and third like you do. Exceptional people can't point to themselves as examples and coax ordinary people to do exceptional things. If you mean by "eating frozen foods" opening a bad of frozen broccoli florets -- or strawberries as in your example -- and simply bite down on those things like so many ice cubes ... that's kind of asking a lot. I know you think otherwise, but you have to meet people where they are.

If you mean instead being creative with frozen/cold-served healthy foods (e.g. homemade strawberry puree frozen into an ersatz sorbet), then you'd be getting somewhere. Many obese people would love a frozen "dessert" option in their sub-1000-kcal diet plan, so your idea has legs (and indeed is already done).

 

[Doug B]

The best strategy on this concept is: Couch to 5K. It is truly a plan for everyone.

An obese person who cannot run can't even start that plan -- though I imagine it could be adapted to walking for those that can walk an appreciable distance.

 

[Doug B]

But it's a billion dollar industry telling people that it's OK to eat less garbage. If you are trying to lose weight, why is that stuff even in your house?

Remember this? I've been trying to find images of the pre-pandemic "Coca Cola products as part of a healthy diet!" advertising, but someone's probably tried to scrub that from the Internet. Remember those display ads in grocery stores with large purple and pink text? I remember a drawing of a cyclist being part of the art.