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.
Calorie deniers
Replies
-
laurenq1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Isn't "portion aware" just a synonym for "estimating the amount of calories based on portion size," though?
When I was growing up (1950s/60s), calorie counting wasn't very practical for the average person, but people still lost weight intentionally. There were two common general methods**: One was reducing portions, basically the same thing as being "portion aware", a.k.a. "eating less".
For people who stuck with it, it tended to work. Most people used a general idea of which things were "fattening foods" (ice cream, cake, etc.) as part of that, but they were in no way "estimating calories". Calories weren't on food labels, there weren't apps, there wasn't an internet; you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical. You could only call it "estimating calories" if you stand back reeeaaaal far and squint. (You'd have to say that the "eat only grapefruit" diet was estimating calories, then, too.)
There are people today who can lose weight the same way by limiting portions; they're not "estimating calories". If you asked them whether a steak or an ice cream sundae had more calories, they'd have no actual knowledge. (Witness that fact that dieters are fooled by Crispy Chicken Salads, because "salad is low calorie". They may even think they're estimating calories, but they're not.)
As an aside, there was a hilarious thread where one guy argued that people couldn't lose weight in the 1950s/60s (or thereabouts), because they didn't know about calories, and didn't know why people got fat. Heh.
** Just for the record, the other common method was following a very prescriptive "diet plan": For breakfast, eat 2 poached eggs, half a slice of dry toast, and a grapefruit half; for lunch eat a tuna or chicken salad made with a specified vinaigrette dressing recipe; for dinner eat a chicken breast with a side of green beans and a glass of skimmed milk - that sort of thing. (I made up those specifics, but it's not super far off.)
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »No, it's a means of calorie restriction without exactly counting every calorie. Some seem to do well simply cutting back on portion size and continuing to keep an eye on it. They also do things like cut back on snacking, make wise food choices, etc.
Honestly, I maintained a reasonable weight for some time at one point when I was younger simply doing that myself. I still weighed a bit more than I wanted to, but I was a relatively low weight given my own history with weight at the time.
But it's still sort of an indirect method of calorie counting. It's saying "if I eat X amount of food or less per day, I will lose (or maintain) weight." The amount of food corresponds to a calorie value, which may be unknown, but still you're adhering to that amount of calories indirectly. It's not the same as the calorie deniers (like some keto and low-carb people, or raw vegans and RT4, or even some "clean eating" people) who say there's no connection between the amount of calories eaten and weight, and instead it has to do with what foods you're eating.When I was growing up (1950s/60s), calorie counting wasn't very practical for the average person, but people still lost weight intentionally. There were two common general methods**: One was reducing portions, basically the same thing as being "portion aware", a.k.a. "eating less".
For people who stuck with it, it tended to work. Most people used a general idea of which things were "fattening foods" (ice cream, cake, etc.) as part of that, but they were in no way "estimating calories". Calories weren't on food labels, there weren't apps, there wasn't an internet; you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical. You could only call it "estimating calories" if you stand back reeeaaaal far and squint. (You'd have to say that the "eat only grapefruit" diet was estimating calories, then, too.)
There are people today who can lose weight the same way by limiting portions; they're not "estimating calories". If you asked them whether a steak or an ice cream sundae had more calories, they'd have no actual knowledge. (Witness that fact that dieters are fooled by Crispy Chicken Salads, because "salad is low calorie". They may even think they're estimating calories, but they're not.)
As an aside, there was a hilarious thread where one guy argued that people couldn't lose weight in the 1950s/60s (or thereabouts), because they didn't know about calories, and didn't know why people got fat. Heh.
** Just for the record, the other common method was following a very prescriptive "diet plan": For breakfast, eat 2 poached eggs, half a slice of dry toast, and a grapefruit half; for lunch eat a tuna or chicken salad made with a specified vinaigrette dressing recipe; for dinner eat a chicken breast with a side of green beans and a glass of skimmed milk - that sort of thing. (I made up those specifics, but it's not super far off.)
They definitely did know about calories back then and Weight Watchers, which is basically calorie counting by a different name, was invented in the 60s. But see above for why portion control is also basically calorie counting by a different name and isn't the same as calorie denial.4 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »No, it's a means of calorie restriction without exactly counting every calorie. Some seem to do well simply cutting back on portion size and continuing to keep an eye on it. They also do things like cut back on snacking, make wise food choices, etc.
Honestly, I maintained a reasonable weight for some time at one point when I was younger simply doing that myself. I still weighed a bit more than I wanted to, but I was a relatively low weight given my own history with weight at the time.
But it's still sort of an indirect method of calorie counting. It's saying "if I eat X amount of food or less per day, I will lose (or maintain) weight." The amount of food corresponds to a calorie value, which may be unknown, but still you're adhering to that amount of calories indirectly. It's not the same as the calorie deniers (like some keto and low-carb people, or raw vegans and RT4, or even some "clean eating" people) who say there's no connection between the amount of calories eaten and weight, and instead it has to do with what foods you're eating.When I was growing up (1950s/60s), calorie counting wasn't very practical for the average person, but people still lost weight intentionally. There were two common general methods**: One was reducing portions, basically the same thing as being "portion aware", a.k.a. "eating less".
For people who stuck with it, it tended to work. Most people used a general idea of which things were "fattening foods" (ice cream, cake, etc.) as part of that, but they were in no way "estimating calories". Calories weren't on food labels, there weren't apps, there wasn't an internet; you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical. You could only call it "estimating calories" if you stand back reeeaaaal far and squint. (You'd have to say that the "eat only grapefruit" diet was estimating calories, then, too.)
There are people today who can lose weight the same way by limiting portions; they're not "estimating calories". If you asked them whether a steak or an ice cream sundae had more calories, they'd have no actual knowledge. (Witness that fact that dieters are fooled by Crispy Chicken Salads, because "salad is low calorie". They may even think they're estimating calories, but they're not.)
As an aside, there was a hilarious thread where one guy argued that people couldn't lose weight in the 1950s/60s (or thereabouts), because they didn't know about calories, and didn't know why people got fat. Heh.
** Just for the record, the other common method was following a very prescriptive "diet plan": For breakfast, eat 2 poached eggs, half a slice of dry toast, and a half grapefruit; for lunch eat a tuna or chicken salad made with a specified vinaigrette dressing recipe; for dinner eat a. chicken breast with a side of green beans and a glass of skimmed milk - that sort of thing. (I made up those specifics, but it's not super far off.)
They definitely did know about calories back then and Weight Watchers, which is basically calorie counting by a different name, was invented in the 60s. But see above for why portion control is also basically calorie counting by a different name and isn't the same as calorie denial.
No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.8 -
No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.
Not true. A lot of diets have to do with what you eat and the idea that eating or avoiding specific foods will help you to lose weight. Atkins, South Beach, RT4, keto, paleo, carnivore, plant-based diet, Starch Solution, "clean eating," and many others are all about WHAT you eat and say very little to nothing about how much you eat. In fact many of them openly state that there are no restrictions on calorie intake (you can look it up).
Calorie counting and portion control are the same in that they are about how much you eat. The former is measured using a more exact method than the latter, but the principle is the same. You can eat whatever foods you want as long as you don't eat above a certain amount. Some people may choose to give up certain foods to reduce overall portion size, like giving up dessert to reduce total calories, but no specific foods are "fattening" in and of themselves and it's about the context of total amount eaten. Of course any weight loss method that actually works ends up amounting to CICO, but the point is that most popular diet plans do not acknowledge that, because then people would realize they don't need the plan to lose weight. And that's why fad diets don't work for most people and usually end up making them fatter, and why experts caution against them.
8 -
tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
If carbs prevented weight loss in a calorie deficit, that would be the solution to world hunger.19 -
NorthCascades wrote: »tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
If carbs prevented weight loss in a calorie deficit, that would be the solution to world hunger.
Lmao good one I like the way you think.
1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »I think it comes down to looking for ways to "hack" or "trick" the process.
Yup (even, oddly, if it's actually more difficult -- never eat food you like again, but you can eat as much as you like!)"There are no calories in stolen food!" (Roz on Nightcourt, after swiping a fry from Christine's plate.)
Reminds me of when I was a summer associate and associate at a big law firm the ongoing joke was "if you don't pay for it, it doesn't have calories." Free food was everywhere. It was an incentive as a summer and a comfort/reward for having no life as an associate.3 -
[laurenq1991 wrote: »No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.
Not true. A lot of diets have to do with what you eat and the idea that eating or avoiding specific foods will help you to lose weight. Atkins, South Beach, RT4, keto, paleo, carnivore, plant-based diet, Starch Solution, "clean eating," and many others are all about WHAT you eat and say very little to nothing about how much you eat. In fact many of them openly state that there are no restrictions on calorie intake (you can look it up).
But the truth is that many of these restrictions tend to result in lots of people eating fewer calories (at least for a while). They work for the people for whom that is true, and not for those for whom they don't affect calories.1 -
gatherum89 wrote: »Good insightful stuff here guys, and just to be clear when I say calorie deniers I’m talking about the people who flat out say you do not need to be in a deficit to lose weight. Or on the extreme cases flat out denying it in way that a calorie is something that can’t be measured or exist in food. There are actual doctors or quacks I’d say who have their licenses right now to practice who put out videos about this stuff. Imagine being a scientist and getting behind flat earth theory lol.
In addition to the thankfully few calorie deniers I get irritated by the crowd that insist there are different kinds of calories, good or bad calories, clean or dirty calories etc. etc.
As someone who got fat eating 95% good home cooked food (and 5% hospital food) I find the idea that you can't get fat eating "good food" with "good calories" a bit comical.8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
If carbs prevented weight loss in a calorie deficit, that would be the solution to world hunger.
Exactly. I always turn it around, and no one can seem to explain it going in the opposite direction, for people that are underweight and struggling to gain. Oh if only it were that easy, right.7 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.
Not true. A lot of diets have to do with what you eat and the idea that eating or avoiding specific foods will help you to lose weight. Atkins, South Beach, RT4, keto, paleo, carnivore, plant-based diet, Starch Solution, "clean eating," and many others are all about WHAT you eat and say very little to nothing about how much you eat. In fact many of them openly state that there are no restrictions on calorie intake (you can look it up).
Calorie counting and portion control are the same in that they are about how much you eat. The former is measured using a more exact method than the latter, but the principle is the same. You can eat whatever foods you want as long as you don't eat above a certain amount. Some people may choose to give up certain foods to reduce overall portion size, like giving up dessert to reduce total calories, but no specific foods are "fattening" in and of themselves and it's about the context of total amount eaten. Of course any weight loss method that actually works ends up amounting to CICO, but the point is that most popular diet plans do not acknowledge that, because then people would realize they don't need the plan to lose weight. And that's why fad diets don't work for most people and usually end up making them fatter, and why experts caution against them.
I think you're confusing calorie counting with energy restriction or creating a deficit.
They're not synonymous.
People do know that you generally have to eat less than you burn to lose weight. You don't need to actually count calories to do this. You can simply cut back on what you're eating and make better food choices or cut out snacks and, as Ann said like we did back in the day, "fattening" foods.
Here. Read this article. Though she has the help of nutrition labels to make food choices, Jane Brody explains how she lost weight and maintains her weight without calorie counting:
https://nytimes.com/2018/03/05/well/jane-brodys-personal-secrets-to-lasting-weight-loss.html5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.
Not true. A lot of diets have to do with what you eat and the idea that eating or avoiding specific foods will help you to lose weight. Atkins, South Beach, RT4, keto, paleo, carnivore, plant-based diet, Starch Solution, "clean eating," and many others are all about WHAT you eat and say very little to nothing about how much you eat. In fact many of them openly state that there are no restrictions on calorie intake (you can look it up).
Calorie counting and portion control are the same in that they are about how much you eat. The former is measured using a more exact method than the latter, but the principle is the same. You can eat whatever foods you want as long as you don't eat above a certain amount. Some people may choose to give up certain foods to reduce overall portion size, like giving up dessert to reduce total calories, but no specific foods are "fattening" in and of themselves and it's about the context of total amount eaten. Of course any weight loss method that actually works ends up amounting to CICO, but the point is that most popular diet plans do not acknowledge that, because then people would realize they don't need the plan to lose weight. And that's why fad diets don't work for most people and usually end up making them fatter, and why experts caution against them.
I think you're confusing calorie counting with energy restriction or creating a deficit.
They're not synonymous.
People do know that you generally have to eat less than you burn to lose weight. You don't need to actually count calories to do this. You can simply cut back on what you're eating and make better food choices or cut out snacks and, as Ann said like we did back in the day, "fattening" foods.
Here. Read this article. Though she has the help of nutrition labels to make food choices, Jane Brody explains how she lost weight and maintains her weight without calorie counting:
https://nytimes.com/2018/03/05/well/jane-brodys-personal-secrets-to-lasting-weight-loss.html
Another example.
When my uncle started eating his meals off a side plate instead of a dinner plate it reduced his calorie intake due to smaller portions but he didn't count or estimate calories, or read packages, or make choices based on the number of calories.
No counting, just portion reduction from an unknown and variable number that made him fat to a smaller and variable but still unknown number that enabled him to lose weight.
If there's no counting going on then it's not calorie counting.6 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Isn't "portion aware" just a synonym for "estimating the amount of calories based on portion size," though?
<snippage for brevity>
you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical.
<snippage for brevity>
I'm slightly younger than you, and I remember the era of the little book. My mother and aunt decided try their hand at it. A postage scale lived on our kitchen counter during that time. I remember them thumbing through that book and coming up with the oddest concoctions for themselves for lunch. They'd only have coffee and cigarettes for breakfast, knew what we were having for dinner, and worked out the rest of their calories from there.
Tuna mixed with tomato juice was one of the abominable things I remember. I was little at the time, so fortunately, I've forgotten most of the horror.
When I got older and my mother put me on my first diet, it was the "smaller portions, no snacks, no "fattening" foods plan. I guess she decided calorie counting was a huge hassle.
1 -
But the truth is that many of these restrictions tend to result in lots of people eating fewer calories (at least for a while). They work for the people for whom that is true, and not for those for whom they don't affect calories.
Yes, which I said in my previous post. But the people who created the diet plans usually don't acknowledge that it just comes down to CICO and that's why so many people fail on the diets, and also why so many people are now "calorie deniers."
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Isn't "portion aware" just a synonym for "estimating the amount of calories based on portion size," though?
<snippage for brevity>
you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical.
<snippage for brevity>
I'm slightly younger than you, and I remember the era of the little book. My mother and aunt decided try their hand at it. A postage scale lived on our kitchen counter during that time. I remember them thumbing through that book and coming up with the oddest concoctions for themselves for lunch. They'd only have coffee and cigarettes for breakfast, knew what we were having for dinner, and worked out the rest of their calories from there.
Tuna mixed with tomato juice was one of the abominable things I remember. I was little at the time, so fortunately, I've forgotten most of the horror.
When I got older and my mother put me on my first diet, it was the "smaller portions, no snacks, no "fattening" foods plan. I guess she decided calorie counting was a huge hassle.
My mom had one of those little books, but yeah, not realistic. My mom never had a scale and I don't think ever actually tried calorie counting, but I recall reading the numbers in the book with fascination.
You can see why WWs got big, as well as all the dumb "eat this pre-planned menu" diets.1 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »But the truth is that many of these restrictions tend to result in lots of people eating fewer calories (at least for a while). They work for the people for whom that is true, and not for those for whom they don't affect calories.
Yes, which I said in my previous post. But the people who created the diet plans usually don't acknowledge that it just comes down to CICO and that's why so many people fail on the diets, and also why so many people are now "calorie deniers."
I agree that lots of people don't acknowledge it comes down to calories or that that is what the diet is doing and instead claim that calories don't matter.
Like GottaBurnEm, I'd distinguish between calorie counting and calorie control more broadly, which can be by actual counting or other means if they work for you. I found it just as effective to write down what I eat vs. counting calories, since it made me mindful. I currently think calorie counting is fun, but I think it's important to acknowledge how this works but also find another way if counting isn't for you.
I think we are saying the same thing, though.0 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.30
-
There are also some people (who are not me) who can lose and maintain if they stay mindful of portion control.
If you measure things and make sure you look at what you've measured every time you do so, you'll over time learn about portion control. It's more visual than a matter of the numbers. This is the approach I take: measure my item with a scale, and note how much of the bowl or plate it fills. As I try different cereals, for example, I note the differences in portion size - some are much more dense than others - more difficult to learn for me than, say, learning what a serving of meat or fish or dairy looks like.
In addition to learning better portion control, there are other behavior-oriented strategies that will work for some:- Learn your hunger and satiety cues. Don't let yourself get too hungry or too full.
- Eat when you're hungry, and stop when you're not hungry any more.
- Eat slowly and enjoy what you're eating - and make food choices you enjoy.
- That means not eating when you're concentrating on something else.
- If you're thinking of eating when you're not hungry, ask yourself what need you're trying to meet.
- In other words, don't use food to meet emotional needs.
I think the strategy for losing or maintaining weight differs among dieters because we bring different behavioral baggage to the table.
2 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
My memory is a bit rusty here because I decided it wasn't a degree of detail I needed to be concerned with... so correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the reading I've done...- insulin doesn't "regulate" (as in control or dictate) fat storage.
- insulin is a vehicle for nutrient transport in and out of cells.
- that "transportation" goes both ways - in (storage) and out (burning)
- the body is constantly fluctuating within/between burning and storing based on calorie need and calorie supply at any given time.
- the net effect of those burn vs store fluctuations is dictated by the difference in supply vs need over time.
20 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
My memory is a bit rusty here because I decided it wasn't a degree of detail I needed to be concerned with... so correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the reading I've done...- insulin doesn't "regulate" (as in control or dictate) fat storage.
- insulin is a vehicle for nutrient transport in and out of cells.
- that "transportation" goes both ways - in (storage) and out (burning)
- the body is constantly fluctuating within/between burning and storing based on calorie need and calorie supply at any given time.
- the net effect of those burn vs store fluctuations is dictated by the difference in supply vs need over time.
Beat me to it..4 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
My memory is a bit rusty here because I decided it wasn't a degree of detail I needed to be concerned with... so correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the reading I've done...- insulin doesn't "regulate" (as in control or dictate) fat storage.
- insulin is a vehicle for nutrient transport in and out of cells.
- that "transportation" goes both ways - in (storage) and out (burning)
- the body is constantly fluctuating within/between burning and storing based on calorie need and calorie supply at any given time.
- the net effect of those burn vs store fluctuations is dictated by the difference in supply vs need over time.
Insulin is often referred to as the fat storage hormone.
It involved in the transport of glucose both in and out of fat cells
It can assist in promoting storage and inhibit the signal to use or burn fat that is stored in people that maintain high insulin and are insulin resistant.
I am paraphrasing form some of my reading so it is possible that I may not be 100% on all points. Don't misunderstand me I am not saying that calories don't count or this is magic for weight loss. All I am suggesting is that hormones can have a role in storage or burning of calories.10 -
I used to be a calorie denier after I went vegan several years ago and dropped 40 pounds in a few months. Plant based foods are magic!! Your body loses on its natural fuel!!
Then a few months later I tried earth balance and Daiya (vegan butter and cheese substitutes), started making vegan pizza and buttery toast and baked goods and buying vegan fast food, and what do you know, I gained all the weight back. Turns out it's pretty easy to maintain a deficit without counting when you're in the zeal of a new eating plan and doing everything by the book (for me that meant focusing on beans, grains and vegetables), but this can be difficult to maintain depending on your personality. But, if I didn't do the follow up research, it would be really easy to continue believing that it was inherently the diet change that caused the weight loss rather than the accidental calorie reduction.
I think a lot of people have experiences similar to this and because the weight often comes off so fast compared to calorie counting, it feels like the 'magic' diets work better than calorie counting. And because the magic diets don't work long term, the natural conclusion is dieting doesn't work period and your hormones are hopelessly muddled forever or whatever.10 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
My memory is a bit rusty here because I decided it wasn't a degree of detail I needed to be concerned with... so correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the reading I've done...- insulin doesn't "regulate" (as in control or dictate) fat storage.
- insulin is a vehicle for nutrient transport in and out of cells.
- that "transportation" goes both ways - in (storage) and out (burning)
- the body is constantly fluctuating within/between burning and storing based on calorie need and calorie supply at any given time.
- the net effect of those burn vs store fluctuations is dictated by the difference in supply vs need over time.
Insulin is often referred to as the fat storage hormone.
It involved in the transport of glucose both in and out of fat cells
It can assist in promoting storage and inhibit the signal to use or burn fat that is stored in people that maintain high insulin and are insulin resistant.
I am paraphrasing form some of my reading so it is possible that I may not be 100% on all points. Don't misunderstand me I am not saying that calories don't count or this is magic for weight loss. All I am suggesting is that hormones can have a role in storage or burning of calories.
Hormones do play a role, but this is <5%.6 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
My memory is a bit rusty here because I decided it wasn't a degree of detail I needed to be concerned with... so correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the reading I've done...- insulin doesn't "regulate" (as in control or dictate) fat storage.
- insulin is a vehicle for nutrient transport in and out of cells.
- that "transportation" goes both ways - in (storage) and out (burning)
- the body is constantly fluctuating within/between burning and storing based on calorie need and calorie supply at any given time.
- the net effect of those burn vs store fluctuations is dictated by the difference in supply vs need over time.
Insulin is often referred to as the fat storage hormone.
It involved in the transport of glucose both in and out of fat cells
It can assist in promoting storage and inhibit the signal to use or burn fat that is stored in people that maintain high insulin and are insulin resistant.
I am paraphrasing form some of my reading so it is possible that I may not be 100% on all points. Don't misunderstand me I am not saying that calories don't count or this is magic for weight loss. All I am suggesting is that hormones can have a role in storage or burning of calories.
I don't think anyone will deny that hormones play a role. How big of a role I'm not sure about, but I don't want that to bog down the greater topic/conversation.
I think you're missing (or minimizing) 1 important piece of context...
In individuals whose hormones "inhibit the burning" of stored fat, that inhibition is part of the CO side of CICO. So when people say calories are all that matter, or a calorie deficit is what drives weight loss... hormones are a given and they are already factored in. In those individuals, it is possible that their CO number might be lower than it might otherwise be, but it is still the CO part of CICO, and CICO still holds true.
The same goes for other health issues... it's not that those issues don't exist or play a role in weight management, it's that those issues are accounted for in the CICO formula.
And yes, I'm aware of how some things are referred to/talked about... but that doesn't make them literal/true. My brothers often refer to me as a assh*le... but I promise you, I am in fact NOT a literal assh*ole.15 -
happytree923 wrote: »I used to be a calorie denier after I went vegan several years ago and dropped 40 pounds in a few months. Plant based foods are magic!! Your body loses on its natural fuel!!
Then a few months later I tried earth balance and Daiya (vegan butter and cheese substitutes), started making vegan pizza and buttery toast and baked goods and buying vegan fast food, and what do you know, I gained all the weight back. Turns out it's pretty easy to maintain a deficit without counting when you're in the zeal of a new eating plan and doing everything by the book (for me that meant focusing on beans, grains and vegetables), but this can be difficult to maintain depending on your personality. But, if I didn't do the follow up research, it would be really easy to continue believing that it was inherently the diet change that caused the weight loss rather than the accidental calorie reduction.
I think a lot of people have experiences similar to this and because the weight often comes off so fast compared to calorie counting, it feels like the 'magic' diets work better than calorie counting. And because the magic diets don't work long term, the natural conclusion is dieting doesn't work period and your hormones are hopelessly muddled forever or whatever.
Vegan pizza and baked goods . . . my friend, my enemy. Always there to remind me that yes, the calories do matter.
8 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
Oh, insulin is invited to the party. CI, CO, and the law of thermodynamics are hosting the party.
I'm meaning to agree with the guys above - calories rule weight loss, insulin is among the mechanisms behind the scenes - but just hangin' with the metaphor. 8 -
This content has been removed.
-
modusoperandi1412 wrote: »I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
My memory is a bit rusty here because I decided it wasn't a degree of detail I needed to be concerned with... so correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the reading I've done...- insulin doesn't "regulate" (as in control or dictate) fat storage.
- insulin is a vehicle for nutrient transport in and out of cells.
- that "transportation" goes both ways - in (storage) and out (burning)
- the body is constantly fluctuating within/between burning and storing based on calorie need and calorie supply at any given time.
- the net effect of those burn vs store fluctuations is dictated by the difference in supply vs need over time.
Insulin is often referred to as the fat storage hormone.
It involved in the transport of glucose both in and out of fat cells
It can assist in promoting storage and inhibit the signal to use or burn fat that is stored in people that maintain high insulin and are insulin resistant.
I am paraphrasing form some of my reading so it is possible that I may not be 100% on all points. Don't misunderstand me I am not saying that calories don't count or this is magic for weight loss. All I am suggesting is that hormones can have a role in storage or burning of calories.
And sugar is "often referred to" as poison and toxic over here. What something is "referred to" is meaningless. It's a transporter.
And whether fat is burned or not is dependent on your actual needs. Your body has literally no choice but to burn fuel if it is needed, insulin or not. When insulin is high it means you have eaten something recently so that's the fuel burned instead of the "inhibited fat burning". You're confusing cause and effect here.
What insulin actually does, and what role it plays in the body (plenty of research cited/linked, a lot of woo debunked): https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
10 -
I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
Inviting the insulin theory of obesity to an evidence-based party is like labeling Disney princess movies as non-fiction. Fung gets the pity invite, at best.11 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »I notice that it is always about CI vs CO and the law of thermodynamics however the way that insulin regulates fat storage and the ability to access that fat is never invited to the party.
Inviting the insulin theory of obesity to an evidence-based party is like labeling Disney princess movies as non-fiction. Fung gets the pity invite, at best.
But Pocahontas!
6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions