[jimmydoreornot]

While correct and useful advice for some people, this advice is useless for many (I suspect most) overweight and obese people.

I'm on the border of overweight/obese. I can lose weight if I focus on losing weight. I've dropped from 100kg to 74kg and back. I've gone back down to 91kg and back. How? Eating less, of course. By counting calories. But here is the problem. Anything below 95kg and my body and mind is hyper annoying, constantly interrupting my thoughts (amygdala?) insisting that I go eat something. It is impossible to program computers when my brain keeps interrupting me. I simply cannot focus on anything other than eating. It's like a very slow motion breath hold... eventually you will come up for air. I find life so miserable at those weights that I eventually learned to accept my fate and I'll die early I'm sure, but at least life will feel tolerable until then.

Why do some people's bodies/minds insist so insistently that they eat more when they clearly are already overweight? That's the question I would love to have answered. People often postulate the answer lies in the kinds of foods you eat, but I've proven that hypothesis wrong (for myself) many times. Avoiding sugars and fried foods and eating oatmeal, fish soup, salads, fruit and veg with lean proteins... does not make any weight difference for me, nor does it make low body weights any more tolerable. Sounds great, I'm sure it's healthy, but I've proven on myself multiple times that this technique does not work. Only counting calories works for weight loss (actually distance running works for me too), and it always leaves me famished and miserable.

Going on a zero-carb diet might work. I've seen success stories. I haven't seriously tried it. When I've tried in the past I was craving bread so massively that I caved in.

[Smaug123]

By the way, I recently read Slime Mold Time Mold's hilarious diet proposal (https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/04/29/potato-diet-communi...), namely "only eat potatoes, fry them lightly in vegetable oil if you want but prefer no extra fat, use hot sauce if you want but ideally literally just potatoes, supplement B12 and Vitamin A, definitely no dairy". They claim that this diet… just doesn't require willpower? Might be worth a quick go. God knows what nutrients are absent from the diet, but :shrug:

Since the big selling point is that it doesn't take willpower, you'll know nice and quickly if it's failed - it's a very low-commitment diet. (I have never tried it, I lift and I want more protein than the diet can provide.)

[stjohnswarts]

this is nutritionally a very bad idea. Potatoes are actually pretty nutritious but they are not a complete food. If you're going down the "bland food diet to kill cravings" then follow one of the nutritionally complete diets like soylent green (or any of the numerous competitors)

[Smaug123]

I can barely stick to an only-Huel diet (one of the competitors you speak of) for even a few days. It does sound like the potato diet may be uniquely interesting for someone who is desperate enough.

[mathverse]

Have you tried protein heavy diet? Just try drinking protein whey protein powder drinks the whole day for a week and see what it does to you.

I dont have a problem with losing weight but It's incredibly difficult and annoying to get lean and burn fat while building muscles. I literally cant force myself to eat more if I try to do at least 200g protein every day. 2xmozarella light (42g protein), 2x66 protein drinks (132) and I am on 174g of protein and I cant force myself to eat anything else.

[msrenee]

It completely depends on your lean weight, but 200g of protein is very high for most people who aren't athletes. I'm not in a state to work out whether the normal chorus saying that much protein will damage your kidneys is true or if I've just heard it enough times that it sounds true. Here's a publication that looks informative, but I haven't worked all the way through it and it may or may not support my presumption that 200 g of protein a day is too much for a male of average height who is not in an intense exercise regimen.

https://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/31/8/1667

[zemvpferreira]

Not to defend (or bash) the proposed extreme diet but as far as we know your kidneys will be fine handling pretty much any amount of protein you can consume unless you have kidney disease. Most of it will end up being converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis. Said diet is certainly better for you than 30 years of fast food, as evidenced by the complete lack of protein-caused-disease in medical case studies opposed to... the obesity epidemic?

Don't worry about hypothetical lions around the bend when you're sprinting away from an angry tiger.

[msrenee]

Definitely agree. If it helps control your appetite, it's not worse than continuing to carry all that weight. I just thought I'd throw that paper up because it seemed like a different take than I usually see. And just to stick my nose in and mention that 200 g a day is more protein than the vast majority of people need.

My gut would have something to say about all that protein before my kidneys even noticed, honestly.

[netizen-936824]

I am not a physician. You don't need to worry about protein intake damaging kidneys unless you have preexisting kidney problems.

[stjohnswarts]

This seems dangerous unless you are very young and fit and your kidneys can take it. I can see replacing 1 meal a day with say a 200 calorie casein protein drink but that being all you consume seems like a bad idea.

[jimmydoreornot]

I'll try it.

[atchoo]

Oh god please don't, it's a terrible idea and recipe for gastric distress.

I've gone too far with protein shakes and felt terrible. I'm a body builder and have used almost all diets as I've bulk and cut. A protein shake only diet is effectively a Protein Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF) - zero carbs, zero fat, but shakes only is just the worst way to do it. Lyle McDonald's "Rapid Fat Loss Diet" is popular PSMF and more sensible. Focus on white fish, lean meats and moderate green vegetable with planned periodic cheat meals. Be in no doubt that it's an extreme crash diet with negative hormonal consequences. If you don't have a compelling reason to crash diet, I wouldn't do it.

The benefits I experienced with a PSMF are similar to keto which is much more sustainable with fat. Once I cut out carbs, my appetite just disappears. Without carbs, I don't get hungry as such, instead I get type of tiredness which indicates I should eat. The desire aspect of eating drops off which prevents overeating.

Doing keto for the first time was brutal for me though. 2-3 weeks of keto-flu - tired and ill feeling. But after adapting it's easy. These days I can snap in and out of keto without noticing any ill effects at all.

After 15+ years of various forms of diet, my main trick for cutting is just to eat less desirable food. Don't buy food I can lose control with. Don't use condiments that make things tasty. That turns out to be easier than portion control with delicious food but it's likely a personal thing.

[stevebmark]

Counting calories may not be correct and useful advice for most people. It ignores what the calories do in your body. As an absurd example, sand is very calorically dense, and you'll lose a lot of weight and then die if it's all you eat. Telling people they "eat too much" is usually ineffective, it just makes people feel bad that they can't tolerate hunger.

Ketosis will work (it's very low carb, not zero carb). You (as in you personally) won't be able to do it, you likely lack the willpower, and if you're social, it's difficult to do in a social setting, especially without taking a deep dive into the science to help understand the how and the why.

[lmariscal]

What is this answer? Are you being serious comparing eating actual sand to caloric dense food?

Obviously calories aren't everything in terms of diet and health; vitamins, nutrients and other parts come into play. But when it comes down to actual physical weight, nothing else matters, unless you have a medical problem. Learning how calories work and counting them for some time, so you understand what you are actually eating, is the first step.

Ideally this work would be done with a professional nutritionist, since calorie counting will get you to the weight you want, but it speaks nothing of how healthy your diet is. Sadly this is not something everyone is privileged enough to be able to do.

It is also important to remember that most people who struggle with their weight, and are making an effort, are actually struggling with their relationship with food. This is something that no matter what diet you are on, or how deep your understanding of biology and nutrition is, nothing can replace actually working that deeper issue, which is not trivial and something truly personal.

[stevebmark]

Saying that people gain weight because they consume more energy than they expend is both obvious and too blunt to be useful for weight loss. The same caloric intake of protein, carbohydrates, fat, fiber, preservates, sand, poison, all act differently in your body. You can lose weight in a caloric surplus diet and gain weight in a caloric deficit diet. One fun paradox is some people who train for marathons gain body fat.

I don't have the answer. Ketosis is an example of a weight loss diet where you don't have to count calories, since the body switches into fat burning / fat cell releasing mode by default. Veganism, which starves the body of fat required for normal operation (hormones, celular function), depletes fat stores to use for these functions, and also causes weight loss without having to count calories.

One of the most important things is probably to focus on eating whole foods over processed foods. I'd also consider that fat is more satiating than carbohydrates and protein. One overfeeding study wasn't successful because they couldn't get the fat-eating group to over eat, their bodies stopped them. I'd also consider the glycemic index of foods, since insulin is the signaler to the endothelium receptor to pull excess glucose from the blood into the cells to store as fat.

[jawarner]

It's true that your body doesn't digest all the available calories in food, and the energy extracted from the food is going to vary by food source, along with the digestion profile, or glycemic index.

So, it is true that:

> You can lose weight in a caloric surplus diet

But I don't see how it's possible to:

> gain weight in a caloric deficit diet

There are many sources of digestible and energetic food, even outside the primary 3 macronutrients. There's alcohol, for instances, in addition to the basic fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Sand I don't understand to be calorically rich at all. Quartz isn't even an organic compound.

[louhike]

Ketosis can really mess your health though. My dad had serious problems after trying it, so be really wary if you want to try it.

[stjohnswarts]

Ketosis is not going to mess with a healthy person. Obviously if you have something like kidney problems then it could put a real strain on your kidneys if they are not healthy. If you have preexisting conditions obviously _any_ diet should be carefully monitored by your physician.

[stevebmark]

I've done ketosis for 5 years, and now on and off for 2 years later. I had a full blood lipid panel done and it went well.

Volek and Phinney have good literature for learning more. What problems did your dad encounter?

[louhike]

Issues with kidneys.

[birksherty]

> Why do some people's bodies/minds insist so insistently that they eat more when they clearly are already overweight? That's the question I would love to have answered.

Pretty sure it's habit. Eating calorie all the time makes our brain want that food all the time. People are not used to being actually in empty stomach since their childhood. I did intermittent fasting and now I'm completely okay not eating during that time. For other times it becomes easy, after not eating like before.

The food doesn't have to be calorie heavy either. Replace with meat, nuts, vegetable, fruits (not juice).

[Zababa]

Nuts are very calorie heavy, more than most foods.

[stjohnswarts]

Yes, 75% of the diet is psychology and not calories-in-calories-out. Obviously CICO is a thing inasmuch as it's a thermodynamic process. Those people who parrot it though aren't really using their brain and are trying to simplify a complex human process down to "eat less". Nutrition in humans is complex and psychology is more important than other factors (assuming you don't really have some limiting health issue). The only way I could lose weight was low carb. It lowered my cravings and I started eating two meals a day (I usually had a sizeable breakfast which I dropped). the first two weeks to a month were rough but after that the amount of will power needed decreased dramatically. I lost 80lbs this way and have kept it off by staying away from refined carbs and eating much much less sugar. Will it work for everyone? Probably not, but even if it works for a sizeable minority it's worth it, and I think it's like hitting a reset button on your relationship with food. You realize you're in control, your physical cravings lessen. I had tried all kinds of diets before, but low carb worked for me.

[edanm]

> Obviously CICO is a thing inasmuch as it's a thermodynamic process. Those people who parrot it though aren't really using their brain and are trying to simplify a complex human process down to "eat less".

Speaking for myself, the reason I often parrot the Cico advice is because it's become "common knowledge" that Cico is wrong, which is ridiculous.

Three years ago I would parrot all the usual anti Cico talking points, about how human fat gain is far more complex, there are good calories vs bad calories, hormone response matters, etc. Then when learning more about this, I eventually understood that really, if I count calories and start eating less, I'd lose weight.

I'm not f that explicitly counting calories is the correct strategy for everyone to create a caloric deficit. Your points are absolutely valid.

But after I lost weight, I've had multiple conversations with people insisting that the only thing that could work is cutting out carbs, or only eating meat, or intermittent fasting, etc. Those are great strategies to try, but it's fundamental to understand that they're only strategies to induce that caloric deficit. Otherwise you are setting up for eventual failure.

[xurukefi]

It's genetics. I think it's called the set point theory. You're genetically programmed to keep a certain body fat percentage. Anything below (or above) that set point and you're body will regulate your appetite with hormones. You can manipulate this set point with things like diet or exercise, but there is only so much you can do. If you're genetically programmed to keep a body fat percentage of 25% for example you're not gonna have a lot of fun staying below 15%.

[jimmydoreornot]

I suspect something like that is going on. It is pretty clear to me that there is a strong genetic component. We know the hunger system is very complicated. It's the reason we still don't have a weight loss pill. If you decrease hunger along one channel, the other channels ramp up to compensate.

But there also may be other components that we can do something about. For example, perhaps the bacteria in my gut are causing half of my hunger, insisting that I eat bread (because they want it, not I). And if I starve them out on a zero carb diet, I can break free of the excess hunger.

Hope springs eternal.

[MintsJohn]

I don't think it's just genetics, or genetics are rapidly changing in the last 100 years.

Personally I think it's some combination of gut biome, all than not messed up childhood eating habits (I've been taught to eat till stuffed, not so great in combination with my next point) , and way too calorie heavy (processed) food (it's not a challenge to find food where a quarter package is a healthy amount, way more challenging to find food where they food for a full package) not too mention it's made to keep you eating (so more is sold, sigh) . I'm always surprised people claiming not to have cravings whatever (even when the stuff is put in front of them), or be satiated by eating what for me is half a meal (even when I maintained a normal weight) .

Regardless eat less and try harder are hard to keep up, for me personally protein doesn't help to satiate me either. Part of it is that (for me) it's much easier to get into a habit to eat too much than to keep up the habit of eating just enough (I dare say 2+ years of keeping it low is a habit, but now for 3 wars annually 5kg was added: next try keto, hope it works as well as advertised)

[gaganyaan]

The set point theory, in general, is trash.

You can think of your body as wanting to maintain homeostasis, which is one thing. That just means that if you binge once, you won't feel the need to continue binging at that level. It does not mean that anyone is genetically predetermined to be say 600 lbs.

To use that terminology though, your body could be said to have a "set point" that it aims for, but that "set point" can change. Nobody is destined to be fat, and if you lose weight, your "set point" will adjust.

[xurukefi]

> To use that terminology though, your body could be said to have a "set point" that it aims for, but that "set point" can change.

Which I acknowledged. You can decrease (or increase) your set point, but there is a limit to that. Thinking that everybody has the potential to be at BMI x simply does not match reality. The vast range of human physiology is stunning. Everybody is different. Some people need to carefully watch every bite they take and they still struggle with overweight, whereas others can eat "what they want" and they are underweight.

Totally neglecting any genetic component here is equally as false as neglecting the impact of factors like diet, exercise and environmental ones.

[gaganyaan]

> Thinking that everybody has the potential to be at BMI x simply does not match reality

This is wrong, and why set point theory is trash. Nobody is destined to be fat, everybody's "set point" can in fact be at a regular, healthy weight.

[jawarner]

I see your point that there's no way that weight levels are entirely predetermined by genetics. To your point there are various cultures around the world who suffer more or less from obesity.

I don't understand this genetic determinism of weight to be the claim of Set Point Theory, which to my understanding is involved in energy homeostasis, which you acknowledged. Your body sets your metabolism, and it can tune it up or down. There are homeostatic processes in place such that your body "knows" whether it is underweight or overweight.

I'm not sure if there is a more specific objection you have to set point theory. It certainly has its limitations as to what it can explain, but it seems to be a useful concept or model.

[commandlinefan]

You’re being downvoted, but as a genetically lean guy, I believe you’re right. I’ve never been particularly health conscious, but I’ve always been in “decent” shape - I eat the same things fat people eat, it just doesn’t stick to me for whatever cosmically unfair reason. Fat parents have fat kids - a fat five-year-old isn’t fat because he ate too much ice cream, it’s because he’s genetically predisposed to be.

[gonehome]

I don’t think this holds up to scrutiny when you actually look at how much people are eating.

What does probably vary is the pleasure people get from eating which then directly relates to how much they do it.

[dan-robertson]

There do exist some arguments for this, eg overweight parents with overweight kids, but obviously there isn’t some kind of ‘working class gene’ even though children are reasonably likely to have the same social class as their parents, and wealthier countries may have, on average, taller citizens even though height is strongly heritable. But one would certainly still expect genetic variation in eg thyroid function or whatever.

A few simple observations which don’t support the relevance of this genetic determinism argument:

- a few hundred years ago very few people were overweight. But maybe many people lived their lives incredibly hungry the whole time.

- wealthy countries where getting sufficient food is not the issue have variation in population-level statistics for obesity. Even if one claims that these countries are on-average different genetically in some ways (unlikely in the sense that genetic variation between large classes tends to be smaller than the variation within), one would expect America to mostly be a mix of old-world statistics whereas they come out exceptionally instead.

It seems to me that cultural expectations around food and weight will have a big difference and variation between countries, and that the kinds of food available and commonly consumed (eg sugary drinks, unhealthy fast food, etc) may be a big influence.

But none of this would mean that a particular individual is or is not overweight because of genetic factors rather than their environment.

[sowbug]

Check out The Shangri-La Diet by Seth Roberts for a way to hack your set point with a daily tablespoon of flavorless cooking oil. I'm sure someone on the web has written up the details if you don't want to read the book.

[ThrowITout4321]

I've been told that the reason carbs are such a problem is that once metabolized into glucose the body has to produce insulin to balance the blood sugar. Eventually this process makes us hungry especially if we eat too many carbs.

One way to reduce the affect of excess carbs is to follow a low glycemic diet similar to what people with diabetes follow. You might want to look into it.

[stjohnswarts]

The basic theory is that humans never evolved to handle the sheer amount (at least, a lot of us can't) of simple carbs and sugars that modern life makes available to us via a “typical” diet. The sheer amount of insulin that is needed to handle that much sugar in the bloodstream is constantly pumping, the body builds up a tolerance to it, which in turn stresses the pancreas. That can lead to pre-diabetes and diabetes, which is one of the most common chronic diseases, at least in the USA. Also leads to weight gain as a primary side effect.

[ThrowITout4321]

We should learn from ranchers. The fastest way to fatten livestock is to feed them carbs. So you see ranchers feeding cattle sugar bi-products that can't be sold to humans. Carbs will fatten you(us) up.

[blobbers]

Try to take a period of reprograming, where you just stick with it. Also consider a detox. Get all the garbage you don't want to eat out of the house, and insist on not buying it. Whenever you get a craving, just go drink water instead.

Lastly, consider carnivore or alternate day fasting. You can get there, if you want to.

[krainboltgreene]

> Try to take a period of reprograming, where you just stick with it.

While I'm sure you mean well, but "just try harder for longer" isn't new advice and certainly not good advice. All evidence we have is that you are entirely unlikely to stick it through. Dopamine is the most powerful mechanism in our existence.

[jimmydoreornot]

I have done fasting, I have done alternate day fasting. I have done fast-5. Yes, I can get there if I want to.

My point is that "there" is a miserable place, and so I don't stay "there".

[keybored]

Since you haven’t tried low-carb: low-carb is supposed to go well with intermittent fasting and fasting because of the effect it has on your insulin.

[jimmydoreornot]

Yes I need to seriously try low-carb.

BTW, I have (controlled) hypertension, (controlled) high cholesterol, high triglycerides, low HDLs, and a large beer belly gut (just like my dad, but unlike my brother)... but I have hba1c on the low end and high insulin sensitivity. Doctors used to insist I was on the path to diabetes (25 years ago), but now they are mystified. I chalk it up in part to fasting and drinking a lot of coffee, and my revulsion towards sweet tasting food (I love fat, starch and salt... but not sweet).

So I have a lot of doubt about insulin-related explanations given my well controlled blood sugar. But I still think hyper low-carb might work.

As an aside, long-distance running works to a limited extent. I drop weight without trying and my hunger does not increase. Other forms of burning calories, however (e.g. bicycling), have not had the same effect.

[blobbers]

Would recommend you all check out Dr. Jason Fung.

Alternate day eating etc.

He's a nephrologist that works to control diabetes.

[lozenge]

They said they lost 25kg and your response is "it would have worked if you had kept at it for longer"?

Your view is contradicted by the scientific evidence.

[stjohnswarts]

I just want to add that a "detox" as a holistic medicine approach is total bullshit. If you're talking about hitting reset on what you have in your house then that's different. That's just getting rid of temptation.

[blobbers]

Yeah detox your house.

[pnt12]

How long do those thoughts last? I used to eat a lot of snacks past dinner, and then tried intermittent fasting - after an (annoying) week without that habit, my body just got used to it and stopped craving for them.

[FlyingCapybara]

Of course it's useless, the author is selling himlself, he's a fitness coach...