You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much(physiqonomics.com)
physiqonomics.com
You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much
https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/
47 comments
You're still fundamentally finding success due to your calories in matching your calories out, though? It's just a match over a longer timescale. Did you feel people were telling you that have to match calories over every single 24 hour period, or something?
I don't mean to disagree fundamentally, intermittent fasting seems great and it's awesome that you've found a way to keep your calorie intake controlled without suffering constant hunger, but I don't get why you seem to think it's somehow in opposition to CICO. Of course you can eat 48 hours worth of food one day and 0 the next. That's kind of the beauty of it, as long as the numbers work out on average you can eat however you like - the only tricky part is that it's up to you to find a way to make the numbers work out sustainably. Which you have!
I don't mean to disagree fundamentally, intermittent fasting seems great and it's awesome that you've found a way to keep your calorie intake controlled without suffering constant hunger, but I don't get why you seem to think it's somehow in opposition to CICO. Of course you can eat 48 hours worth of food one day and 0 the next. That's kind of the beauty of it, as long as the numbers work out on average you can eat however you like - the only tricky part is that it's up to you to find a way to make the numbers work out sustainably. Which you have!
I no longer have to worry about counting calories to maintain my weight.
I simply don’t get hungry when I don’t need food.
When calorie counting Id be eating every two hours, constantly snacking and weighing a budget of calories I could spend on food.
Sure, technically I’m adhering to some calorie count that I don’t even know what it is anymore. But my body takes care of keeping track. I’m hungry, I have a bigger portion. I’m not hungry, I don’t eat.
And the fundamental thing is when I was calorie counting and eating whatever I wanted whenever I wanted, my weight was constantly going up!
It took constant vigilance and the willingness to go long periods feeling like shit to keep my weight in check.
Now, my weight just maintains. I never thought it was possible. And the simplistic ‘a calorie is just a calorie’ noise is no longer a belief I subscribe to.
I simply don’t get hungry when I don’t need food.
When calorie counting Id be eating every two hours, constantly snacking and weighing a budget of calories I could spend on food.
Sure, technically I’m adhering to some calorie count that I don’t even know what it is anymore. But my body takes care of keeping track. I’m hungry, I have a bigger portion. I’m not hungry, I don’t eat.
And the fundamental thing is when I was calorie counting and eating whatever I wanted whenever I wanted, my weight was constantly going up!
It took constant vigilance and the willingness to go long periods feeling like shit to keep my weight in check.
Now, my weight just maintains. I never thought it was possible. And the simplistic ‘a calorie is just a calorie’ noise is no longer a belief I subscribe to.
Also, sorry, I think I missed out a detail that this regime only works for me if I avoid all sugary and processed food.
If I do something like eat a big chocolate bar, I’m also immediately hungry again and craving chocolate and treats and processed food.
As part of my new diet I only have whole foods like rice, beans, meat and veg. This food fills me up and interacts with my body in a fundamentally different way than processed sugary food. I don’t even miss it, until I eat some. It’s wild.
If I do something like eat a big chocolate bar, I’m also immediately hungry again and craving chocolate and treats and processed food.
As part of my new diet I only have whole foods like rice, beans, meat and veg. This food fills me up and interacts with my body in a fundamentally different way than processed sugary food. I don’t even miss it, until I eat some. It’s wild.
I think this detail is key, because I've found it works well for me and intermittent fasting drives me bonkers.
Yes. I didn’t even start this for weight loss. I started it after reading Jason Fungs book on type 2 diabetes prevention
>>I avoid all sugary and processed food.
I think that's probably vastly more important than CICO vs IF vs Anything else, tbh
I think that's probably vastly more important than CICO vs IF vs Anything else, tbh
Fair, though my initial long fast did pretty much kill my cravings overnight
It's funny how people will get concerned if you fast, but if you eat yourself into morbid obesity nobody says anything.
Likewise, as I've switched to more whole foods I might eat, let's say, 4 whole peaches one day. My family speaks up, "4 peaches is a lot of sugar" they say, and they're right. But I used to eat 4 large candy bars in a day, plus a row of Oreos, and they said nothing.
Likewise, as I've switched to more whole foods I might eat, let's say, 4 whole peaches one day. My family speaks up, "4 peaches is a lot of sugar" they say, and they're right. But I used to eat 4 large candy bars in a day, plus a row of Oreos, and they said nothing.
Yes, it’s mad how accustomed we all are to sugar. I think I was getting around 20-30% of my calories from sugar, and regularly would have chocolate at work as a pick me up when I started flagging.
I thought the energy was fueling my brain but in hindsight it was more akin to nicotine withdrawal than nutrition.
I thought the energy was fueling my brain but in hindsight it was more akin to nicotine withdrawal than nutrition.
I'm doing CICO and I have been since February, but the thing I found helped make it a lot more livable was to do a small deficit (200-300 calories) instead of a big one (500-600 calories). Ultimately, the most important thing? Just logging everything I eat and hoping to hit said goal. Some days I end up eating 100% of my 'sedentary' calories. Oh well. I still end up losing weight when I look at it in the scale of a month or so (3-4lbs a month!)
I found it a lot less stressful to have a small deficit! I just have to remember to write down what I ate.
That said, definitely YMMV! I think if your BMR is only like 1000 calories and your sedentary energy level is 1200 calories, it would probably be impossible to be satisfied with any kind of calorie deficit. X_X I don't know how smaller people do it! My deepest sympathies!
And to be sure: I was regularly eating 3000 calories a day before I started in February. When I did - it took at least a couple of months to stop feeling hungry all the damn time lol.
I found it a lot less stressful to have a small deficit! I just have to remember to write down what I ate.
That said, definitely YMMV! I think if your BMR is only like 1000 calories and your sedentary energy level is 1200 calories, it would probably be impossible to be satisfied with any kind of calorie deficit. X_X I don't know how smaller people do it! My deepest sympathies!
And to be sure: I was regularly eating 3000 calories a day before I started in February. When I did - it took at least a couple of months to stop feeling hungry all the damn time lol.
Once going on my fasting and only eating 3 meals a day, I lost 8kg and for the last two months have been maintained a stable weight without having to think about calories at all.
I won’t be going back.
Edit: also, I was never massively overweight. Generally my waist at its height was around 33inches. It was just a hard way to live.
I won’t be going back.
Edit: also, I was never massively overweight. Generally my waist at its height was around 33inches. It was just a hard way to live.
Not sure if you're missing a word in your first sentence. "Only eating 3 meals a day" surely isn't fasting, no?
I eat breakfast at around 8/9ish, lunch, and then dinner before 7, normally at 6. This gives me my rough 12/12 with some give and take. I specify 3 meals because I no longer snack in between them at all. Including no sugary drinks or sugary tea.
Once a week or two I skip a day of meals to make a 36hour fast. This depends on my social calendar whether it’s possible
Once a week or two I skip a day of meals to make a 36hour fast. This depends on my social calendar whether it’s possible
I wouldn't say 12/12 counts as intermittent fasting, but it sounds like it's been working for you so keep on.
Everyone has their own rules on this stuff. On 16/8 I couldn’t get enough calories
500 calories a day sounds miserable.
Did you have similar success (or similar suffering) on an intermediate caloric number without cycling on/off?
Did you have similar success (or similar suffering) on an intermediate caloric number without cycling on/off?
As the other commenter said this was less than my necessary calories. So generally I needed 2800~ calories, and when cutting i’d eat 2200~ calories. Sometimes less when I wanted to step it up to 1.5~ or so lbs a week., but a lb a week was what I found maintainable without facing a binge eating session that I couldn’t stop myself from committing
No one is talking about why we want to eat so goddamn much. There is a brain issue at play here that is not discussed. I have been active my whole adult life and have always been either overweight or doing some kind of diet. Every time I lost weight it came back later on and yeah I am to blame but how can anyone just spend their whole existence fighting their brain.
I decided to try one of these famous GLP-1 agonists and oh boy does that change everything. My brain just decided to shut up all the food thoughts. Just gone. There is something in our current diet/environment screwing up our inner desire for food and that is reflected in our behaviour. Our conscious thoughts aren’t enough to control that behaviour fully.
I expect a shift in the future on how obesity is portrayed. It will go the same way as depression where we slowly realized “cheer up buddy” is not a valid treatment.
I decided to try one of these famous GLP-1 agonists and oh boy does that change everything. My brain just decided to shut up all the food thoughts. Just gone. There is something in our current diet/environment screwing up our inner desire for food and that is reflected in our behaviour. Our conscious thoughts aren’t enough to control that behaviour fully.
I expect a shift in the future on how obesity is portrayed. It will go the same way as depression where we slowly realized “cheer up buddy” is not a valid treatment.
Once I got a kitchen scale I was astounded at how terrible I was at estimating the actual amounts of things that I was using. While I am sure it is not as simple as calories in versus out, if you take anything away from this article at least let it be that people are very bad about estimating their actual portion sizes. And if you get a chance, grab a kitchen scale (and keep some measuring cups handy too) and try guessing then measuring and see how well you do! I think you'll be very surprised. Especially, as mentioned in the article, pouring liquid, which is very very easy to drastically overpour.
