What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Obesity and Ozempic and more (3 Viewers)


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.

Yeah, I'm mainly talking about refined sugar, added sugar, etc. But eating fruits that are high in sugar content can also release a dopamine hit which is problematic for some people. Will somebody get fat eating just fruit, almost assuredly not but our lizard brains will seek out other dopamine avenues. That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.
 
That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.

The disconnect is that "food is not fuel" for dang near everyone. For every one person that could happily live on chia seeds and kale for months on end, ten thousand can't even come close. When advising the obese, the whole entire psycho-social role of food is too frequently overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or both.
 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.

The disconnect is that "food is not fuel" for dang near everyone. For every one person that could happily live on chia seeds and kale for months on end, ten thousand can't even come close. When advising the obese, the whole entire psycho-social role of food is too frequently overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or both.

Yeah, that's why I've always kind of subscribed to the best diet being "the one you can stick to". I said earlier, the enemy of progress is often perfection, especially when it comes to weight loss, health and fitness. The science of CICO, whatever it may be, doesn't even come close to painting an accurate picture for a large portion of people. People are not automatons. And with so many having decades of poor habits that they've developed.
 
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).
RE TEF - the concept here is frozen food takes more energy to metabolize and thus is better for weight loss. IMHO this is too nuanced and not worth exploring.

I love smoothies and discussing them though :). One debated topic on smoothies is fiber. If you Vitamix food, does it lose fiber? Im in the science camp of "NO" on this one. Based on this, what I love to do with smoothies is to add 1/2cu of uncooked rolled oats (from my link earlier in the thread). Not only with this thicken up the smoothie yummy, but it will add all that fabulous soluble fiber. The oats have calories and are not free but it is a fantastic way to get them into your gut without excess sugar. I game changer IMHO, YMMV.
 
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.
I wanted to reply to this separately.

I am not exceptional. I am the opposite, I am less than ordinary. I do however invest brain cycles into food decisions, just like others invest brain cycles into things which are important to them. Ill repeat that this process of calorie management is hard as even as only 100 years ago calories were hard to come by. However, in just the last 100 years calories are today basically free. Thus, we need to now think about calories. It is a completely new concept for the human race. It's hard as we a programmed to consume.

Changing habits is hard, it is actual work. However I firmly believe that the first investment anyone should make is the one in themselves. For example, why worry about your retirement if your health while you are retired will be abysmal?

Yes, this is easy to say and hard to do. That doesn't mean you shouldn't work at it every day and prioritize it #1, for the rest of your life.
 

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.

Yeah, I'm mainly talking about refined sugar, added sugar, etc. But eating fruits that are high in sugar content can also release a dopamine hit which is problematic for some people. Will somebody get fat eating just fruit, almost assuredly not but our lizard brains will seek out other dopamine avenues. That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.
Thank you for the response.

I keep getting triggered though when folks say CICO is pointless. CICO is the only point. All folks have to worry about is calories and stop debating with extremes.
 
2Have you read the plan? Because your statement right there signals you haven't read the plan.
... I'm going to be a little unfair and say that I don't care to dive into right now. FWIW, I did read the brief Wikipedia article on the plan. Based on this:

Couch to 5K, abbreviated C25K, is an exercise plan that gradually progresses from beginner running toward a 5 kilometre (3.1 mile) run over nine weeks.

... I presumed in good faith that a participant at least had to be able to jog comfortably. So ... it's not beginner running at the start?

Or is it that the plan can be adapted for walking -- even slow, deliberate walking? Hey, for an obese person (and I mean 300-lb plus, not "I need to lose 10 pounds - I'm so fat!!!"), walking three miles is a nice accomplishment. And I'd say do-able given a reasonably healthy musculo-skeletal baseline. Probably better for the obese 30-something than the obese 60-something.

EDIT: OK, it looks like the baseline is being able to walk for five minutes.

The Couch to 5K running plan was created by Josh Clark in 1996. He developed the plan for new runners as motivation through manageable expectations. The plan aims to get the user working out for 20 to 30 minutes, three days a week. The daily workouts start with a five-minute warm-up walk and works up to running five kilometres without a walking break within nine weeks.[3][4] Clark started the website Kick and featured C25K on the site. In 2001, Kick merged with Cool Running, a New England–based running site.

That's a lot better than I was imagining, but still leaves several million obese people behind (though I guess someone can work up to it). Also leaves behind the older obese with shot lower-body joints (but again, another plan can be used for different health purposes).

Wait-- that's a warm-up walk. Warm up to what?
 
Last edited:
I am not exceptional. I am the opposite, I am less than ordinary.
Not strictly true IMHO -- you've done and continue to do something rare. The eventual "solution to obesity" in American society will not be "Everyone doing what JAA does". It will be "Everyone NOT doing what JAA does, but something else entirely (that probably prevents obesity from jump)."
 
That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.

The disconnect is that "food is not fuel" for dang near everyone. For every one person that could happily live on chia seeds and kale for months on end, ten thousand can't even come close. When advising the obese, the whole entire psycho-social role of food is too frequently overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or both.
I'm not trying to be a jerk.

To lose weight, you simply need to eat less than you burn. It is important to simplify this so folks know one does not need to be anything special to lose weight. That everyone can lose weight. And most importantly, no one diet or fad-concept will work for everyone. CICO is not special, its simple. The act of losing weight is simple.

So now we have defined the easy part (CICO), we then focus on the hard part ... habits. Mental and physical habits. And yes, this is the hard part.
 
2Have you read the plan? Because your statement right there signals you haven't read the plan.
... I'm going to be a little unfair and say that I don't care to dive into right now. FWIW, I did read the brief Wikipedia article on the plan. Based on this:

Couch to 5K, abbreviated C25K, is an exercise plan that gradually progresses from beginner running toward a 5 kilometre (3.1 mile) run over nine weeks.

... I presumed in good faith that a participant at least had to be able to jog comfortably. So ... it's not beginner running at the start?

Or is it that the plan can be adapted for walking -- even slow, deliberate walking? Hey, for an obese person (and I mean 300-lb plus, not "I need to lose 10 pounds - I'm so fat!!!"), walking three miles is a nice accomplishment. And I'd say do-able given a reasonably healthy musculo-skeletal baseline. Probably better for the obese 30-something than the obese 60-something.

EDIT: OK, it looks like the baseline is being able to walk for five minutes.

