Quantitative obesity research

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

Thud
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2534
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Keep Out

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Thud » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:39 pm

Bux, what is the essence of your point? Do you deny that caloric deficit will result in weight loss, and surplus gain?

You figure a lot of these folks are piggies but blessed with a high metabolism?

Image
Image

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6470
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:53 pm

chi wrote:
Sangoma wrote:Reverse dieting works for a short time, 2 - 4 weeks. After that it catches up with you and you gain the usual proportion of muscle and fat.
holy fuck.

ITS CICO!

reverse dieting only seems to "work" is because you are still in a deficit.

Seriously, once your diet is over, the first week can be half way between diet calories and maintenance but from week two just get straight back to expected maintenance for your new weight and bodyfat levels.
I personally don't think it's that simple. From my own experience and shared stories it seems to me that there is some sort of partitioning advantage for a short time after reduced intake and loss of mass. I agree with Beer Jew's thinking on that. But I am not qualified enough to argue about it.
Image

User avatar
buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by buckethead » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:29 am

Beer Jew/ thud , remember it is my claim that CICO is 100% truth yet 99% useless as a dietary strategy because of the complexity of CI and CO. These threads have justified that claim even beyond my hopes

The longest digestive cycle I've been able to find is 8-10 hours so a week long "deficit" makes no sense from a purists CICO perspective. If on one day you determine (how?) you absorb 2500 kcal and you determine (how?) you expend 2000 cal then that excess must manifest in weight. Must. Energy can't hang around massless and then show up later

So what's really happening, say, on a reverse diet is a much more complex interplay of BMR, etc. of course it ultimately came down to CICO but no one here is going to be able to calculate it. So digging your (not you specifically) heels into the "it's CICO" mantra is as meaningless as someone yelling that baseball batting is just Newton's laws. True, but it doesn't help me hit any better

Now Blaidds contention that you have to get used to hunger to lose weight may or may not be true for everyone but it is something someone could build a strategy around

My personal strategy is to eat real and good food lowish on carbs. Every time I string days together like this I get to a weight I'd be happy to die at. Every time I don't I find chubbiness creeping

Thud
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2534
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Keep Out

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Thud » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:44 am

Well it's certainly complicated, and I wouldn't argue it's "strictly" CICO. We know medicines and hormones, for example, have effects, etc.

But still, nobody is getting chubby in the concentration camps even if all they eat is white bread and sugar. We know people will lose weight over a period of time eating 500 cals a day and gain at 5000. The rest is largely about compliance and sustainability. For that there are as many variables/answers as there are people.
Image

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6470
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:45 am

buckethead wrote: Beer Jew/ thud , remember it is my claim that CICO is 100% truth yet 99% useless as a dietary strategy because of the complexity of CI and CO. These threads have justified that claim even beyond my hopes

The longest digestive cycle I've been able to find is 8-10 hours so a week long "deficit" makes no sense from a purists CICO perspective. If on one day you determine (how?) you absorb 2500 kcal and you determine (how?) you expend 2000 cal then that excess must manifest in weight. Must. Energy can't hang around massless and then show up later.
I still fail to see how CICO is useless as the strategy and how this thread confirms this. You don't have to estimate what you absorb, enough to record what you put in the mouth and average it over couple of weeks. Neither you have to precisely estimate the expenditure, traditional multipliers of BMR and activity are sufficient.
My personal strategy is to eat real and good food lowish on carbs. Every time I string days together like this I get to a weight I'd be happy to die at. Every time I don't I find chubbiness creeping
Indirect ways can work, but they are not as reliable as direct estimation of intake. I can overeat on wholesome foods, low carb or not, quite easily. Couple of slices of cheese, an extra chunk of beef steak, couple of dollops of sour cream - and voila, I am 700 kcal over and still hungry. Now, if you take into account the fact demonstrated by research numerous times, namely that the more overweight people are the more they underestimate the amount they eat, my insistence of actually counting calories consumed becomes stronger.

In the modern environment where you have continuous dietary temptations everywhere and wildly swinging caloric density between various foods CI is pretty much the only reliably strategy, along with ways to control appetite. This way you can still have pizza, cake and what not, as long as it fits within the weekly limit. Sure, you can play with things like ABCDE diet, Delta 1250 or Reverse Dieting to get the benefits of hormonal swings, but I wish the average Joe best of luck trying to get through it.
Image

User avatar
DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by DrDonkeyLove » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:47 pm

People like to do pleasant things: consume tasty treats, fuck, masturbate, sit on their ass, enjoy easy entertainment, etc.

We used to live in a world that limited these activities because it demanded physical work w/far less access to high calorie snacks and amazing entertainment that we can even carry in our pockets. Far more adults are sitting in offices where delicious snacks are prevalent than in factories that forced some kind of movement and scheduled our limited eating times. Kids have awesome video games that require nothing more physical than moving their fingers on a joystick and reaching over to a bag of chips compared to going outside to play.

My point is that in the not too distant past (40's-60's), life itself limited most of our weights without our having to think about it. A certain amount of physical activity and caloric limitation (CICO) was built into the system. That's gone for most.

Now we have to actually think and be disciplined regarding calorie consumption and physical activity. In general, we don't excel at this. Add to that appearance acceptance in that if everybody's fat nobody's fat, so fatness doesn't limit our chance to mate which is humanity's prime directive.

Hence, fat fatter fattest for many among us.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6470
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:40 pm

Interesting article:

Can medical therapy mimic the clinical efficacy or physiological effects of bariatric surgery?

Long read, but interesting. There seem to be a few drugs, either available or in the making, that potentially can help losing weight.
Image

Post Reply