It's missing a lot of context.
> The mouse that eats less but gains weight
> Unexpectedly, this increased adiposity is not caused by increased food intake. Instead, Mc3r-/- mice gain more fat per calorie of food consumed, apparently at the expense of their lean body mass. This so-called increased feed efficiency means that the mutant mice store more fat despite eating less than normal mice do, and they become obese if fed a high-fat diet. The mechanism behind these responses is unclear because the Mc3r-/- mice have normal metabolic rates, body temperatures, and thyroid function
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2330/
Also a lot of counterpoints in this article.
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...
E.g.
> consider Poehlman et al. (1986), where researchers fed a group of 12 men 1,000 extra calories a day for 22 days. On average the men gained about 5 lbs (2.2 kg), but some of them actually lost weight instead.
...
> The fact that many of these are twin studies provides even more evidence against CICO. In groups of twins that are all overfed by the same amount, there is substantial variation between the different participants in general. Some people gain a lot of weight, others gain almost none. But each person gains (or loses!) about the same amount of weight as their twin. In some cases these correlations can be substantial, as high as r = 0.90. This strongly suggests that genetics plays a large role in determining how the body responds to overfeeding.
> The mouse that eats less but gains weight
> Unexpectedly, this increased adiposity is not caused by increased food intake. Instead, Mc3r-/- mice gain more fat per calorie of food consumed, apparently at the expense of their lean body mass. This so-called increased feed efficiency means that the mutant mice store more fat despite eating less than normal mice do, and they become obese if fed a high-fat diet. The mechanism behind these responses is unclear because the Mc3r-/- mice have normal metabolic rates, body temperatures, and thyroid function
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2330/
Also a lot of counterpoints in this article.
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...
E.g.
> consider Poehlman et al. (1986), where researchers fed a group of 12 men 1,000 extra calories a day for 22 days. On average the men gained about 5 lbs (2.2 kg), but some of them actually lost weight instead.
...
> The fact that many of these are twin studies provides even more evidence against CICO. In groups of twins that are all overfed by the same amount, there is substantial variation between the different participants in general. Some people gain a lot of weight, others gain almost none. But each person gains (or loses!) about the same amount of weight as their twin. In some cases these correlations can be substantial, as high as r = 0.90. This strongly suggests that genetics plays a large role in determining how the body responds to overfeeding.
This post: A long article about weight loss that is built on a calorie-centric approach to food instead of questioning that fundamental premise and differentiating between types of fats and carbs and their effects on body weight.
I've commented on this in the past but to reiterate, calories as a measure are pseudo-scientific at best and totally bunk at worst. If all you are doing is looking at that number on packaging, generally speaking, your weight control will be very limited due to the lack of precision in that measurement.
I've commented on this in the past but to reiterate, calories as a measure are pseudo-scientific at best and totally bunk at worst. If all you are doing is looking at that number on packaging, generally speaking, your weight control will be very limited due to the lack of precision in that measurement.
You would think that with the amount of mental gymnastics HN loves to do every time CICO gets mentioned, they would finally lose some weight and solve the problem once and for all.
I suppose it's not quite as good as regular gymnastics.
I suppose it's not quite as good as regular gymnastics.
Disagree about 'slow metabolism' big time. It is not myth. I know for a fact I eat less than I did when I was 16 for the same body weight. If humans vary by all sort of other attributes, such as IQ, height, or physical strength, even controlling for age and other variables, why would metabolism not vary too? That makes no sense.
Also, 'starvation mode' does not mean that the laws of thermodynamics does not work anymore. I dunno why this concept is so confusing to so many people. It's like people are trying to make this needlessly complicated or being deliberately obtuse because they have some axe to grind. It means that the body burns fewer calories than predicted by weight, physical activity, and other variables, which makes dieting much harder. It is sometimes called metabolic adaptation. So Instead of burning 2000 calories/day as predicted for your new, lower weight, you only burn 1500 or so.
Also, 'starvation mode' does not mean that the laws of thermodynamics does not work anymore. I dunno why this concept is so confusing to so many people. It's like people are trying to make this needlessly complicated or being deliberately obtuse because they have some axe to grind. It means that the body burns fewer calories than predicted by weight, physical activity, and other variables, which makes dieting much harder. It is sometimes called metabolic adaptation. So Instead of burning 2000 calories/day as predicted for your new, lower weight, you only burn 1500 or so.
You're not losing fat because you're too sedentary. You absolutely can outrun your fork. You just have to run a lot further than you think. Show me a fat person who runs 50 miles a week.
I agree in general, but most people that run 50 miles a weeks also eat healthy. So there's a lot of correlation there. IE show me a person that runs 50 miles a week but also eats mostly process foods and drinks lotsa soda.
That demographic is Marines in bootcamp if they're from Appalachia.
Most people with a postsecondary degree who do something like use a gym or jog probably read Omnivores' Dilemma, may shop for organic food, and are more likely to be vegetarian. This demographic is largely incongruous with behaviors like tobacco and substance abuse, and frequent consumption of fried and ultra-processed food.
Most people with a postsecondary degree who do something like use a gym or jog probably read Omnivores' Dilemma, may shop for organic food, and are more likely to be vegetarian. This demographic is largely incongruous with behaviors like tobacco and substance abuse, and frequent consumption of fried and ultra-processed food.
If one is running 50 miles per week one needs to orient eating around the runs. It's difficult to run right after a full meal. The result tends to be restricted eating to have a comfortable run in the first place.
PS: A bunch of extra work is near mandatory to maintain weekly mileage like this. Proper stretching and recovery--maybe some yoga. Lots of distractions from eating too much in the first place.
PS: A bunch of extra work is near mandatory to maintain weekly mileage like this. Proper stretching and recovery--maybe some yoga. Lots of distractions from eating too much in the first place.
You don’t really need to do anything extra at 50. 50 is a basic baseline for a lot of folks running 3-3:30 marathons. I stretch for about 3 minutes after I run, and little else, for instance, and I’m at 60-70mpw, old, and a bit overweight.
I know very few people at this mileage doing serious “extra” work.
I know very few people at this mileage doing serious “extra” work.
Have you ever had runner's knee? I'm dealing with it for the first time at the moment. Looking for a quick fix.
Yes - for me, it was a strength issue. I spent a couple weeks running hills to even things out and it faded relatively quickly.
This isn't the place for medical advice. See an orthopedic surgeon.
It's not running but Fred Becky was known to eat whatever is cheap, frequently fast food.
> One randomized controlled trial assigned overweight men and women to different amounts of exercise. More exercise did lead to more body fat loss, but even in the group exercising the most — equivalent to 20 miles (32.0 km) of jogging every week for eight months — people only lost about 7 lbs
From https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...
From https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...
This is the kind of thinking that lead to the show biggest loser. Not a single one of those people maintained their weightloss because youre not going to turn a 600lb person into an Olympic distance runner overnight. Its unmaintainable! Not to mention they have to keep eating an insane amount of food to push 50 miles a week which means if they stop running they gain all the weight back because they never fixed their eating habits. This is the wrong way to think about losing weight. You first need to develop a healthy relationship with food and exercise.
Not a single one of those people maintained their weightloss
A lot of websites seem to contradict you. Several contestants kept the weight off so your comment is just inaccurate.
https://healthyeater.com/biggest-loser-then-now https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weig...
A lot of websites seem to contradict you. Several contestants kept the weight off so your comment is just inaccurate.
https://healthyeater.com/biggest-loser-then-now https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weig...
You have to do a ridiculous amount of exercise compared to you know, just not eating another snickers bar.
Calories in. Calories out. What's new? Aside from the "HOLY SHITBALLS!" Gen-X branding.
People get very heated and religious about this topic so I'm hesitant to bring it up but there are strong arguments that this model is overly simplistic and that the types of food you eat are strongly related to hormonal changes that dramatically affect your metabolism and fat storage. Here's a good talk by a doctor, heavy on research, that's a decent introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc
It can both be overly simplistic and also true enough for large portions of the population. Not unlike BMI as a metric where in aggregate it works and for most people it's a reasonable approximation, but there are outliers for whom it makes no sense.
Too many people like to point to the "yeah but's" on this topic when their underlying problem is that they eat too much and move too little. And then yes, there are people who have already fine tuned eating less and moving more and aren't seeing the expected deltas. Those are the people who should be worrying about the details. But for that bulk population it just turns into an easy excuse.
Too many people like to point to the "yeah but's" on this topic when their underlying problem is that they eat too much and move too little. And then yes, there are people who have already fine tuned eating less and moving more and aren't seeing the expected deltas. Those are the people who should be worrying about the details. But for that bulk population it just turns into an easy excuse.
People get really technical trying to find excuses to keep eating when it is themselves, but when it’s your dog who is fat and the vet tells you their health is threatened you just reduce their food and don’t start digging up scientific studies to show how actually some dogs need extra treats to lose weight.
That’s a bit of a strawman, no one is arguing that you lose weight from “extra treats” it’s more about the insulin response from the nutritional content from your food. And very likely overweight pets are eating garbage food that causes insulin resistance.
Pick the analogy you prefer, it just isn’t difficult or complicated.
If you’re cutting it so close to the margin of overeating that you’re worried about insulin response impacting the amount of fat you accumulate, you’re eating too much.
If you are at 15% body-fat trying to get down to 10% for a competition, ok, bring out the research and the studies. That is actually quite difficult. If you’ve got a visible beer gut, we don’t need to bring advanced science into this. You just need to eat less and what you do eat should not be soda, doughnuts, and fast food. It isn’t that complicated.
If you’re cutting it so close to the margin of overeating that you’re worried about insulin response impacting the amount of fat you accumulate, you’re eating too much.
If you are at 15% body-fat trying to get down to 10% for a competition, ok, bring out the research and the studies. That is actually quite difficult. If you’ve got a visible beer gut, we don’t need to bring advanced science into this. You just need to eat less and what you do eat should not be soda, doughnuts, and fast food. It isn’t that complicated.
> If you’ve got a visible beer gut, we don’t need to bring advanced science into this. You just need to eat less
Basically almost all the research I’ve seen on keto suggests this isn’t true. That on the contrary the primary driver of weight is hormones which is driven by the composition of the food. Anecdotally I’ve confirmed this and lost tons of weight while increasing my calorie intake.
I understand your position, it’s simple and people are splitting hairs. I don’t think that’s the case.
Basically almost all the research I’ve seen on keto suggests this isn’t true. That on the contrary the primary driver of weight is hormones which is driven by the composition of the food. Anecdotally I’ve confirmed this and lost tons of weight while increasing my calorie intake.
I understand your position, it’s simple and people are splitting hairs. I don’t think that’s the case.
Except for situations of food insecurity, most humans alive today have access to absurd amounts of calories. That coupled with intense marketing, increasingly sedentary lifestyles, and decline of self-discipline explain the rise in cancer, type 2 diabetes, and CHD.
On the other side (increasing metabolic rate), there is widely-held misinformation: that it is "easy" or desirable to burn calories through exercise. Unfortunately, the human body is extremely efficient at long duration, low intensity activity. Us humans can run down most any fleeing terrestrial animal on flat terrain through a combination of high endurance and caloric efficiency. [1] This is why caloric restriction is far more time, cost, and effort efficient than exercise. Said another way: the most effective categories of exercise such as weightlifting, HIIT, and 30 minutes on the elliptical are beneficial for multiple purposes secondary to weight loss.
A rough guide to caloric density is dry food weight (minus all water). And double anything containing oil, cheese, or cream.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis
On the other side (increasing metabolic rate), there is widely-held misinformation: that it is "easy" or desirable to burn calories through exercise. Unfortunately, the human body is extremely efficient at long duration, low intensity activity. Us humans can run down most any fleeing terrestrial animal on flat terrain through a combination of high endurance and caloric efficiency. [1] This is why caloric restriction is far more time, cost, and effort efficient than exercise. Said another way: the most effective categories of exercise such as weightlifting, HIIT, and 30 minutes on the elliptical are beneficial for multiple purposes secondary to weight loss.
A rough guide to caloric density is dry food weight (minus all water). And double anything containing oil, cheese, or cream.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis
Anyway. I used to believe this. Every few months I'd flip between dieting, and not dieting (putting on weight). When dieting, I'd go on a 500 calories restriction. This meant religious calorie counting, going to bed every night hungry, and generally being grumpy constantly. Waking up in the night because I wanted some toast or something and trying to work out if I could fit it into my budget. I got my daily calorie requirement down so well I could lose a pound a week reliably. But it was miserable.
Eventually, I'd meet a goal and start eating what I wanted again. And my weight would go up. And then I'd have to diet.
A shit life.
This year, I've started intermittent fasting (12/12), and every week or two I have a 36 hour fast.
I never feel hungry in between meals anymore, and even when fasting for 36 hours I only feel hungry for brief periods of the day.
If I knew this was possible in my early twenties I'd be so much better off today. Instead I listened to everyone online, don't care about what you eat just make it fit your macros. Reductionist bullshit in short. And in consequence my insulin was always up, always demanding more food.
However, to the author, I'm sure they feel good acting like everyone else is stupid. It all comes down to counting calories and people not trying hard enough right. Not fundamentally flawed advice at large on how to eat right, just pure moral failing.