The Couch to 5K running plan was created by Josh Clark in 1996. He developed the plan for new runners as motivation through manageable expectations. The plan aims to get the user working out for 20 to 30 minutes, three days a week. The daily workouts start with a five-minute warm-up walk and works up to running five kilometres without a walking break within nine weeks.[3][4] Clark started the website Kick and featured C25K on the site. In 2001, Kick merged with Cool Running, a New England–based running site.

That's a lot better than I was imagining, but still leaves several million obese people behind (though I guess someone can work up to it). Also leaves behind the older obese with shot lower-body joints (but again, another plan can be used for different health purposes).

Wait-- that's a warm-up walk. Warm up to what?
Thank you for the thoughtful and sincere response.

What I believe the most important part of the plan, especially the beginning, is it is a measure of time, not distance. Believe it or not, you yourself have a VO2 max today. I'm sure you would like it to be higher, but you have one right now and it is what it is. This plan basically helps you figure out your current possible exertion level and build. Slowly. Gradually. I don't want to belabre my points from earlier in the thread, but we are not robots. We each have different abilities and all that matters, especially day 1, is time. Elevating your HR over time. If day 1 you can only do that for 1 minute ... PERFECT. Day 20 might be 2 minutes. Day 60 may be 5 minutes. EVERYONE starts somewhere. There are no right and wrong starting points and there are no right or wrong ending points. There is only commitment to be better each and every day.

Ill get a little personal here. One of the reasons I am so passionate about this topic is my mom. My mom was obese and as you can guess, died due to complications from her obesity. As a kid what I remember most was her feelings of embarrassment of working on herself. What sticks out most for me was her fear of being seen exercising and what people would think of her. Her and I would walk at night time around the apartment complex because she didn't want others to be able to see her. As a kid I knew it was weird. As an adult who lost his mother due to these things, its depressing. Its depressing that my mom is not here, but it is also depressing that there are others out there dealing with the same things. There are other parents out there who won't be able to have their moms and dads see their grandkids graduate high school. My middle son just graduated this past week. My mom wasn't there. She wasn't there for my oldest, and she obviously won't be there for the youngest either. All because my mom couldn't manage to get healthy; none of which was due to the types of calories she consumed. It was due to the quantity and lack of exercise.

Losing weight is easy, but the wrong measuring stick IMHO as the types calories you choose have virtually zero impact on losing weight.

Getting healthy is hard and should be the main goal. Elevated HR (movement/exercise) over time is IMO is what is most important for being healthy and should be the main focus. Once you start moving, everything else will eventually (1-2 years) fall into place.
 
2Have you read the plan? Because your statement right there signals you haven't read the plan.
... I'm going to be a little unfair and say that I don't care to dive into right now. FWIW, I did read the brief Wikipedia article on the plan. Based on this:

Couch to 5K, abbreviated C25K, is an exercise plan that gradually progresses from beginner running toward a 5 kilometre (3.1 mile) run over nine weeks.

... I presumed in good faith that a participant at least had to be able to jog comfortably. So ... it's not beginner running at the start?

Or is it that the plan can be adapted for walking -- even slow, deliberate walking? Hey, for an obese person (and I mean 300-lb plus, not "I need to lose 10 pounds - I'm so fat!!!"), walking three miles is a nice accomplishment. And I'd say do-able given a reasonably healthy musculo-skeletal baseline. Probably better for the obese 30-something than the obese 60-something.

EDIT: OK, it looks like the baseline is being able to walk for five minutes.

The Couch to 5K running plan was created by Josh Clark in 1996. He developed the plan for new runners as motivation through manageable expectations. The plan aims to get the user working out for 20 to 30 minutes, three days a week. The daily workouts start with a five-minute warm-up walk and works up to running five kilometres without a walking break within nine weeks.[3][4] Clark started the website Kick and featured C25K on the site. In 2001, Kick merged with Cool Running, a New England–based running site.

That's a lot better than I was imagining, but still leaves several million obese people behind (though I guess someone can work up to it). Also leaves behind the older obese with shot lower-body joints (but again, another plan can be used for different health purposes).

Wait-- that's a warm-up walk. Warm up to what?
Thank you for the thoughtful and sincere response.

What I believe the most important part of the plan, especially the beginning, is it is a measure of time, not distance. Believe it or not, you yourself have a VO2 max today. I'm sure you would like it to be higher, but you have one right now and it is what it is. This plan basically helps you figure out your current possible exertion level and build. Slowly. Gradually. I don't want to belabre my points from earlier in the thread, but we are not robots. We each have different abilities and all that matters, especially day 1, is time. Elevating your HR over time. If day 1 you can only do that for 1 minute ... PERFECT. Day 20 might be 2 minutes. Day 60 may be 5 minutes. EVERYONE starts somewhere. There are no right and wrong starting points and there are no right or wrong ending points. There is only commitment to be better each and every day.

Ill get a little personal here. One of the reasons I am so passionate about this topic is my mom. My mom was obese and as you can guess, died due to complications from her obesity. As a kid what I remember most was her feelings of embarrassment of working on herself. What sticks out most for me was her fear of being seen exercising and what people would think of her. Her and I would walk at night time around the apartment complex because she didn't want others to be able to see her. As a kid I knew it was weird. As an adult who lost his mother due to these things, its depressing. Its depressing that my mom is not here, but it is also depressing that there are others out there dealing with the same things. There are other parents out there who won't be able to have their moms and dads see their grandkids graduate high school. My middle son just graduated this past week. My mom wasn't there. She wasn't there for my oldest, and she obviously won't be there for the youngest either. All because my mom couldn't manage to get healthy; none of which was due to the types of calories she consumed. It was due to the quantity and lack of exercise.

Losing weight is easy, but the wrong measuring stick IMHO as the types calories you choose have virtually zero impact on losing weight.

Getting healthy is hard and should be the main goal. Elevated HR (movement/exercise) over time is IMO is what is most important for being healthy and should be the main focus. Once you start moving, everything else will eventually (1-2 years) fall into place.


:goodposting:

Thank you and thank you for sharing.
 
So what percentage of the American obese are too mentally weak to eat the right food? (depressed, addicted to sugar etc.)

I'd like the answer to this question.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for this population, but I would like to know what that number looks like.
 
I am not exceptional. I am the opposite, I am less than ordinary.
Not strictly true IMHO -- you've done and continue to do something rare. The eventual "solution to obesity" in American society will not be "Everyone doing what JAA does". It will be "Everyone NOT doing what JAA does, but something else entirely (that probably prevents obesity from jump)."
I will respectfully disagree.

I didn't invent it, but if everyone prioritized being healthy #1 in their life ... over everything but work and relationships, obesity will be solved in America.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but Im getting the feeling that you look at me (my internet words that is) and have placed me in the villian bucket. The villain who simplifies something others cant do.

Me being healthy is hard and is a lot of work. Just because I am successful at it doesn't mean it's easy or easy for me. It is not easy for me. I actually have to work at it every day. When I wake up, all day long telling myself I do not need to eat to be happy. When I want to drink, saying no. When I want dessert, saying no. When I want a larger portion saying no. When I want to add cheese to everything all the time, saying no. Getting the smaller size ice cream when the medium looks so much better. Filling my cereal bowl up just a little bit more because I can. Adding the extra tablespoon of peanut butter because "I deserve it". It is not easy for me.

The difference here is after my family and work, my health is next. Everything else is after. This has taken years of hard work and dedication. And I still have lapses into bad habits. Sometimes I even allow myself the bad habits because I am human. But I do not lie to myself, I am honest with myself everytime it happens. But I get back on the horse because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for me, for Mrs JAA, and for my kids. If I can give my kids anything, it will be a healthy parent who can be beside them when they get older. And hopefully, it will be a long long time before I am dependant on them.

:2cents:
 
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but Im getting the feeling that you look at me (my internet words that is) and have placed me in the villian bucket. The villain who simplifies something others cant do.

I don't think you're presenting as a villain at all (though the use of the term "bro-science" kind of places you in a box, if I'm being honest). I do think you are simplifying the challenges for OTHER PEOPLE. I really, really, really feel like a healthy person --even one who self-analyzes and is aware that they work hard at remaining healthy -- generally (not always) has little to offer to obese people on how to get to a healthy weight and stay there from within the confines of their own social/mental/physical limitations.

Getting back (way back) to this thread's erstwhile topic: That's why modern weight-loss medications should be regarded as virtually unmitigated good things for the body public. Those medications make more realistic the achievement of healthy weight for many more people than without. It that hard work and constant self-denial that wide-angle "people" can't sustain -- and weight-loss medications help specifically with that obstacle.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could get back to running. I started fresh in the running thread and was just starting to turn a corner.....

:kicksrock:
 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.

The disconnect is that "food is not fuel" for dang near everyone. For every one person that could happily live on chia seeds and kale for months on end, ten thousand can't even come close. When advising the obese, the whole entire psycho-social role of food is too frequently overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or both.
I'm not trying to be a jerk.

To lose weight, you simply need to eat less than you burn. It is important to simplify this so folks know one does not need to be anything special to lose weight. That everyone can lose weight. And most importantly, no one diet or fad-concept will work for everyone. CICO is not special, its simple. The act of losing weight is simple.

So now we have defined the easy part (CICO), we then focus on the hard part ... habits. Mental and physical habits. And yes, this is the hard part.

Cico isn't super helpful to the broad populace as a plan in and of itself. Stuff like cutting carbs can be as that gives a direction to the individual that is more concrete. Whether it is healthy or not is less a concern for an obese individual than the fallout from being obese.

Cico also discounts that combinations of macros have different hunger signaling. Cutting carbs for those with high carb signalling for example may be more effective overall, as signalling seems to be a decent marker for metabolism.

Ozempic is perhaps best for those without high carb signalling but past the point of insulin resistance. Having a body produce less insulin in response to foods is a decent way to approximate hunger. Those on oz shortcut some of those cues.
 

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.

Yeah, I'm mainly talking about refined sugar, added sugar, etc. But eating fruits that are high in sugar content can also release a dopamine hit which is problematic for some people. Will somebody get fat eating just fruit, almost assuredly not but our lizard brains will seek out other dopamine avenues. That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.
Thank you for the response.

I keep getting triggered though when folks say CICO is pointless. CICO is the only point. All folks have to worry about is calories and stop debating with extremes.

I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

Unbelievably hard and a large portion of people will give up trying.

I'm not saying CICO isn't scientifically "accurate" I'm saying it's such a small part of the complexity of the issue that it's not worth arguing over.
 
I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

I guess everything has a definition of difficulty, but in my experience there are lots of free apps like myfitnesspal that do exactly that estimating calories in and added exercise out and it's exceptionally easy to do.

People may not care enough to spend the 60 seconds a day needed. But it's not difficult.
 
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but Im getting the feeling that you look at me (my internet words that is) and have placed me in the villian bucket. The villain who simplifies something others cant do.

I don't think you're presenting as a villain at all (though the use of the term "bro-science" kind of places you in a box, if I'm being honest). I do think you are simplifying the challenges for OTHER PEOPLE. I really, really, really feel like a healthy person --even one who self-analyzes and is aware that they work hard at remaining healthy -- generally (not always) has little to offer to obese people on how to get to a healthy weight and stay there from within the confines of their own social/mental/physical limitations.

Getting back (way back) to this thread's erstwhile topic: That's why modern weight-loss medications should be regarded as virtually unmitigated good things for the body public. Those medications make more realistic the achievement of healthy weight for many more people than without. It that hard work and constant self-denial that wide-angle "people" can't sustain -- and weight-loss medications help specifically with that obstacle.
When I say "bro science" what Im saying is "this is complete conjecture and I am acknowledging it is not backed by science"

If you feel like a healthy person, what is the issue?
 
That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.

The disconnect is that "food is not fuel" for dang near everyone. For every one person that could happily live on chia seeds and kale for months on end, ten thousand can't even come close. When advising the obese, the whole entire psycho-social role of food is too frequently overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or both.
I'm not trying to be a jerk.

To lose weight, you simply need to eat less than you burn. It is important to simplify this so folks know one does not need to be anything special to lose weight. That everyone can lose weight. And most importantly, no one diet or fad-concept will work for everyone. CICO is not special, its simple. The act of losing weight is simple.

So now we have defined the easy part (CICO), we then focus on the hard part ... habits. Mental and physical habits. And yes, this is the hard part.

Cico isn't super helpful to the broad populace as a plan in and of itself. Stuff like cutting carbs can be as that gives a direction to the individual that is more concrete. Whether it is healthy or not is less a concern for an obese individual than the fallout from being obese.

Cico also discounts that combinations of macros have different hunger signaling. Cutting carbs for those with high carb signalling for example may be more effective overall, as signalling seems to be a decent marker for metabolism.

Ozempic is perhaps best for those without high carb signalling but past the point of insulin resistance. Having a body produce less insulin in response to foods is a decent way to approximate hunger. Those on oz shortcut some of those cues.
What I cant process from what you said is that CICO isnt helpful but understanding the appropriate macro's for your Age and Fitness is? To me, it feels way backwards and complicated, super not helpful. Especially when macros are basically useless for weight loss. For fitness and energy levels, sure ... lets talk macro's!

How about another over simplification here, something the medical industry cares nothing about because there is no profit in it ... medication never changes habits.

IMHO medication should always* be a short term solution as a bridge from one specific place to another specific place.
 

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.

Yeah, I'm mainly talking about refined sugar, added sugar, etc. But eating fruits that are high in sugar content can also release a dopamine hit which is problematic for some people. Will somebody get fat eating just fruit, almost assuredly not but our lizard brains will seek out other dopamine avenues. That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.
Thank you for the response.

I keep getting triggered though when folks say CICO is pointless. CICO is the only point. All folks have to worry about is calories and stop debating with extremes.

I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

Unbelievably hard and a large portion of people will give up trying.

I'm not saying CICO isn't scientifically "accurate" I'm saying it's such a small part of the complexity of the issue that it's not worth arguing over.

What is hard about measuring calories in?

What is hard about measuring calories out?

Dont forget the goal isnt about being perfect, it is about being close enough. Is my sammich 425 calories or 560 calories? Pick the middle. Once you do this will all of your foods you will be close enough.

Calories out? Again .. measure HR over time. Only count your exercise time. Dont try to figure out how many calories you are burning. Simply measure your initial baseline time/avg-HR to perform some exercise. The continue to measure that same exercise over the same time and see your HR change.

As mentioned earlier, perfection here is the enemy of great.
 
Calories out? Again .. measure HR over time. Only count your exercise time. Dont try to figure out how many calories you are burning. Simply measure your initial baseline time/avg-HR to perform some exercise. The continue to measure that same exercise over the same time and see your HR change.

Or with apps now, it's even easier. Myfitness pall automatically detects I walked for 60 minutes and that's 330 calories for me. The app deducts that from the daily goal without me lifting a finger. Literally could not be easier.

Now is it really 307 calories and not 330? Maybe. Is the egg scramble I made for breakfast really 498 calories instead of the 462 the app estimated? Maybe. But it's not going to be perfect.

Estimating is what I'm going for.

The thing it does for me is help me with guard rails. If I have a donut, I need to account. If I think about having 3 donuts, the app easily shows me how bad an idea that truly is.
 
Calories out? Again .. measure HR over time. Only count your exercise time. Dont try to figure out how many calories you are burning. Simply measure your initial baseline time/avg-HR to perform some exercise. The continue to measure that same exercise over the same time and see your HR change.

Or with apps now, it's even easier. Myfitness pall automatically detects I walked for 60 minutes and that's 330 calories for me. The app deducts that from the daily goal without me lifting a finger. Literally could not be easier.

Now is it really 307 calories and not 330? Maybe. Is the egg scramble I made for breakfast really 498 calories instead of the 462 the app estimated? Maybe. But it's not going to be perfect.

Estimating is what I'm going for.

The thing it does for me is help me with guard rails. If I have a donut, I need to account. If I think about having 3 donuts, the app easily shows me how bad an idea that truly is.
The app knows when you are even thinking about food? That's a bit invasive for my taste,
 
I wish I could get back to running. I started fresh in the running thread and was just starting to turn a corner.....

:kicksrock:

Injury?
yes

Hang in there, GB. What's the injury?

I'm convinced a non trivial part of doing a race is just navigating the injury minefield.
i have torn meniscus (which I lived with for a long time) just getting worse and need to probably get taken care of.

But last year - I have 2 herniated discs in my back L4-L5 is the big one - the other is smaller and is one above it. Dr made me stop running and all the stretches and exercises I was doing was doing nothing but aggravating it. Did PT for about a month feels a little better but I need to become more vigilante doing it at home before I see if I can alleviate the pain and numbess before going back to another visit.
 
I wish I could get back to running. I started fresh in the running thread and was just starting to turn a corner.....

:kicksrock:

Injury?
yes

Hang in there, GB. What's the injury?

I'm convinced a non trivial part of doing a race is just navigating the injury minefield.
i have torn meniscus (which I lived with for a long time) just getting worse and need to probably get taken care of.

But last year - I have 2 herniated discs in my back L4-L5 is the big one - the other is smaller and is one above it. Dr made me stop running and all the stretches and exercises I was doing was doing nothing but aggravating it. Did PT for about a month feels a little better but I need to become more vigilante doing it at home before I see if I can alleviate the pain and numbess before going back to another visit.

Dang Buddy. Hang in there. I'm injury free right now and was remarkably injury free when I was running a lot ( Going slow at 10 minute miles help ;) ) but now a few years later, I'm starting to think a lot about that stuff.
 
Last edited:
That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.

The disconnect is that "food is not fuel" for dang near everyone. For every one person that could happily live on chia seeds and kale for months on end, ten thousand can't even come close. When advising the obese, the whole entire psycho-social role of food is too frequently overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or both.
I'm not trying to be a jerk.

To lose weight, you simply need to eat less than you burn. It is important to simplify this so folks know one does not need to be anything special to lose weight. That everyone can lose weight. And most importantly, no one diet or fad-concept will work for everyone. CICO is not special, its simple. The act of losing weight is simple.

So now we have defined the easy part (CICO), we then focus on the hard part ... habits. Mental and physical habits. And yes, this is the hard part.

Cico isn't super helpful to the broad populace as a plan in and of itself. Stuff like cutting carbs can be as that gives a direction to the individual that is more concrete. Whether it is healthy or not is less a concern for an obese individual than the fallout from being obese.

Cico also discounts that combinations of macros have different hunger signaling. Cutting carbs for those with high carb signalling for example may be more effective overall, as signalling seems to be a decent marker for metabolism.

Ozempic is perhaps best for those without high carb signalling but past the point of insulin resistance. Having a body produce less insulin in response to foods is a decent way to approximate hunger. Those on oz shortcut some of those cues.
What I cant process from what you said is that CICO isnt helpful but understanding the appropriate macro's for your Age and Fitness is? To me, it feels way backwards and complicated, super not helpful. Especially when macros are basically useless for weight loss. For fitness and energy levels, sure ... lets talk macro's!

How about another over simplification here, something the medical industry cares nothing about because there is no profit in it ... medication never changes habits.

IMHO medication should always* be a short term solution as a bridge from one specific place to another specific place.

Macros matter for cico when you have a metabolic issue with carbs. It just so happens that weight gain can make that worse.

Cico hardliners don't really like it but the numerator and denominator matter and can shift it's not only input. And output is not only exercise. For some people altering macros truly alters the "out" part. But usually blind hate for fat people never allows them to become able to understand such nuance.
 
I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

I guess everything has a definition of difficulty, but in my experience there are lots of free apps like myfitnesspal that do exactly that estimating calories in and added exercise out and it's exceptionally easy to do.

People may not care enough to spend the 60 seconds a day needed. But it's not difficult.

If you are spending 60 seconds then you are potentially way off in your numbers. Unless you are weighing your food and measuring accurately every single thing you are eating then your numbers are off - and most peoples are way off because they are guessing. And many of those online trackers aren't exact. Which is my point.

And calories out is even worse. Do you know what your MBR is? How many calories are you burning just walking around, going up a flight of stairs.

The point isn't that folks shouldn't try - in the same way BMI is a guide, so are these trackers but anybody that thinks they are getting accurate numbers are kidding themselves.

And ultimately this goes to my main point on this topic - most people have no interest in tracking and for those that do they want something simple - something that might take 60 seconds. And that isn't going to give people an accurate enough picture. To me the biggest benefit of trackers isn't to measure super accurately but more the mindset of "hey, I need to be aware of what I eat and drink all the time". That mindset plus some education on good foods would be a huge stride forward for many.
 

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.

Yeah, I'm mainly talking about refined sugar, added sugar, etc. But eating fruits that are high in sugar content can also release a dopamine hit which is problematic for some people. Will somebody get fat eating just fruit, almost assuredly not but our lizard brains will seek out other dopamine avenues. That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.
Thank you for the response.

I keep getting triggered though when folks say CICO is pointless. CICO is the only point. All folks have to worry about is calories and stop debating with extremes.

I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

Unbelievably hard and a large portion of people will give up trying.

I'm not saying CICO isn't scientifically "accurate" I'm saying it's such a small part of the complexity of the issue that it's not worth arguing over.

What is hard about measuring calories in?

What is hard about measuring calories out?

Dont forget the goal isnt about being perfect, it is about being close enough. Is my sammich 425 calories or 560 calories? Pick the middle. Once you do this will all of your foods you will be close enough.

Calories out? Again .. measure HR over time. Only count your exercise time. Dont try to figure out how many calories you are burning. Simply measure your initial baseline time/avg-HR to perform some exercise. The continue to measure that same exercise over the same time and see your HR change.

As mentioned earlier, perfection here is the enemy of great.

If CICO is "all that matters" for weight loss as you've been advocating, then you need to make sure and get it right.

If I'm off by 100 calories a day to the bad then at the end of the year I could expect to gain around 10 pounds. If I'm off 200 calories, then I could gain 20 pounds.

And I totally agree on the perfection things as I've repeated it a few times.
 
For the average person (not competitive athletes or muscleheads), why is BMI a flawed metric, at least as a quick diagnostic? Serious question, not taking a position.
It's just weight divided by the square of your height. Doesn't take into account how much of that weight is muscle, fat or bone, or any other demographic factors like age, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I mean, fat people will have a high BMI and skinny people will have a low BMI, but that's about the extent of its insight. It's not a good guideline for what you should weigh, and insurance companies and the government really should not be using it to determine any financial penalties.
Government should certainly stay out of it, but I'd be all for private insurance companies offering discounts for lower BMI levels. Penalties though? Good luck. Maybe there's a niche market there where you can keep premiums in check by only insuring the super healthy. :hmm:
 
I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

I guess everything has a definition of difficulty, but in my experience there are lots of free apps like myfitnesspal that do exactly that estimating calories in and added exercise out and it's exceptionally easy to do.

People may not care enough to spend the 60 seconds a day needed. But it's not difficult.

If you are spending 60 seconds then you are potentially way off in your numbers. Unless you are weighing your food and measuring accurately every single thing you are eating then your numbers are off - and most peoples are way off because they are guessing. And many of those online trackers aren't exact. Which is my point.

And calories out is even worse. Do you know what your MBR is? How many calories are you burning just walking around, going up a flight of stairs.

The point isn't that folks shouldn't try - in the same way BMI is a guide, so are these trackers but anybody that thinks they are getting accurate numbers are kidding themselves.

And ultimately this goes to my main point on this topic - most people have no interest in tracking and for those that do they want something simple - something that might take 60 seconds. And that isn't going to give people an accurate enough picture. To me the biggest benefit of trackers isn't to measure super accurately but more the mindset of "hey, I need to be aware of what I eat and drink all the time". That mindset plus some education on good foods would be a huge stride forward for many.

It takes more than 60 seconds one time. It took probably 90 seconds to build my custom meal of an egg scramble. But 3 eggs, onion, jalapeno, mushrooms, bell pepper I'm going to guess is pretty close to accurate. And when I open the app and click "log food", the first suggestion on breakfast is "Joe's Scramble". Takes literally 1 second to log my calories for the morning.

And sure, the app could be off some on MBR or actual walking calories. But I think it's close enough.

The idea that we can't even try because it's somehow really hard is just fascinating. It's not difficult. But again, one has to care enough to spend 60 seconds on it.
 
I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

I guess everything has a definition of difficulty, but in my experience there are lots of free apps like myfitnesspal that do exactly that estimating calories in and added exercise out and it's exceptionally easy to do.

People may not care enough to spend the 60 seconds a day needed. But it's not difficult.

If you are spending 60 seconds then you are potentially way off in your numbers. Unless you are weighing your food and measuring accurately every single thing you are eating then your numbers are off - and most peoples are way off because they are guessing. And many of those online trackers aren't exact. Which is my point.

And calories out is even worse. Do you know what your MBR is? How many calories are you burning just walking around, going up a flight of stairs.

The point isn't that folks shouldn't try - in the same way BMI is a guide, so are these trackers but anybody that thinks they are getting accurate numbers are kidding themselves.

And ultimately this goes to my main point on this topic - most people have no interest in tracking and for those that do they want something simple - something that might take 60 seconds. And that isn't going to give people an accurate enough picture. To me the biggest benefit of trackers isn't to measure super accurately but more the mindset of "hey, I need to be aware of what I eat and drink all the time". That mindset plus some education on good foods would be a huge stride forward for many.

It takes more than 60 seconds one time. It took probably 90 seconds to build my custom meal of an egg scramble. But 3 eggs, onion, jalapeno, mushrooms, bell pepper I'm going to guess is pretty close to accurate. And when I open the app and click "log food", the first suggestion on breakfast is "Joe's Scramble". Takes literally 1 second to log my calories for the morning.

And sure, the app could be off some on MBR or actual walking calories. But I think it's close enough.

The idea that we can't even try because it's somehow really hard is just fascinating. It's not difficult. But again, one has to care enough to spend 60 seconds on it.

I never suggested people not try so not sure what's fascinating. The discussion came about because of all the back and forth about CICO. The premise that CICO is all that matters, for me, leads to you having to get these measurements very exact. People aren't going to want to do that, and for the subset that do there's a large part of them who won't be good at it. That's why I said the arguing about CICO is pointless.
 

I never suggested people not try so not sure what's fascinating. The discussion came about because of all the back and forth about CICO. The premise that CICO is all that matters, for me, leads to you having to get these measurements very exact. People aren't going to want to do that, and for the subset that do there's a large part of them who won't be good at it. That's why I said the arguing about CICO is pointless.

I was responding to this talking about CICO.
I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

Unbelievably hard and a large portion of people will give up trying.

My point is I don't think it's difficult.
 

I never suggested people not try so not sure what's fascinating. The discussion came about because of all the back and forth about CICO. The premise that CICO is all that matters, for me, leads to you having to get these measurements very exact. People aren't going to want to do that, and for the subset that do there's a large part of them who won't be good at it. That's why I said the arguing about CICO is pointless.

I was responding to this talking about CICO.
I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

Unbelievably hard and a large portion of people will give up trying.

My point is I don't think it's difficult.

Since you don't seem convinced by me, I grabbed the first link from a Google search. It's an opinion piece from a doctor in Australia. It sums up the "research" I've done over the years pretty well.


It’s nearly impossible to calculate accurately​

The many calorie-counting apps and online calculators available make it seem effortless. Simply enter your sex, age, height, weight, body composition and activity levels and they’ll tell you exactly how many calories you should eat daily to lose weight.
Unfortunately, no matter how accurate these calculators claim to be, they rely on averages and can’t determine the calorie intake appropriate for you with 100 percent accuracy. They can only estimate.
Similarly, our metabolic rate – how much energy we burn at rest – also varies from person to person based on many factors, including body composition or how much muscle and fat we have. Complicating things further, our metabolic rate also alters when we change our diet and lose weight.
Calculating the calories in food – the other part of managing “calories in” – is also far from accurate.
While Australian food standards require foodstuffs to display Nutrition Information Panels showing energy in kilojoules, there are no requirements for information accuracy other than it must not be misleading. A worrying +/-20 percent discrepancy is generally accepted for the values shown on labels.
In practice, the variation can be much more than this. One Australian study found food contained anywhere between 13 percent less and 61 percent more energy or nutrient components than its packaging stated.

Not all calories are created, or consumed, equally​

Another reason the simple “calories in, calories out” formula is not so simple is our bodies don’t consume every calorie the same way. What’s shown in your calorie counter is not what’s actually absorbed in your body.
Different calorie sources also have different effects on our hormones, brain response and energy expenditure, changing how we respond to and manage our food intake.
For example, while eating 180 calories worth of nuts is the same as eating 180 calories of pizza in terms of energy intake, the way these foods are absorbed and how they affect the body is very different.
While we absorb most of the calories in a slice of pizza, we don’t absorb about 20 percent of the calories in nuts because their fat is stored in the nut’s fibrous cell walls, which don’t break down during digestion. Nuts are also packed with fibre filling us up for longer, while a slice of pizza has us immediately reaching for another due to its low fibre content.

Our bodies disrupt the formula​

The biggest failing of the “calories in, calories out” formula is it ignores that the body adjusts its control systems when calorie intake is reduced. So while the formula can support people achieving weight loss initially, the reduction in energy intake is counteracted by mechanisms that ensure lost weight is regained.
Namely, when your body registers a sustained decrease in the calories you consume, it believes its survival is threatened. So it automatically triggers a series of physiological responses to protect against the threat, reducing our metabolic rate and burning less energy.
This stems from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, whose bodies developed this response to adapt to periods of deprivation when food was scarce to protect against starvation.
Research also suggests our bodies have a “set point weight”: a genetically predetermined weight our bodies try to maintain regardless of what we eat or how much we exercise.
Our bodies protect our set point as we lose weight, managing biological signals from the brain and hormones to hold onto fat stores in preparation for future reductions in our calorie intake.
The body achieves this in several ways, all of which directly influence the “calories in, calories out” equation, including:
  • slowing our metabolism. When we reduce our calorie intake to lose weight, we lose muscle and fat. This decrease in body mass results in an expected decrease in metabolic rate, but there is a further 15 percent decrease in metabolism beyond what can be accounted for, further disrupting the “calories in, calories out” equation. Even after we regain lost weight our metabolism doesn’t recover. Our thyroid gland also misfires when we restrict our food intake, and fewer hormones are secreted, also changing the equation by reducing the energy we burn at rest
  • adapting how our energy sources are used. When we reduce our energy intake and start losing weight, our body switches from using fat as its energy source to carbohydrates and holds onto its fat, resulting in less energy being burned at rest
  • managing how our adrenal gland functions. Our adrenal gland manages the hormone cortisol, which it releases when something that stresses the body – like calorie restriction – is imposed. Excess cortisol production and its presence in our blood changes how our bodies process, store and burn fat.
Our bodies also cleverly trigger responses aimed at increasing our calorie intake to regain lost weight, including:
  • adjusting our appetite hormones. When we reduce our calorie intake and deprive our bodies of food, our hormones work differently, suppressing feelings of fullness and telling us to eat more
  • changing how our brain functions. When our calorie intake reduces, activity in our hypothalamus – the part of the brain that regulates emotions and food intake – also reduces, decreasing our control and judgement over our food choices.

Bottom line​

The “calories in, calories out” formula for weight loss success is a myth because it oversimplifies the complex process of calculating energy intake and expenditure. More importantly, it fails to consider the mechanisms our bodies trigger to counteract a reduction in energy intake.
So while you may achieve short-term weight loss following the formula, you’ll likely regain it.
What’s more, calorie counting can do more harm than good, taking the pleasure out of eating and contributing to developing an unhealthy relationship with food. That can make it even harder to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.
For long term weight loss, it’s important to follow evidence-based programs from health-care professionals and make gradual changes to your lifestyle to ensure you form habits that last a lifetime.

And again, I'm not saying folks shouldn't track their calories if they want - but if you are going to discuss the virtues of CICO you have to understand that there's serious questions about the veracity of it as a method.
 
I guess I'll forgo quoting individual posts and just write something long that summarizes my thoughts:

When I say that I don't think that advice regarding CICO is particularly useful, I'm speaking partly from experience and partly form just looking at what the data tells us. I don't think that most Americans are in denial about the law of thermodynamics. I think they understand that eating more calories than they burn causes them to gain weight. And while the information available about the calorie counts of certain foods and their expected caloric burn from their metabolism is far, far from perfect (calorie counts on labels are allowed to be off by up to 20% or something and caloric burn caluclators are big old guesses), it's certainly true that we've probably never had better, more available information about that stuff than we do now. And people, including me, still struggle to lose weight and keep it off.

Speaking solely for myself, I'm open to the idea that I struggle with weight because I suck. That I'm lazy. I have a lot of ****ty habits. I have ADHD. I've bombed out of big law. My executive functioning is seemingly that of a toddler. But even if the rest of the Americans who struggle with weight are lazy pieces of **** like me, that's not really a helpful observation. If counting your calories and sticking to an eating plan is easy for you. If that type of discipline appeals to you and fits your life, great job. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that makes you better than me in a pretty fundamental way. But I just don't think it helps understand or fight obesity from a public health perspective.

Where I think CICO fails as a weight management strategy is that I think it relies on the premise that people are going to eat in a way where they are trying to eat as much as they should eat as a daily habit. Even if that amount differs from how much their body is telling them they want to eat. We know that diets are decent short-term solutions for weight loss. We know lots of calorie restriction programs can produce results where people pretty routinely lose 10 to 20 percent of their body weight. We also know that those same programs have universally lousy records when it comes to those same people keeping those results 2 or more years down the line. And I think that's because it's easy to pay attention to what we should eat at the expense of what our body is telling us to eat in the short term (while we're also getting lots of positive feedback by losing weight). It's hard to do that every day over years and years. It might work for some people. I'm sure Tom Brady lives for that ****. He's wired that way. But most people struggle to impose that type of discipline and order on their food choices day after day after day.

I think a lot of people who never develop weight problems might have trouble understanding those that do. Because those people are able to eat intuitively. There's no disconnect between the general amount they eat and the amount that their body is telling them it wants. And it's in this area, all the weird hormonal and metabolic chemistry stuff going on in our body (leptin, ghrelin, GLP-1 peptides, etc.) that hold more promise. Because those are potential solutions to regulating hunger. And I don't think that's a shortcut or a band aid. I think that's fixing the actual health crisis (understanding that there are also a lot of societal issues relating to our food environment and inactive lifestyles that also play a role).
 
Last edited:
Since you don't seem convinced by me, I grabbed the first link from a Google search. It's an opinion piece from a doctor in Australia. It sums up the "research" I've done over the years pretty well.

I know for a fact it's not difficult for me to estimate calories. Which was the question. So you're correct, I'm not going to be convinced of something I know for certain not to be true.

As I said, one can argue whether the calories are exact. I'm sure they're not. But I think they're close enough for an estimation.

And for sure, this is just me. I fully understand others think it's pointless or don't agree.

That's fine though. Plenty of folks disagree on the forum. That makes a forum interesting and I think we both understand the other.

I'm more interested in this question: For those who think tracking CICO is pointless or wrong or not worth doing, what specific program would you suggest people follow for losing weight if they're overweight and then maintaining the weight once they get to where they want.

Say a 50 year old male that is mostly sedentary but able to exercise and is overweight by 30 pounds and wants to lose it, what specifically do you tell them? Or what more information do you need and then what specifically do you tell them?
 
Last edited:
Speaking solely for myself, I'm open to the idea that I struggle with weight because I suck. That I'm lazy. I have a lot of ****ty habits. I have ADHD. I've bombed out of big law. My executive functioning is seemingly that of a toddler. But even if the rest of the Americans who struggle with weight are lazy pieces of **** like me, that's not really a helpful observation.

The trick is: A societal solution to obesity has to account for a heckuva lot of people being lazy, sucking, having bad habits, etc. The solution has to overcome that.

Some think "No way! Can't happen! The people HAVE TO change themselves! HAVE. TO." But no -- that's not how it's going to go down.
 
I know for a fact it's not difficult for me to estimate calories. Which was the question. So you're correct, I'm not going to be convinced of something I know for certain not to be true.

Maybe the disconnect here is you are talking about how difficult it is and I'm talking about the difficulty due to inaccuracy. As scooby pointed out the FDA allows for 20% off on food labels. You will have great inaccuracies in eating out. And unless you are measuring and weighing everything precisely you will have decent sized inaccuracies in your home meals too. You may find it easy ("not difficult") to do but I think it's possible that your estimate is an estimate on top of an estimate on top of a straight-out intentional inaccuracy (food labels).

I'm more interested in this question: For those who think tracking CICO is pointless or wrong or not worth doing, what specific program would you suggest people follow for losing weight if they're overweight and then maintaining the weight once they get to where they want.

Say a 50 year old male that is mostly sedentary but able to exercise and wants to lose 30 pounds, what specifically do you tell them? Or what more information do you need and then what specifically do you tell them?

I want to be clear - what I said was "That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless." Scooby does a great job of explaining how just straight CICO fails but that still doesn't address your question. And honestly, if any of us had an answer that worked broadly we'd probably be rich from writing a weigh lost/diet book.

For me, weight loss has to start with someone wanting to change and also being willing to change their habits. Frequently we see that people aren't willing to change until they are faced with their own mortality - heart attack, cancer, liver disease, etc. Only then are they willing to make a change. And I point that out because people that aren't all-in are usually going to ultimately fail at weight loss. I've talked quite a bit over the years about my yo-yo'ing. I've talked about things that have worked and things that haven't but the common denominator for any of them is I had to want to change.

That also doesn't answer your question but if somebody was really obese and came to me for help the first question I would ask them wouldn't be, what do you eat or how much do you exercise, etc. I would ask - why are you wanting to change and are you committed. If they don't know or don't have an answer, then almost nothing is going to help them.

And to finally give an answer - I would tell people to fast (medically supervised of course). It's the simplest thing to do - no thought goes into it, no counting, no nothing. Just fast as much and for as long as you can. Then when you reach your goal weight, eat as health as you know how and with a diet you can stick to - and continue to fast as needed.
 
Since you don't seem convinced by me, I grabbed the first link from a Google search. It's an opinion piece from a doctor in Australia. It sums up the "research" I've done over the years pretty well.

I know for a fact it's not difficult for me to estimate calories. Which was the question. So you're correct, I'm not going to be convinced of something I know for certain not to be true.

As I said, one can argue whether the calories are exact. I'm sure they're not. But I think they're close enough for an estimation.

And for sure, this is just me. I fully understand others think it's pointless or don't agree.

That's fine though. Plenty of folks disagree on the forum. That makes a forum interesting and I think we both understand the other.

I'm more interested in this question: For those who think tracking CICO is pointless or wrong or not worth doing, what specific program would you suggest people follow for losing weight if they're overweight and then maintaining the weight once they get to where they want.

Say a 50 year old male that is mostly sedentary but able to exercise and is overweight by 30 pounds and wants to lose it, what specifically do you tell them? Or what more information do you need and then what specifically do you tell them?
Eat healthy foods in moderation and exercise more. :shrug:
 
When I say "bro science" what Im saying is "this is complete conjecture and I am acknowledging it is not backed by science"

Understood. The box you got placed in by invoking bro-science was the box of "People either involved in bodybuilding or familiar with the bodybuilding subculture". I am only familiar with the term "bro-science" in the context of bodybuilding, but it makes sense that there's overlap with other fitness-oriented people.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.

The disconnect is that "food is not fuel" for dang near everyone. For every one person that could happily live on chia seeds and kale for months on end, ten thousand can't even come close. When advising the obese, the whole entire psycho-social role of food is too frequently overlooked, dismissed as irrelevant, or both.
I'm not trying to be a jerk.

To lose weight, you simply need to eat less than you burn. It is important to simplify this so folks know one does not need to be anything special to lose weight. That everyone can lose weight. And most importantly, no one diet or fad-concept will work for everyone. CICO is not special, its simple. The act of losing weight is simple.

So now we have defined the easy part (CICO), we then focus on the hard part ... habits. Mental and physical habits. And yes, this is the hard part.

Cico isn't super helpful to the broad populace as a plan in and of itself. Stuff like cutting carbs can be as that gives a direction to the individual that is more concrete. Whether it is healthy or not is less a concern for an obese individual than the fallout from being obese.

Cico also discounts that combinations of macros have different hunger signaling. Cutting carbs for those with high carb signalling for example may be more effective overall, as signalling seems to be a decent marker for metabolism.

Ozempic is perhaps best for those without high carb signalling but past the point of insulin resistance. Having a body produce less insulin in response to foods is a decent way to approximate hunger. Those on oz shortcut some of those cues.
What I cant process from what you said is that CICO isnt helpful but understanding the appropriate macro's for your Age and Fitness is? To me, it feels way backwards and complicated, super not helpful. Especially when macros are basically useless for weight loss. For fitness and energy levels, sure ... lets talk macro's!

How about another over simplification here, something the medical industry cares nothing about because there is no profit in it ... medication never changes habits.

IMHO medication should always* be a short term solution as a bridge from one specific place to another specific place.

Macros matter for cico when you have a metabolic issue with carbs. It just so happens that weight gain can make that worse.

Cico hardliners don't really like it but the numerator and denominator matter and can shift it's not only input. And output is not only exercise. For some people altering macros truly alters the "out" part. But usually blind hate for fat people never allows them to become able to understand such nuance.
Absolutely. If someone has an issue with specific foods, completely agree.
 

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.

Yeah, I'm mainly talking about refined sugar, added sugar, etc. But eating fruits that are high in sugar content can also release a dopamine hit which is problematic for some people. Will somebody get fat eating just fruit, almost assuredly not but our lizard brains will seek out other dopamine avenues. That's why the argument about CICO is kind of pointless.
Thank you for the response.

I keep getting triggered though when folks say CICO is pointless. CICO is the only point. All folks have to worry about is calories and stop debating with extremes.

I say it's pointless because the issue with CICO is it’s really hard to estimate “calories in” and “calories out.”

Unbelievably hard and a large portion of people will give up trying.

I'm not saying CICO isn't scientifically "accurate" I'm saying it's such a small part of the complexity of the issue that it's not worth arguing over.

What is hard about measuring calories in?

What is hard about measuring calories out?

Dont forget the goal isnt about being perfect, it is about being close enough. Is my sammich 425 calories or 560 calories? Pick the middle. Once you do this will all of your foods you will be close enough.

Calories out? Again .. measure HR over time. Only count your exercise time. Dont try to figure out how many calories you are burning. Simply measure your initial baseline time/avg-HR to perform some exercise. The continue to measure that same exercise over the same time and see your HR change.

As mentioned earlier, perfection here is the enemy of great.

If CICO is "all that matters" for weight loss as you've been advocating, then you need to make sure and get it right.

If I'm off by 100 calories a day to the bad then at the end of the year I could expect to gain around 10 pounds. If I'm off 200 calories, then I could gain 20 pounds.

And I totally agree on the perfection things as I've repeated it a few times.
CICO is all that matters. Sure, if your daily calculations are off by 200 calories you are doing it wrong. I have never seen that when doing back-of-the-napkin calculations for home made foods. Being off by 200 calories for a single meal is pretty bad. Being off 200 in a single direction is also bad. Im sure it happens, I just havnt seen it.
 
When I say "bro science" what Im saying is "this is complete conjecture and I am acknowledging it is not backed by science"

Understood. The box you got placed in by invoking bro-science was the box of "People either involved in bodybuilding or familiar with the bodybuilding subculture". I am only familiar with the term "bro-science" in the context of bodybuilding, but it makes sense that there's overlap with other fitness-oriented people.
Fair. I only know Bro Science from the triathlete forums where they make fun of folks who pass of gym knowledge from their bro as "science". Triathletes are pretty mean on the internet. They could put the group we have here to shame.
 
I am a Type 2 diabetic, with a max weight of 280. I’ve been on Ozempic for just under 2 years and am down to 215, and my A1C and fasting glucose are better than ever. Ozempic DEFINITELY helps to keep you from getting hungry as often, so I am not only eating less, but when I do crave food, it’s of the healthier variety. And since I’ve lost the weight, I have much more energy to exercise. You can tell me I’m cheating or whatever, but it’s literally changed my life for the better and highly recommend it to people who are struggling. IF you can get your insurance to cover it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top