Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Options
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
The point that current research makes is that CICO matters, certainly, but it is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.
Not really--I would say that "correct calorie counting" is hard to do. THAT is the problem with CICO calorie counting, not that it's irrelevent. As for the obesity epidemic, the media is not pushing calorie counting--no profit to be made. It's easier to say it doesn't work, but hey, you can lose 10 lbs in a week easy if you just buy this magazine or book or whatever, and find out how.
FIFY
CICO is not a diet. It happens internally, inside your body, no matter what you are doing on the outside.
I KNOW that. The poster is bashing CICO and calorie counting uses CICO (as does any diet) to be successful.0 -
Hermesonly wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You do not appear to understand what CICO means.
Lol, not only can I tell you what CICO means, I can tell you how the idea was developed and who first coined the phrase.
CICO refers to the concept of "Calories In Calories Out." Meaning that if Calories Out remains stable over time, then reducing Calories In should produce weight loss. The basis for this thinking is the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. This is the law invoked to support the Calories In/Calories Out model, and was most notably used by a prominent obesity researcher, Dr. Jules Hirsch in a 2012 New York Times article. He stated, "There is an inflexible law of physics— energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content— reduce obesity— one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras."
You do bring up an interesting point however, that perhaps not all posters on this thread actually know what CICO means.
Umm-hmmmIt also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get it under control, it might be more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
8 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
22 -
"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...27 -
stevencloser wrote: »"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...
13 -
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get it under control, it might be more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Interesting combination of:
&
8 -
BishopWankapin wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...
I think we can all agree--you can't triple stamp a double stamp (Lloyd!).5 -
BishopWankapin wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »"heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on."
Part of CO, part of CO, part of CO, part of CO,...
I think we can all agree--you can't triple stamp a double stamp (Lloyd!).
3 -
Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.30 -
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.
If you had bothered to read the thread in its entirety... you would realize that you have nothing productive to contribute to the conversation as these points have largely all been addressed already. Thanks for your, um, help, though20 -
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.
Once metabolic adjustment is accounted for, people who do not get sufficient calories will lose weight until the body has consumed all the stored energy it can. Then they do, indeed, stop existing.18 -
Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?18 -
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
(1) Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
(2) Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
(3) Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
(4) the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
(5) Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.
(1) Look up the Minnesota starvation study - fat storage does NOT happen
(2) Nope, hormonal changes result in variances of around 5% (not massive, barely significant)
(3) water weight has nothing to do with CICO - CICO is about energy
(4) all of those things can be accounted for in either the CI or the CO side of CICO
(5) no, weight gain after quitting smoking is mostly from the act of replacing a cigarette with food and has nothing to do with hormones or metabolic changes13 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?
From listening to some of these CICO deniers talk, one would think that weight loss isn't even a possible thing. Just can't be done.15 -
darthpistachio wrote: »Not going to read all through 48 pages just putting my two pennies in...
CICO is an excellent starting point. But it really isn't as simple as CICO. People cite - it's just simple maths but take that simple maths to its ultimate conclusion and if you carried on with a calorie deficit - adjusting for mass - mathematically speaking you "should" eventually just disappear from existence.
Lots of things beyond CICO affect the entire organism.
Extreme Cal deficiencies will lead ultimately to muscle wastage and increased storage of fat to survive the "doomsday" that the body is expecting because of the lack of nutrition.
Hormonal changes and fluctuations massively affect metabolic rates.
Problems with Liver heart and kidneys massively affect water retention and thus logically weight.
the list of things that affect weight is many and varied - the largest mistake I witness is that people restrict and lose weight then eventually it stops. And they restrict even more to compensate - this is the bad part and leads onto a road of malnutrition and eventual weight regain when they can't keep it up anymore.
Giving up smoking in some people massively affects their metabolism and leads to excessive weight gain but over longer periods of time.
CICO is an excellent basic starting point ESPECIALLY if you KNOW that you are eating too much. But it isn't a rule set in stone - and should be touted as a starting point and NOT a holy grail.
Not going to read all through this whole post just going to assume this is all new information...14 -
stevencloser wrote: »Temperature is useless because it doesn't take into account whether I run around naked or dressed like I'm going to climb mount Everest.
All physical measurements are useless. Perfection only exists in the abstract.11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hermesonly wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »How can you post this^^ and still support your previous statement?
Because, as I previously posted, the significant flaw in that thinking is that physics is not physiology. Thermodynamics has minimal relevance to human biology. The human body is not, in fact, a closed or isolated system. The body can use input calories for any of a number of possible outputs--heat production, bone building, muscle production, cognition, detoxification, breathing, excretion, fat production...and the list goes on. To believe the thermodynamic model, you'd have to assume that fat gain or loss is controlled by eating and essentially otherwise unregulated by the body. This makes no sense, and it is what has prompted all of the current research. There is absolutely no body system that is unregulated, not one. The sympathetic, parasympathetic, respiratory, circulatory, renal, adrenal, gastrointestinal etc. systems are all under absolutely precise hormonal control. So why then would the body also not have multiple hormonal systems that precisely control body weight? Of course it does, and we know that now. We know more now about the effects cortisol, insulin, leptin and ghrelin. We know more now about insulin resistance and its effect on weight gain over time. We know about homeostasis and how it makes the long-term maintenance of weight loss achieved through simple calorie cutting almost impossible.
In the Ancel Keys Minnesota study, calories had to be continuously reduced to achieve a target total weight loss of 24 percent. Some of the men ended up getting less than 1,000 calories a day. Apparently even Dr. Keys was surprised at the difficulty of the experiment. Among the problems were that the resting metabolic rate of the subjects dropped by 40 percent. Their heart rate slowed, heart stroke volume decreased, body temperature dropped, they became tired and they lost their hair. Before the study, the men ate an average of 3,000 calories a day. When calories decreased to cause weight loss, their bodies responded by reducing energy expenditure accordingly. The body has to do this. It's smart and it wants us to live. This is one reason why maintaining weight loss through simple calorie cutting is so difficult.
Ok, I'll bite. So if CICO is flawed, what specifically do you recommend overweight/obese individuals do in order to achieve their weight loss goals? You keep talking about how much more complex things are and how for some people it's just harder than others, so what do these people who think they've tried CICO (again, not that it is something to "try" but I'm going along with your argument to see what you recommend) and failed time and again need to do in order to be successful?
From listening to some of these CICO deniers talk, one would think that weight loss isn't even a possible thing. Just can't be done.
Well that would be disappointing and discouraging... I'm hopeful that @Hermesonly comes back and clarifies if this is the case and there is no recommendation.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
Please describe a scenario where an individual would gain fat in a calorie deficit.
These imaginary unfortunate individuals do not exist in reality. No amount of compassion is going to change this.9 -
Hermesonly wrote: »It is my understanding that since this question was posted in the "Debate" thread, that this is a debate, so there's no reason to become upset simply because I do not happen to agree with the OP and other posters, that weight loss is all about CICO. The question posed was, in fact, "Why Do People Deny CICO?" Several posters have implied that anyone (including forward thinking doctors and nutritionists) who thinks weight loss is more complex than "Calories In Calories Out" is either delusional or lazy. If that is the case, then much current research is being done by delusional scientists.
The point that current research makes is that CICO matters, certainly, but it is only one of many complex elements that determine weight gain, weight loss and fat storage. And yes, like most body systems, it is complex. If the OP can simply cut back on calories and not only lose, but maintain weight loss, then that's marvelous. However, as 7 out of 10 adults in the United States are overweight or obese, it stands to reason that perhaps others do not find losing weight and maintaining weight loss through simple calorie counting quite so easy.
It also stands to reason that not all of those people who find it difficult to lose and maintain their weight are lazy, stupid, undisciplined, or just "don't get" how easy it is to calorie count. Many people who are overweight are quite disciplined and accomplished in every other area of their lives, so perhaps, as the new research has shown, it's not just a simple case of folks not applying themselves to the task. Perhaps rather than blaming those who are overweight because they can't get their CICO under control, it's more accurate to blame antiquated ways of thinking about weight gain and weight loss.
Doctors and nutritionists used to be absolutely convinced (and some still are) that Type 2 Diabetes could not be reversed. They are quickly being proven wrong. People who have had difficulty losing weight for much of their lives are now applying this new research and finding methods that work with the body's systems to control insulin spikes, overcome insulin resistance, manage the impact of cortisol, leptin and ghrelin, and other hormones, and not only lose weight, but reverse Type 2 Diabetes as well. As angry as people get when others dare to buck old ideas and old systems, often it's the path forward. CICO as an all-encompassing explanation for weight gain and weight loss, is getting left in the dust.
"Become upset"?
Claimed that people who find it difficult to lose weight are "lazy, stupid, undisciplined"?
"Blaming"?
Where, in this thread?
You "debate" and "do not agree". I "become upset".
K.
13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Cite some of this research, please. I'm going to assume it consists of the highest standard, which is the meta-analysis.
This should get you started:
Based on data from Cohen E, et al. Statistical review of US macronutrient consumption data, 1965– 2011: Americans have been following dietary guidelines, coincident with the rise in obesity. Nutrition. 2015 May; 31( 5): 727– 732.
Fildes A, et al. Probability of an obese person attaining normal body weight: cohort study using electronic health records. Am J Public Health. 2015; 105( 9): e54– e59.
Rosenbaum et al. Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Oct; 88 (4):906-12.
Pieri, J. Men Starve in Minnesota. Life. 1945 Jul 30; 19(5):43-6.
Howard BV et al. Low fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7 years: the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial. JAMA. 2006 Jan 4;295 (1):39-49.
Kennedy ET, Bowman SA, Spence JT, Freedman M, King J. Popular diets: correlation to health, nutrition, and obesity. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Apr; 101(4):411-20.
Rosenbaum M, Sy M, Pavlovich K, Leibel R, Hirsch J. Leptin reverses weight loss-induced changes in regional neural activity responses to visual food stimuli. J Clin Invest. 2008 Jul 1; 118(7):2583-91.
Byun W, Liu J, Pate RR. Association between objectively measured sedentary behavior and body mass index in preschool children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Jul;37 (7):961-5.
Sims EA. Experimental obesity in man. J Clin Invest. 1971 May;50(5):1005-11.
Sims EA et al. Endocrine and metabolic effects of experimental obesity in man. Recent Prog. Harm Res. 1973;29:457-96.
Levine JA, Eberhardt NL, Jensen MD. Role of non exercise activity thermogenesis in resistance to fat gain in humans. Science. 1999 Jan 8;283(5399):212-4.
Diaz EO. Metabolic response to experimental overfeeding in lean and overweight healthy volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Oct;56(4):641-55.
Kechagias S, Ernersson A, Dahlqvist O, Lundberg P, Lindstrom T, Nystrom FH. Fast-food-based hyper-alimentation can induce rapid and profound elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase in healthy subjects. Gut.2008 May;57(5):649-54.
Keesey, R, Corbett S. Metabolic defense of the body weight set-point. Res Publ Assoc Res Nerv Ment Dis. 1984;62:87-96.
Leibel RL et al. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar 9:332(10);621-8.
Ferrannini E, Natali A, Bell P, et al. Insulin resistance and hyper secretion in obesity. J Clin Invest. 1997 Sep1:100(5):1166-73.
Han TS, Williams K, Sattar N, Hunt KJ, Lean ME, Haffner SM. Analysis of obesity and hyperinsulinemia in the development of metabolic syndrome: San Antonio Heart Study. Ones. Res. 2002 Sep;10(9):923-31.
Russell-Jones D, Khan R. Insulin-associated weight gain in diabetes: causes, effects and coping strategies. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. 2007 Nov;9(6):799-812.
Lustig RH et al. Obesity, leptin resistance, and the effects of insulin suppression. Int J Obesity. 2004 Aug 17:28:1344-8.
Benoit SC, Clegg DJ, Seeley RJ, Woods SC. Insulin and leptin as adiposity signals. Recent Prog Horm Res. 2004; 59:267-85
Pagano G et al. An in vivo and in vitro study of the mechanism of prednisone-induced insulin resistance in healthy subjects. J Clin Invest. 1983 Nov; 72(5):1814-20.
Marin P et al. Cortisol secretion in relation to body fat distribution in obese premenopausal women. Metabolism. 1992 Aug;41(8):882-6.
Rizza RA et al. Production of insulin resistance by hyperinsulinemia in man. Diabetologia. 1985 Feb;28(2):70-5.
19
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions