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 ?
Replies
-
nettiklive wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm quoting this, because I had a mom who was always on a diet, seemed to eat little compared to the rest of the family, and I myself never had to think about my weight until around age 30 when it seemed to come on, bit by bit, outside my control. I didn't feel like I had control over it -- my body had just always been my body -- and I didn't think I ate more than anyone else (or than I had in the past).
Okay. But what was happening before you hit your thirties that you were able to maintain the same weight without monitoring intake? I'm guessing there is no way you ate the exact same amount every day, and also that there were many times you would eat over your maintenance. What happens to these calories?
It is rather typical for people to become more sedentary and more stressed out when they hit their 30s. Eat more calorie dense comfort foods, sit more, gain a little weight every year. It doesn't feel like you are doing anything different, but those little changes add up over time
I know people here will say that 'naturally' thin people just 'naturally' balance out their eating day to day (even when eating a lot of very high-calorie foods daily without a second thought); and yet they claim that for someone not able to lose weight, that difference between a measured cup and a weighted one is making that difference that's not letting them lose weight. That's true even if that person was, just a few years earlier, that person who 'naturally balanced' their calories. That just doesn't ring true for me in most of the cases. Again, no one will believe these anecdotal cases, but of all my friends, those who are 'naturally skinny' are the ones who eat whatever they want in whatever amounts they want with no second thought. Those who lean on the chubby side are constantly concerned about it, constantly restricting their diets and eating very little, exercising, and yet either yo-yo-ing, losing very little and getting stuck, or unable to lose at all. I know people will come up with all sorts of reasons - they sneak food at night, the skinny people move more, whatever. I have trouble believing that this is truly what makes the difference for every single person. Another point is that the chubbier women, looking at photos when they were younger, were always like this, since early teens, they tend to be 'built' wider and have 'bulkier' bodies, even when they lose weight, and same for the thin women who tend to be tall, lean, and 'narrow' in their frames.
So their tendency to eat the right amount for their activity level (for the "naturally skinny" friends), or to eat more than their activity level required (for the "naturally chubbier" friends) started when they were younger. Many people who are active learned to be from their parents, and many people who stress eat or comfort themselves with food start to do that when they are children.
Unless you spend literally 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with a person while weighing and logging their food and monitoring their activity tracker, you can't know that they are eating too much or the right amount.
It is understood that cliches like "freshman 15", "middle age spread", and the truism that people slowly gain weight as they get older results from lives becoming more stressful, working people becoming more and more desk-bound, and lower energy levels resulting in less day-to-day activity. People in their teens and 20s are generally more active. As they enter their 30s they subtly become more sedentary, usually to the point that adding a workout schedule doesn't make up for it. I don't know, to me it makes perfect sense at least.16 -
Also BMR slows down from age 20 to 30 and then levels off. If 30 year old male ate exactly as they did at age 20, they would gain up to 10 lbs/year11
-
nettiklive wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm quoting this, because I had a mom who was always on a diet, seemed to eat little compared to the rest of the family, and I myself never had to think about my weight until around age 30 when it seemed to come on, bit by bit, outside my control. I didn't feel like I had control over it -- my body had just always been my body -- and I didn't think I ate more than anyone else (or than I had in the past).
Okay. But what was happening before you hit your thirties that you were able to maintain the same weight without monitoring intake? I'm guessing there is no way you ate the exact same amount every day, and also that there were many times you would eat over your maintenance. What happens to these calories?
I know people here will say that 'naturally' thin people just 'naturally' balance out their eating day to day (even when eating a lot of very high-calorie foods daily without a second thought); and yet they claim that for someone not able to lose weight, that difference between a measured cup and a weighted one is making that difference that's not letting them lose weight. That's true even if that person was, just a few years earlier, that person who 'naturally balanced' their calories. That just doesn't ring true for me in most of the cases. Again, no one will believe these anecdotal cases, but of all my friends, those who are 'naturally skinny' are the ones who eat whatever they want in whatever amounts they want with no second thought. Those who lean on the chubby side are constantly concerned about it, constantly restricting their diets and eating very little, exercising, and yet either yo-yo-ing, losing very little and getting stuck, or unable to lose at all. I know people will come up with all sorts of reasons - they sneak food at night, the skinny people move more, whatever. I have trouble believing that this is truly what makes the difference for every single person. Another point is that the chubbier women, looking at photos when they were younger, were always like this, since early teens, they tend to be 'built' wider and have 'bulkier' bodies, even when they lose weight, and same for the thin women who tend to be tall, lean, and 'narrow' in their frames.
I was an overweight teenager, very sedentary, big snacker.
Then I went to college on a huge midwestern US university campus, walked and rode my bike many miles daily, had a very physically active part-time job, started doing yoga daily, and became quite thin (lowest was 113 at 5'6") without consciously changing my eating (certainly I was still snacking on top of hearty meals, not to mention alcohol, eafing ad libitum, not restricting).
After college, I got a sedentary job (info tech), kept eating and drinking about the same way, and gradually became fat then obese, and stayed obese for decades. Then I was diagnosed as hypothyroid, but stayed around the same obese weight.
At around 45-46, I became very active, working out 6 days most weeks, often intensely, and even competed as an athlete. I didn't change my eating in any way noticeable to me, but kept eating ad libitum, and stayed obese for around 15 more years.
A few years back, I started calorie counting, kept up basically the same exercise routine, and lost 50+ pounds in less than a year, almost down to my college weight. Still calorie-counting most of the time, I've stayed at a healthy weight since.
Do you see a mystery in there somewhere? I don't.
We tend not to see the full lives of others around us. Since watching closely, I've observed that my "naturally thin" friends have food habits different from my reflex habits. It varies, but they'll do things like skip dinner after a giant ice cream treat in the afternoon because they aren't hungry. (Without calorie counting, I'd never skip or reduce dinner because of a mid-day treat.) Or they leave food on their plate at a restaurant, another thing I'd never have done. And so on.
Most of my fat friends are "always dieting" except certain meals, temptations, treats, and at other times conscientiously eating the crispy chicken salad (instead of the lower cal) burger.22 -
Also BMR slows down from age 20 to 30 and then levels off. If 30 year old male ate exactly as they did at age 20, they would gain up to 10 lbs/year
That's a cheap excuse, I am in my mid 30's and my metabolism is firing at all cylinders. Has my metabolism slowed down??? There's no evidence it has, but because I am active at the gym (and this without doing any cardio, only lifting), I still have to eat a lot of food just to gain half a pound per week. Problem is that most of the population become sedentary (especially after 30) which is why their BMR and especially their TDEE takes a huge hit. In my case, I doubt there's a big difference vs my metabolism of 10 years ago. If my BMR did go down, it's probably minor and not enough to even make a difference.9 -
Also BMR slows down from age 20 to 30 and then levels off. If 30 year old male ate exactly as they did at age 20, they would gain up to 10 lbs/year
Studies which show a decline in metabolic rate with age primarily attribute it to sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss). That's more than easily enough countered by a reasonable diet and exercise program.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4066461/...Although substantial progress has been made in the understanding of the multifactorial causes of sarcopenia, most interventions have focused on improving the environmental causes of sarcopenia, namely through increasing activity and providing adequate nutrition. Given the high prevalence of sarcopenia, and close relationship to fatigue, functional decline, and chronic illness, the development of interventions has been touted by drug companies and investigators as a crucially important target for intervention in older adults [38]. Although a large-scale clinical trial that targets the prevention or treatment of sarcopenia per se has not been attempted, many studies have indirectly targeted sarcopenia by using age-related declines in physical function as an outcome. Results of clinical intervention studies in even the oldest and frailest nursing home residents have demonstrated significant functional improvement through a combination of nutrition and resistance exercise [39]. Recent clinical studies continue to show this with significant increases in muscle protein synthesis in older adults who receive physical activity and nutrition [40▪]. Other groups continue to refine the best exercise modality to treat or prevent sarcopenia [10,16▪,41]. These interventions appear to positively impact satellite cell dysfunction, neuromuscular junction decline, and mitochondrial biogenesis. Although endocrine interventions targeting muscle function and strength have been developed previously, few, if any, have shown efficacy [26]. Future pharmaceutical interventions for sarcopenia will also likely target very specific molecular pathways such as the angiotensin system, apoptosis, and mitochondrial function.12 -
nettiklive wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm quoting this, because I had a mom who was always on a diet, seemed to eat little compared to the rest of the family, and I myself never had to think about my weight until around age 30 when it seemed to come on, bit by bit, outside my control. I didn't feel like I had control over it -- my body had just always been my body -- and I didn't think I ate more than anyone else (or than I had in the past).
Okay. But what was happening before you hit your thirties that you were able to maintain the same weight without monitoring intake? I'm guessing there is no way you ate the exact same amount every day, and also that there were many times you would eat over your maintenance. What happens to these calories?
On average I was eating at my maintenance for the weight I was. You don't have to eat the same amount every day, just don't consistently eat over maintenance or under maintenance over time. I was at an equilibrium.they claim that for someone not able to lose weight, that difference between a measured cup and a weighted one is making that difference that's not letting them lose weight.
Not, like, one cup, but a number of routine measuring errors like that could well mean your calories that you are eating are much higher than you think. Many studies suggest that people tend to underestimate when counting calories, on average.those who are 'naturally skinny' are the ones who eat whatever they want in whatever amounts they want with no second thought.
Sure, some people have an equilibrium that leaves them thin. Maybe they are active, maybe they don't eat that much (my sister dated a guy a while back who would eat a lot if they went out, but otherwise wasn't that into food and would just eat rice and veg or the like if he had to cook for himself -- he was quite thin).Those who lean on the chubby side are constantly concerned about it, constantly restricting their diets and eating very little, exercising, and yet either yo-yo-ing, losing very little and getting stuck, or unable to lose at all. I know people will come up with all sorts of reasons - they sneak food at night, the skinny people move more, whatever.
Some people naturally eat less than others; some have higher TDEEs. That doesn't really matter.
My TDEE was higher in early to mid 20s than in my late 20s and the early part of my 30s. I also ate more (as in higher cals, not volume) in my late 20s/early 30s, but if you'd asked me before I took stock I would have said no, that if anything I ate more in my 20s, as I ate what I wanted and never thought about it. But that didn't mean I actually ate a ton of calories, whereas for a variety of reasons I did eat more calories later on.I have trouble believing that this is truly what makes the difference for every single person.
Do you really think that even if you ate fewer cals than you used you wouldn't lose? Or that someone "naturally thin" wouldn't gain if they started eating more high cal food or became less active?
I do think there are some natural variations in metabolism (although I don't think it's as significant as other things) and I do think some are hard gainers, in that more food just means they burn more (although not to a point where they don't gain, just they gain less than predicted). (And more of us would have been hard gainers when still growing, which is why it's unusual to have a situation like we do now, where childhood and teen obesity isn't extremely rare.)
But none of these human variations contradict CICO any more than the fact that someone 6'3, 200 has a higher TDEE at the same activity level than I do does.6 -
SNIPPIES!
We tend not to see the full lives of others around us. Since watching closely, I've observed that my "naturally thin" friends have food habits different from my reflex habits. It varies, but they'll do things like skip dinner after a giant ice cream treat in the afternoon because they aren't hungry. (Without calorie counting, I'd never skip or reduce dinner because of a mid-day treat.) Or they leave food on their plate at a restaurant, another thing I'd never have done. And so on.
Most of my fat friends are "always dieting" except certain meals, temptations, treats, and at other times conscientiously eating the crispy chicken salad (instead of the lower cal) burger.
I think this is really true, and can apply to those of us losing weight as well. A number of friends have commented that I don't seem to be dieting at all because they don't notice me eating less when I go over to their houses, meet for coffee, go out to brunch, etc. But 1) I think a lot of people don't really pay that close attention to whether someone's drinking a medium latte or a small coffee, and 2) someone meeting me for brunch doesn't know that I might not eat again until dinner to balance out the large meal earlier in the day. Not to mention how many people still believe that you can't eat fast food or sweets and still lose weight.
And on the other side, many of the people who are always dieting but not getting anywhere seem to be on really restrictive diets that lead to binge cycles, or else they're just making a show of dieting because it's what they're "supposed" to be doing.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I do think there are some natural variations in metabolism (although I don't think it's as significant as other things) and I do think some are hard gainers, in that more food just means they burn more (although not to a point where they don't gain, just they gain less than predicted). (And more of us would have been hard gainers when still growing, which is why it's unusual to have a situation like we do now, where childhood and teen obesity isn't extremely rare.)
But none of these human variations contradict CICO any more than the fact that someone 6'3, 200 has a higher TDEE at the same activity level than I do does.
Okay, so the point I was trying to make is this. I'm not arguing against CICO as a basic concept - obviously the law of thermodynamics applies no matter what.
Where I personally believe the missing puzzle piece may lie is that CO is a lot less static than we think. Or to be more precise, RMR. I don't believe it's simply a number from a calculator, or even a lab test, that doesn't change. I think different people's RMR's vary a lot more in response to their caloric intake than we know. So while one person's cutback in calories will result in weight loss without remarkable metabolism slowdown, for another, it is very possible that their RMR will slow way down to try and conserve energy. At some point that person can still likely lose weight, but that may require a deficit far, far greater than another person's at the same weight and stats.
It would be a really helpful experiment if they could measure RMR outside of a lab - fit people with a mobile device that measures their caloric burn and response to food intake throughout the day. I think that would shed light on the differences between various bodies' response.
I believe the 'set point' theory has merit, though it's certainly not set in stone and probably changes throughout a person's life. But I read somewhere that it has been shown that our bodies are actually extremely adept at maintaining the same weight despite the fact that for most of us, caloric intake varies wildly day to day - particularly for people who don't monitor their intake, who ironically also happen to be the ones with the most static weights. The only explanation is that our metabolisms are highly flexible, subtly adjusting up or down to maintain a specific weight through day to day variations. It is only when a person makes a drastic change to their intake with a dramatic and long-term deficit or surplus, that the body may eventually adjust. But again - I think how fast that process happens, and how efficient it is, varies highly person to person. I know people that are very 'responsive' to weight changes - skip a few meals, and they lose weight, eat a bit extra and they gain. And then those like myself, whose bodies seem to maintain weight very steadily through even fairly large variations in diet and lifestyle. Yet others are easy to gain and hard to lose, whereas as some are very thin and try to gain but have trouble yet will lose weight without trying. You can't just attribute all this to lifestyle factors, at least that's my opinion.22 -
This is the study I was referring to:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617690878
The quoted makes complete sense to me as it's consistent with what I see in life too:Weight fluctuation
Thus the body has as short-term goals the smoothing out of energy intake and maintaining the existing body weight. However, in the long term other mechanisms come into play that discourage large fluctuations in weight. Although over a period of months large amounts of energy are consumed, over time there are often relatively small variations in body weight.
The mechanisms are not perfect, but over long periods the ability of the body to balance energy intake and expenditure is staggering. It has been estimated that the average 45-year-old male in Western Europe consumes 1.24 million kcal (5,188 MJ) a year (Speakman & Westerterp, 2010). Similarly the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization calculated that the average American consumes 3,790 calories (15.86 MJ) a day, a total of 1.38 million (5,774 MJ) a year. Based on food consumption data, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that over a year the average American consumes nearly one ton of food.
However, although a large energy intake might be expected to be associated with putting on large amounts of weight, the figures do not add up. This level of energy intake needs to be placed in the context of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines. The organization calculates that a sedentary adult male requires 2,200 calories (9.20 MJ) a day, that is 803,000 (3,360 MJ) a year. The comparable figure is 2,800 (11.72 MJ) a day in those who are physically active, adding up to an annual intake of 1.02 million calories (4,268 MJ). Without the intervention of compensatory mechanisms, this great excess of energy intake over expenditure would result in a massive annual increase of weight.
Although these ballpark figures cannot be expected to produce anything other than crude estimates, it is obvious that the weight of the average American is not increasing by anything in the range suggested by the difference between the actual and recommended levels of energy intake. Without compensatory mechanisms every year, this difference would result in an increase in weight approaching 100 pounds.
The body weight of those in the Framingham Study increased by a total of 10% over 20 years (Belanger, Cupples, & D’Agostino, 1988). Therefore, someone who was initially 150 pounds (68 kg) would 20 years later be 165 pounds (75 kg); that is, the person would have put on 0.75 pounds (0.33 kg) a year. When 15,624 Swedish women were monitored over 10 years, the annual weight gain was 0.75 pounds (0.33 kg; Norberg et al., 2011). In a Scottish population, over 9 years the average annual weight increase, in those initially aged 39 years, was 1.34 pounds (0.61 kg). Females aged initially 59 years, increased by 0.42 pounds (0.10 kg) a year and males by 0.20 pounds (0.13 kg; Ebrahimi-Mameghani, Scott, Der, Lean, & Burns, 2007). Similarly over 10 years a German study found an annual weight gain of 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) in males and 0.53 pounds (0.24 kg) in females (Haftenberger et al., 2016).
In the context of the observed annual weight increase, it has been calculated that over a year 3,296 kcals (13.8 MJ) more energy would need to be consumed than had been expended (Speakman et al., 2011). These figures translate to a daily excess of energy intake over expenditure of only 9 kcal (38 kJ), a figure put in context by a teaspoon of sugar providing 16 kcal (67 kJ). Given the large number of calories often consumed, it is clear that factors other than calorie intake need to be considered.
There is, however, evidence that the analysis of weight change over long periods may be misleading. Weight may not increase gradually, but rather stay stable for long periods (Speakman et al., 2011), with weight gain occurring at times of excessive intake such as Thanksgiving or Christmas (Yanovski et al., 2000). This observation of periods of weight stability again suggests an ability to balance energy intake and expenditure. If for much of the time the body is able to generate energy balance, this would again argue against the expectation that reducing the caloric content of food will decrease body weight.
Average changes in weight, however, hide individual differences. The Scottish sample, for example, reported that the weight of 20% of the sample changed little over 9 years (Ebrahimi-Mameghani et al., 2007). Trying to understand why some manage to maintain their existing weight while others gain weight may be profitable.9 -
Another article looking at a mother's gestational weight and the infant's risk of obesity (and similar risks apply to mothers who have gestational diabetes, even without excessive weight gain). And these are only some of the genetic factors we know about, and scientists themselves admit that they don't yet know much about it and can only speculate. (yes, I know some posters who consider themselves smarter than the scientists will come running now with claims that the real reason is that mom feeds these babies fries and Coke as soon as they're out the womb
)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mothers-pregnancy-weight/Extra birth weight might not be the only change many of these infants face. Excessive maternal weight during pregnancy is also likely changing the metabolic and hormonal environment of the developing fetus, Ludwig says.
Even if an infant has a few extra ounces due to a mother's excessive gestational weight gain, "the infant developed in a metabolically abnormal intrauterine environment," Ludwig explains.
Excessive caloric intake by a pregnant woman can stimulate the overgrowth of fetal tissues, change hormonal balances, alter metabolic pathways, "and perhaps even structures in the brain that regulate appetite and metabolism," he says. And those changes might stay with an individual for life.
Many adults have a difficult time losing weight and keeping it off, and if the body is predisposed to putting on the pounds, fighting obesity on both individual and societal levels will be even more challenging.13 -
I like to talk about babies in these topics, particularly before they're eating solids, because it eliminates all the human error and psychological factors that some love to blame all weight issues on. Babies, particularly breastfed babies, can't sneak food or lie about intake or snack excessively. In our day and age they're all, even formula fed, supposed to be fed on demand, as much as they want with no restriction. Some may feed a lot, some not as much, but the general consensus is that they will naturally regulate and hence you shouldn't worry about babies gaining excessive weight. In spite of that, you will see some babies at the 99th percentile, large and chubby ones with rolls everywhere; and you'll see others who may be lean and on the low side of the chart (often moms worried about their weight will say that they actually tend to feed a lot and eat all the time). While some of the chubby babies may lean out when they're older, mobile etc, some may stay overweight their whole lives in spite of healthy diets that are likely not different from their siblings who may be a normal or even low weight. Probably same goes for the skinny babies. But here again people will tend to blame parents and 'family dynamics' and food choices, so forget growing up and let's go back to the few-months-old exclusively bf'd babies, the chubby one and the skinny one.
WHY?
They're supposed to naturally self-regulate. It's as natural as it gets, no psychological or other baggage here.
Then why?
Why does their metabolism not just all regulate to an ideal average body weight? Why are they not all the same?13 -
@nettiklive You've posted paragraph after paragraph and I'm not really sure what your point is. You've said you think you believe in CICO but you're not sure because it seems like people who are heavy have always been heavy and people who are skinny have always been skinny, and you don't see behavioral differences between your skinny friends and chubby friends, and now you're talking about set point.
But then you say you think the real issue is CO, which contradicts all your other points since CO is accounted for in the CICO equation and just requires trial and error tweaking of a person's calorie level to figure out.
My question about set point has always been - Why does set point only keep people from LOSING weight? Why doesn't it keep people from getting fat in the first place? If a person's set point is say 160 lbs, and nothing they do to lose more weight works, why didn't "set point" keep them from getting up to 200 lbs in the first place?
I'm not going to respond to the articles you're posting because I don't think anything I say will make a difference at this point. People are terrible at reporting their food intake, terrible at reporting their daily activity level and exercise intensity, and impossible to control when trying to standardize their eating for scientific research, which makes studies and censuses regarding diet and exercise difficult at best. Until you can lock people away from birth to death and control every morsel of food and energy expenditure, there is no way to prove that the basic CICO equation doesn't apply.
No one here denies that finding the right calorie level can be more difficult for some people than for others. All we are saying is that eating at a deficit is what is required to lose weight, regardless of food quality or type, macro distribution, or anything else.32 -
Wow, kimny, spot on. I wanted to reply. But you are always more succinct.
9 -
nettiklive wrote: »I like to talk about babies in these topics, particularly before they're eating solids, because it eliminates all the human error and psychological factors that some love to blame all weight issues on. Babies, particularly breastfed babies, can't sneak food or lie about intake or snack excessively. In our day and age they're all, even formula fed, supposed to be fed on demand, as much as they want with no restriction. Some may feed a lot, some not as much, but the general consensus is that they will naturally regulate and hence you shouldn't worry about babies gaining excessive weight. In spite of that, you will see some babies at the 99th percentile, large and chubby ones with rolls everywhere; and you'll see others who may be lean and on the low side of the chart (often moms worried about their weight will say that they actually tend to feed a lot and eat all the time). While some of the chubby babies may lean out when they're older, mobile etc, some may stay overweight their whole lives in spite of healthy diets that are likely not different from their siblings who may be a normal or even low weight. Probably same goes for the skinny babies. But here again people will tend to blame parents and 'family dynamics' and food choices, so forget growing up and let's go back to the few-months-old exclusively bf'd babies, the chubby one and the skinny one.
WHY?
They're supposed to naturally self-regulate. It's as natural as it gets, no psychological or other baggage here.
Then why?
Why does their metabolism not just all regulate to an ideal average body weight? Why are they not all the same?
Are you saying you think all babies are biologically supposed to have the same appetite and activity level and therefore the same weight? I have 2 small nephews, one has always been super skinny and the other is a little chubby monster. The skinny one was very fussy, never seemed to want to nurse enough, always crying, always on the move. The chubby one is like a little buddha, always smiling, constantly wanting to eat, likes to hang out on the couch and stay in one place. I'm not getting what that has to do with CICO?12 -
I have 4 grandchildren all nearly underweight and mom had gestational diabetes with everyone of them. They don’t eat very much and that is why they are rail thin. Ages 22, 18, 15 and 13.4
-
nettiklive wrote: »I like to talk about babies in these topics, particularly before they're eating solids, because it eliminates all the human error and psychological factors that some love to blame all weight issues on. Babies, particularly breastfed babies, can't sneak food or lie about intake or snack excessively. In our day and age they're all, even formula fed, supposed to be fed on demand, as much as they want with no restriction. Some may feed a lot, some not as much, but the general consensus is that they will naturally regulate and hence you shouldn't worry about babies gaining excessive weight. In spite of that, you will see some babies at the 99th percentile, large and chubby ones with rolls everywhere; and you'll see others who may be lean and on the low side of the chart (often moms worried about their weight will say that they actually tend to feed a lot and eat all the time). While some of the chubby babies may lean out when they're older, mobile etc, some may stay overweight their whole lives in spite of healthy diets that are likely not different from their siblings who may be a normal or even low weight. Probably same goes for the skinny babies. But here again people will tend to blame parents and 'family dynamics' and food choices, so forget growing up and let's go back to the few-months-old exclusively bf'd babies, the chubby one and the skinny one.
WHY?
They're supposed to naturally self-regulate. It's as natural as it gets, no psychological or other baggage here.
Then why?
Why does their metabolism not just all regulate to an ideal average body weight? Why are they not all the same?
Genetics. You are basically asking why all humans arent the exact same size.13 -
My question about set point has always been - Why does set point only keep people from LOSING weight? Why doesn't it keep people from getting fat in the first place? If a person's set point is say 160 lbs, and nothing they do to lose more weight works, why didn't "set point" keep them from getting up to 200 lbs in the first place?
kimny72, but there ARE people - I personally know one - who are extremely thin and WANT to gain weight, purposefully eating large amounts of high-calorie, high-fat foods (especially high considering their low weight in the first place), and yet struggle putting on a single pound. Again, I find it difficult to believe that this simply comes down to them inadvertently balancing out their intake or having higher NEAT or whatever. I believe these cases are a case of a metabolism that revs up like an oven at increased intake, burning off any 'extra' a lot more efficiently than the next person's.
I could be very wrong. However that makes a lot more sense to me logically based on what I see around me, than that tiny differences in tracking keep every single 'stuck' overweight person even on this site from losing.
Like I said I DO believe in CICO as an underlying concept; I think the reason many people don't is that simple calorie restriction has failed them, and that's due to the highly variable metabolic response to such restriction.19 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »Genetics. You are basically asking why all humans arent the exact same size.
Yes. So then why is it hard to believe that the same genetics could not be at play for an adult struggling to lose (or gain) weight?
9 -
nettiklive wrote: »
My question about set point has always been - Why does set point only keep people from LOSING weight? Why doesn't it keep people from getting fat in the first place? If a person's set point is say 160 lbs, and nothing they do to lose more weight works, why didn't "set point" keep them from getting up to 200 lbs in the first place?
kimny72, but there ARE people - I personally know one - who are extremely thin and WANT to gain weight, purposefully eating large amounts of high-calorie, high-fat foods (especially high considering their low weight in the first place), and yet struggle putting on a single pound. Again, I find it difficult to believe that this simply comes down to them inadvertently balancing out their intake or having higher NEAT or whatever. I believe these cases are a case of a metabolism that revs up like an oven at increased intake, burning off any 'extra' a lot more efficiently than the next person's.
I could be very wrong. However that makes a lot more sense to me logically based on what I see around me, than that tiny differences in tracking keep every single 'stuck' overweight person even on this site from losing.
Like I said I DO believe in CICO as an underlying concept; I think the reason many people don't is that simple calorie restriction has failed them, and that's due to the highly variable metabolic response to such restriction.
Bolded #1- BINGO!
Bolded #2 - BINGO!18 -
CICO =/= Counting Calories
CICO =/= that predicted CO is accurate
CICO =/= that CI is accurately counted and uniformly absorbed.
CICO just denotes that to change energy stores you need to create an energy surplus or deficit.
How you achieve the energy surplus or deficit or parity is dynamic and changing and individually differs, if you want to consider that too, and not easy to achieve in actual fact.
But the base concept that energy stores will change based on actual CI vs actual CO over time is pretty kitten simple.11 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
My question about set point has always been - Why does set point only keep people from LOSING weight? Why doesn't it keep people from getting fat in the first place? If a person's set point is say 160 lbs, and nothing they do to lose more weight works, why didn't "set point" keep them from getting up to 200 lbs in the first place?
kimny72, but there ARE people - I personally know one - who are extremely thin and WANT to gain weight, purposefully eating large amounts of high-calorie, high-fat foods (especially high considering their low weight in the first place), and yet struggle putting on a single pound. Again, I find it difficult to believe that this simply comes down to them inadvertently balancing out their intake or having higher NEAT or whatever. I believe these cases are a case of a metabolism that revs up like an oven at increased intake, burning off any 'extra' a lot more efficiently than the next person's.
I could be very wrong. However that makes a lot more sense to me logically based on what I see around me, than that tiny differences in tracking keep every single 'stuck' overweight person even on this site from losing.
Like I said I DO believe in CICO as an underlying concept; I think the reason many people don't is that simple calorie restriction has failed them, and that's due to the highly variable metabolic response to such restriction.
Bolded #1- BINGO!
Bolded #2 - BINGO!
So a 95-lb girl sedentary girl with very little muscle mass putting away easily 3,000 calories plus a day of high-fat, high-carb foods a day is burning up the caloric difference by swinging her foot and tapping her fingers on the desk more?
Could be. But somehow I find that difficult to believe.16 -
nettiklive wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »Genetics. You are basically asking why all humans arent the exact same size.
Yes. So then why is it hard to believe that the same genetics could not be at play for an adult struggling to lose (or gain) weight?
Genetics do play a part. It determines where the weight goes on and off. It also might dictate who has a more addictive personality and find it harder to give up sweets or baked goods. It even determines something like taste buds and what that person finds filling.
Genetics dont determine if they starve themselves secretly the moment they leave your sight or if they eat the whole box of oreos instead of just a few. Its on the person to control themselves and culture pushes people to endulge to sell more instead of viewing food as fuel.5 -
nettiklive wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
My question about set point has always been - Why does set point only keep people from LOSING weight? Why doesn't it keep people from getting fat in the first place? If a person's set point is say 160 lbs, and nothing they do to lose more weight works, why didn't "set point" keep them from getting up to 200 lbs in the first place?
kimny72, but there ARE people - I personally know one - who are extremely thin and WANT to gain weight, purposefully eating large amounts of high-calorie, high-fat foods (especially high considering their low weight in the first place), and yet struggle putting on a single pound. Again, I find it difficult to believe that this simply comes down to them inadvertently balancing out their intake or having higher NEAT or whatever. I believe these cases are a case of a metabolism that revs up like an oven at increased intake, burning off any 'extra' a lot more efficiently than the next person's.
I could be very wrong. However that makes a lot more sense to me logically based on what I see around me, than that tiny differences in tracking keep every single 'stuck' overweight person even on this site from losing.
Like I said I DO believe in CICO as an underlying concept; I think the reason many people don't is that simple calorie restriction has failed them, and that's due to the highly variable metabolic response to such restriction.
Bolded #1- BINGO!
Bolded #2 - BINGO!
So a 95-lb girl sedentary girl with very little muscle mass putting away easily 3,000 calories plus a day of high-fat, high-carb foods a day is burning up the caloric difference by swinging her foot and tapping her fingers on the desk more?
Could be. But somehow I find that difficult to believe.
You don't know her calorie intake. You're assuming.
You don't know her complete daily EAT. You're assuming.
Believe what you want. It doesn't change science.
If you eat more calories than your body uses, you will gain weight.
If you eat fewer calories than your body uses, you will lose weight.
If you eat the same amount of calories your body uses, you will maintain weight.
That's CICO. The end.33 -
nettiklive wrote: »
My question about set point has always been - Why does set point only keep people from LOSING weight? Why doesn't it keep people from getting fat in the first place? If a person's set point is say 160 lbs, and nothing they do to lose more weight works, why didn't "set point" keep them from getting up to 200 lbs in the first place?
kimny72, but there ARE people - I personally know one - who are extremely thin and WANT to gain weight, purposefully eating large amounts of high-calorie, high-fat foods (especially high considering their low weight in the first place), and yet struggle putting on a single pound. Again, I find it difficult to believe that this simply comes down to them inadvertently balancing out their intake or having higher NEAT or whatever. I believe these cases are a case of a metabolism that revs up like an oven at increased intake, burning off any 'extra' a lot more efficiently than the next person's.
I could be very wrong. However that makes a lot more sense to me logically based on what I see around me, than that tiny differences in tracking keep every single 'stuck' overweight person even on this site from losing.
Like I said I DO believe in CICO as an underlying concept; I think the reason many people don't is that simple calorie restriction has failed them, and that's due to the highly variable metabolic response to such restriction.
But I'm not talking about different people. If Jane gets up to 200 lbs, goes on a diet, and does fine until she gets down to 160, and it turns out that's her body's set point, why did her body allow her to go so far OVER it, but won't let her UNDER it. And why would one person's set point keep them too fat, but other people's set point would keep them too skinny? What biological or evolutionary sense does that make?
I've worked with people trying to gain weight. When I have them start logging their food and wearing an activity tracker, they are shocked by how little they are actually eating and how many steps they are getting. And these boards are full of people who once they started using a food scale and logging consistently are shocked by how many calories some of their fave foods are. I think you are grossly underestimating how the modern world's easy access to calorie-dense food and lack of necessity for much manual labor has changed some people's perception of "normal" and derails their ability to naturally perceive the right amount of food. Obesity is much less prevalent in areas of the world where traditional agrarian societies keep people very active and still having to work to prepare food.21 -
nettiklive wrote: »So a 95-lb girl sedentary girl with very little muscle mass putting away easily 3,000 calories plus a day of high-fat, high-carb foods a day is burning up the caloric difference by swinging her foot and tapping her fingers on the desk more?
Could be. But somehow I find that difficult to believe.
Or it could be that her body is repairing previous damage caused by the conditions that brought her to 95lbs. Could last for a few months during recovery.5 -
back in the late 60s and thru the 70s it seemed most people were thin or average sized. In fact, it was very unusual to run into an obese person. Of course many people were partaking of the drug culture (meth tabs, speed etc) and disco dancing into the wee hours, hence being active. I used to eat outrageous amounts of food / junk food but burned it off being a wild young man. Then in my 50s things changed dramatically as I began to gain weight. Unfortunately I did not change my eating habits and BOOM I became a big obese guy like so many others.. anyway, I did all the fad diets since yo yoing back and forth and finally discovered the beauty and simplicity of CICO and my life changed! So I am a confirmed believer...8
-
nettiklive wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
My question about set point has always been - Why does set point only keep people from LOSING weight? Why doesn't it keep people from getting fat in the first place? If a person's set point is say 160 lbs, and nothing they do to lose more weight works, why didn't "set point" keep them from getting up to 200 lbs in the first place?
kimny72, but there ARE people - I personally know one - who are extremely thin and WANT to gain weight, purposefully eating large amounts of high-calorie, high-fat foods (especially high considering their low weight in the first place), and yet struggle putting on a single pound. Again, I find it difficult to believe that this simply comes down to them inadvertently balancing out their intake or having higher NEAT or whatever. I believe these cases are a case of a metabolism that revs up like an oven at increased intake, burning off any 'extra' a lot more efficiently than the next person's.
I could be very wrong. However that makes a lot more sense to me logically based on what I see around me, than that tiny differences in tracking keep every single 'stuck' overweight person even on this site from losing.
Like I said I DO believe in CICO as an underlying concept; I think the reason many people don't is that simple calorie restriction has failed them, and that's due to the highly variable metabolic response to such restriction.
Bolded #1- BINGO!
Bolded #2 - BINGO!
So a 95-lb girl sedentary girl with very little muscle mass putting away easily 3,000 calories plus a day of high-fat, high-carb foods a day is burning up the caloric difference by swinging her foot and tapping her fingers on the desk more?
Could be. But somehow I find that difficult to believe.
If you think the difference in day-to-day activity is foot swinging and finger tapping, that's part of the problem. I've had office jobs where I have been required to stay at my desk while on duty and spent 90% of my time in a chair. I've also had office jobs where I've been constantly up and down, delivering reports to people's offices, running upstairs for a meeting, walking the floor to help employees. It can be the difference between 3,000 steps a day and 9,000 steps a day. I've worked hard over the last 4 years to increase my NEAT. You would be amazed how multiple small lifestyle changes can snowball and multiply over time. When I started I was barely burning 1500 cals per day. 4 years later, I'm closing in on burning 2,000 calories per day, and no one I know has noticed a difference. Little things can add up, and can be the difference between gaining weight or not.34 -
I think because it’s easier to find some fault with it than to do it. I don’t find cutting calories hard but many do which is why so many people are overweight to begin with.1
-
First off CICO is absolutely real! The 95lb girl could have really high NEAT! Some people are just more fidgety! BW set point is extremely real, there is evidence if that in multiple metabolic studies of how the body wants to regain weight. I can post them if necessary. Hell leptin, a master hormone, was not discovered until 1994 I believe. Some people also just do not eat that much. There are studies on how the restraint area in the brain in naturally thin people light up when eating to tell them to stop, and many obese it does not. Macro splits may not be that important, besides a constant lvl of protein for loss or maintenance, but I truly believe it can have a lot to do with satiety. While eating "Clean" may help some people lose weight, restriction of many foods, more fiber, lean protein, most people will rebound. Calories will creep up slowly, it is just biology.22
-
psychod787 wrote: »First off CICO is absolutely real! The 95lb girl could have really high NEAT! Some people are just more fidgety! BW set point is extremely real, there is evidence if that in multiple metabolic studies of how the body wants to regain weight. I can post them if necessary. Hell leptin, a master hormone, was not discovered until 1994 I believe. Some people also just do not eat that much. There are studies on how the restraint area in the brain in naturally thin people light up when eating to tell them to stop, and many obese it does not. Macro splits may not be that important, besides a constant lvl of protein for loss or maintenance, but I truly believe it can have a lot to do with satiety. While eating "Clean" may help some people lose weight, restriction of many foods, more fiber, lean protein, most people will rebound. Calories will creep up slowly, it is just biology.
lol2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions