Site is a link aggregation of a series of blog posts that cite various studies about the mystery of why the obesity rate is increasing, and why the rate of increase is itself accelerating. Authors make a compelling argument that normal homeostatic processes (the theorized lipostat specifically) tend to keep people within a certain BMI range. Authors argue that environmental contamination is breaking the lipostat, driving obesity rates upwards, and faster where there's more contamination.
Interesting read and a great reason to switch to :vegan-v: with a focus on not buying anything wrapped in plastic.
:jesse-wtf:
I think the word calories there is being used in its strictest sense, as in the unit of energy. Amount of a substance needed to burn to raise the temperature of water one degree kelvin/celsius. Not necessarily how much nutritional substance a human could digest out of something
yeah i get that part, im just not understanding why such weird non-arguments for anti-science attitudes are being upvoted here
calories in calories out is objectively correct and not up for debate. losing weight can be difficult but it is not complicated.
Your body is not a dumb machine. It is perfectly capable of letting calories run right through it when it doesn't need them.
This study is literally rejecting the calorie-counters' hypothesis, so the emphatic defense of it here is really quite perplexing.
'here is a study about how obesity is actually a more complicated issue than we realise'
'what is this anti science bullshit losing weight is easy CALORIE IN CALORIE OUT CALORIE IN CALORIE OUT CALORIE IN CALO-'
this is literally the opposite of what i said, but go off
fair play - it was more directed at 'its not complicated' than anything else, considering this study is emphatically saying its more complicated than we have previously realised
sure, but it's literally not complicated. your body cannot create fat from nothing. everything that ends up stored in your body as fat, you have to first put into your body. and if you dont put enough in your body for it to function on, it must burn what is already present in your body, starting with previously stored fat. it is literally that simple.
the complicated parts are social and mental, which are entirely valid. however, before we can focus on the issues at hand we must first agree on what those issues are, which means accepting the very basic and undeniable parts like the simplicity of the calories in / calories out system.
agreed for the most part, but as someone who has done CICO multiple times and failed to hit my final target weights, despite being someone who used to be super active (including a whole pre-transition gym bro bit), it can kinda irk me when we leave discussions at simply 'CICO is easy, its just maths' since it really is the whole picture that is complicated - focusing purely on the numbers in and out, and talking up how simple that is can leave the implication that if it's not working for you, its a personal failing
i know that's not your intention, i totally get where you're coming from but I think you can't really separate out the mental side of things from the numbers side when it comes to discussions about how 'easy' it can or can't be to follow CICO
Sadly it just seems to be far more complex in this. The human body is very smart with regulating intake with the foods it evolved to eat, that's not true of modern processed foods and snacks. When you eat a banana or an apple, you digest lots of things like fiber and vitamins, and your body feels satisfied with it, because it's designed to see that intake as food and respond accordingly. Many of these foods take a while for a body to digest and use up the energy in them, leaving us to feel full for a long time.
When you eat a bag of almost pure sugar filled cookies, it's completely out of whack because nothing in history has prepared it for this. All of the amazing indicators that we've developed to tell when we're full aren't there, our blood sugar and insulin spikes hard and then drastically begins to drop in just a few hours causing us to feel very hungry again. It's not that the body is stupid, is that what you're putting in is literally not what it's designed to expect.
You can test this for yourself too, I certainly have. I used to sit there and eat half a family size Oreos (with milk!) in a single sitting and I would still desire for more. Meanwhile if I cook a potato or eat a banana, I can only get though two potatoes or three bananas max before I feel like Ive had way too much. In my quest to eat healthier, I've noticed that the foods I eat have substantial impact on how I feel for that day, and once you start paying attention to this it's very hard to stop noticing.
Even this study suggests a similar idea, that disruptions to our body cause our hunger response to not work properly and this helps lead to people overeating because they feel the need for food even when it's not true.
then how do people get fat
According to this study, one major cause is signaling getting fucked up by environmental contaminants.
Alternatively, some people's bodies naturally tend a bit heavier (an advantage in times of famine). For them, calorie counting can work fine. And everyone's body is likely to take on some amount of reserves when it's easily possible to do so, but this tendency varies quite a bit.
But the obesity epidemic goes against all of that. It used to be rare to be obese, and extremely rare to be extremely obese, the latter usually caused by some signaling issue (thyroid, I think). Now it's extremely common. HFCS is 55% fructose vs the 50% in table sugar; it's not helping but it's not so different it could cause the epidemic we're seeing.
unless you're talking about differences in people's skeletal structures or something, no. there's no such thing as "naturally heavier." your body creates and burns fat the same way mine does. if you have a greater proportion of fat stored on your body than i do it is because the ratio of calories you eat vs calories you burn is higher than mine.
there are a wide variety of reasons it might be difficult for a person to eat fewer calories than they burn but none of those are that the gods just decided to bless them with excess fat from thin air
The same way, sure. But that doesn't mean there's no variation in people's metabolic signaling systems, which are astonishingly complicated. Every node in all of those signaling pathways is a protein encoded by a gene, which means every one is a source of potential variability between different people.
Edit: here's a poster showing just a part of a teeny-tiny fraction of the metabolic signaling system, namely the insulin receptor system.
Of course, there's plenty of variations. But that doesn't make the actual process each individual needs to do any more complicated. Let me put it this way: If you don't eat, you will lose weight. Right? We can of course agree on that. On a similar note, if you simply do nothing but eat cookies all day, you will gain weight. Now, in between those two extremes, there will be a certain amount of food you can eat which will cause you neither to lose nor gain weight. Eat 10% less than that, and you will ... lose weight.
That's why it's simple. It doesn't matter how complicated all the systems of your body are because you don't need to know all that. What you actually need to know is very simple.
See the way you say simple makes it feel like you're saying "easy," like, here's a pat answer so stop complaining about it. You know full well, though, that a starvation diet, leaving aside the awful health implications, is simply impossible to actually do for enough time to achieve useful results. So I argue that the answer you're pushing, then, is largely worthless.
I'll note that my problem is that I can't seem to gain and keep weight, quite the opposite of most people's, and I find it roughly as impossible as the obese people do to work against that. (Oh but all I have to do is eat more, right? Except that the body regulates food intake via appetite, doesn't it? And if you ignore that and overstuff yourself, your body will be quite willing to just forcibly eject the excess food by vomiting--I have personal experience on this point.)
But those are two different things and I don't know how to stress that any more than outright saying it 2 hours ago in my first actual comment on this topic
I never recommended a "starvation diet" I was trying to establish a baseline on which we can both agree so that I could construct the actual, practical argument I was making. And yet, no matter how clearly I lay this out, you still try to argue with it because you're not actually conversing in good faith. You're not paying attention to what I'm actually saying, you're just looking for anything at all that I say that you feel like you can interpret in the least charitable possible way so that you can write out a hostile argumentative reddit-tier debatebro comment that "scores points"
No, not exactly. What you have to do is eat more calories. Not just more volume. If you try to gain weight on a watermelon only diet yeah of course you're going to throw up because that's impossible. Your appetite is largely based on the volume of the food you're eating (because of course that's what literally fills up your stomach) and your weight is determined by the caloric content of the food you're eating. That's why relying entirely on your appetite is insufficient, because it doesn't measure the part of the food that actually determines whether you gain or lose weight.
Except the phrase "it's simple" can be interpreted as being applied to the CICO logic, or to the process of trying to apply that logic. It fits for the former, but does not for the latter. My entire point is about the complicating factors that make the application of your simple logic into a near-impossibility. Your entire point feels semantic, honestly.
And look, everything I eat is incredibly calorie-dense; I eat a typical shitty American diet. I studied biochemistry in college; I know all of this. And yet I still can't maintain a weight of over 130 fucking pounds, and people who sound an awful lot like you do right now like to tell me how it's all my fault and I fucking hate them for it.
Under the CICO model, does every calorie eaten count as a calorie "in"?
I guess not necessarily. If you eat something you can't digest that's of course not going to get stored as fat on your body or used to keep your heart beating. Typically though, this conversation happens on the topic of weight loss, where over-counting the calories you eat is not really a problem. I've personally never had an issue gaining weight so it's not something I've got that much knowledge of theoretically :shrug-outta-hecks:
Makes sense, and that's where I think the model falls apart a little bit. We need to know way more about absorption rates and digestion to properly measure how many calories are going in, and that's what OP's post is about (been a little while since I've read through it).
I think one thing that you are getting pushback on here about is that you are kind of conflating strict bodyweight with body composition; and you're not really acknowledging the entire point of this thread.
Which is that people's metabolisms could be completely fucked up due to environmental factors, to where they're artificially burning less calories than they otherwise should be just to get the basic level of non-caloric nutrients (think vitamins/minerals) necessary for their bodies to actually function properly.
You're assuming a problem of strict over-eating, and not under-activity, or even just the wrong kind of activities or foods. A body will metabolize a calorie from an apple the same way it will metabolize a calorie from a twinky. It will not metabolize an actual apple the same way it metabolizes an actual twinkie though, because they are not just numerical abstractions the way a calorie is. You get the point right?
the only thing I'm trying to counter is the weird anti-science mockery of the CICO system, which, I will stress again, is simply objectively correct and not up for debate. you can talk about metabolism and society and mental challenges and all that other stuff in the context of weight loss and gain without going after simple scientific fact and making us all look like dumbasses
Okay, but remember the original comment that started this entire chain. You responded to a guy saying that "If the stated caloric content of the food was the only thing that mattered with regards to weight gain, then you could drink a cup of gasoline & you would gain weight", by saying "Yeah no, that's tru tho."
That's the part that people are pushing back on you against, because it's obvious bullshit. If you drink a cup of gasoline you will die, or at the very least get seriously ill because it is physically poisonous to the human body.
A calorie is a generalized unit of heat-energy that exists in just about any object you can name. That doesn't say anything about it's nutritional content to the human body. A body that stores more energy than it expends will accumulate more mass than one that doesn't; I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that proposition.
That does not at all give you a full picture of what effects different articles of food will have on the human body.
deleted by creator
Wow, that's really interesting! This is exactly what I meant about the body not being just a dumb machine--it adjusts to its environment and situation in ways that we're only beginning to discover.
deleted by creator
that sounds awesome, i wish metabolism actually worked like that in the real world
deleted by creator
lmao :jesse-wtf:
deleted by creator
That's a self-reported number from literally one guy lol
I'm fairly certain that the average person's body will burn more than 800 calories per day in a comatose state, there's no way in hell that number is accurate. This is a common broscience talking point and nothing in the paper cited in that article suggests that your metabolism can be permanently altered by weight loss.
Edit: a bedridden, 120lb, 80-year old man needs >1000 calories per day just for normal body functions
https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/bee#:~:text=Basal%20energy%20expenditure%20(BEE)%20is,%2Fday%20or%20kJ%2Fday.
deleted by creator
this is an extreme example
Seems like there's a lot of straw-manning the CICO argument in here.
I mean it is 100% true I'll agree with you, but I will say that I really really dislike the takes from 90% of the people who just spout that out, because they refuse to ever look at obesity trends and wonder "hmm, why are some countries so different than others?" and then instead just blame entirely on individual fault. And at the end of the day when the system continually fails, yeah you're going to have to on the individual level work to fight against that but it's certainly true that not everyone can, and no one should have to do that.
I think the biggest reason here to me is that the average American diet is exactly what you would expect from a nation that absurdly rich, it's all processed junk where they can pull out all the bad parts of food like sugar and leave everything good behind. People want to do things like eat by intuition, our bodies and our lives are meant to do exactly that. But food companies spend billions of dollars figuring out exactly how to thrwart human intuition. It's not really possible to eat food as store/restaurant marketing suggests and not get fat, because those foods simply contain too much energy in them without ever being satiating.
One big issue of this appears to be fiber. Long ago if you wanted to get out the sugar inside the plant, you had to eat the plant. You have to get the fiber and the vitamins and all the other stuff inside of the plant that might not be super super tasty like the sugar, but there was no other way. For example only 5% of Americans eat the recommended daily amount of fiber simply because most food on offer has little and people are going to eat the food on offer because duh, of course they will. You never feel full because you never eat the things our body expects from natural foods so you want more, so you buy more. It's a great thing for all the processed food companies and restaurants after all.
As we've seen with the study now part of it also seems to be that disruptions to the natural chemical balance of our bodies leads to feeling more hungry and unsatisfied as well.
Definitely, I completely agree. It shouldn't be necessary to count calories because we shouldn't be pressured by the society we live in to so severely overeat. Personally, I don't count calories, but that's only because I now understand enough about nutrition to eyeball it. And not only was I never taught any of this stuff about nutrition before, what I was taught about nutrition growing up was complete bullshit made up by :porky-happy: to sell me more food and hopefully also fad diet bullshit.
However, "nutrition is just magic that is impossible to understand and im somehow gonna store extra fat despite consuming fewer calories than I burn" is a sentiment I absolutely cannot stand.
Oh yeah for sure, that comes off as magical thinking to me. Part of it does come from realistic problems though, food education in most industrialized countries is incredibly corrupt and compromised. There are lots of people who simply don't realize how many calories are in something like salad dressing or the beer they drink, so even when they try to track they don't record it properly.
I've lost maybe about 100 to 110 lb over the past two years, and that's something that I noticed of myself and the difference between all my failed attempts before vs now. I didn't realize that bowl of cereal should probably have the milk counted, that getting the large fast food meal everyday was eating the equivalent of like 170 strawberries or 10-12 bananas in a single serving. I can't even eat three bananas without feeling done! Those are very satiating fruits. And yet for the meal I'd just jot down like 500-800 instead and move on and despite them actually being a thousand+ calories I would be ready to eat in just a few hours.
So I think a lot of people really do try to lose weight, and they tried to follow the calorie in carry out method and it failed. It's not really because the principles of burning off more energy than you consume are wrong, but because so much of society is built up against being able to this properly. You aren't educated for it, and all the pressures and marketing and everything else imaginable work against you. And when you fail, it's easy to just throw it off and say it doesn't work, much harder to confront the systemic flaws and your own misunderstandings after all. I don't blame people who do it honestly, there's extreme amounts of money making sure we never see it.
I have a reprint of the Settlement cookbook from 1910. In it, they have nutritional needs that calculate out to about 3500 calories for an adult man (who was probably lifting 100 pound sacks in a factory.) fiber was seen as non-nutritious and generally a negative. In the early 20th century if you got 3500 calories from whole grains and vegetables, you’d spend half the day in an outhouse and get cholera
That's not how you get cholera
You don't get cholera from vegetables like that. But yeah, the calorie amounts of factory workers was much higher than today's sedentary non heavy weight lifting workers. It's actually part of why the "But you might have to work some in mines and doing heavy work!" argument against communes and the like are bad because in the best world everyone would be doing like 10-20 hours of physical labor anyway. But instead of doing it at the gym on a treadmill or lifting weights, it can be used for production and helping others
Hard physical labor can be fun when you aren't being managed by an idiot, you're in safe conditions, and you get enough to est and drink before and during. I honestly find doing labor easier than exercising because it has a clear goal I can reach instead of the vague prospect of a stronger me.
There's a specific interlude discussing CICO https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/15/a-chemical-hunger-interlude-a-cico-killer-quest-ce-que-cest/
I mean if the excess calories are coming from fast digesting carbs like sugar and high fructose corn syrup (which I guess they are in the US), it is a substantial increase. 20% or 400 calories more in plain sugar is going to mess up the average person's weight and body composition.
They don't bring it up, and I think that's the biggest problem with the oversimplification of CICO. Not all calories are equal.
They go on to say that Americans are eating less sugar than before, and less carbs, and less fat, while still somehow eating 400 calories more per day than before. I don't see how that can be possible. How can the average person be eating less carbs and fats and more calories? It doesn't make sense unless your average American is really on the carnivore diet or something. It's a big contradiction.