> Pro tip: if you’re lactose intolerant, don’t do a heavy cream diet.
I still do consume a lot of it at times, it's too good.🤣 Though my intolerance is better these days. It used to be extremely bad, where any dairy would set me off hard and give the runs within 30 minutes.
Fun article, though, loved the humor. 😆Also very relatable to what I have seen in various groups online. Nutrition With Judy podcast mentions this at times, how "just try harder" is not the solution for everything as well, and how it can be very detrimental at times even.
It can be tricky, because, sometimes, it IS the answer. There are certainly treshold effects. E.g. many people find that stricter keto works way better than wishy-washy low-carb for them, because they're not constantly cycling between carb and fat metabolism.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but heavy cream has a lot less lactose than regular milk, right? Obviously if you are very sensitive that isn't good enough, but just checking.
I assume so, because lactose is sugar and heavy cream has very little sugar. But it's still 15g per pint or so. I'm not sure what levels of lactose cause problems in lactose-intolerant people, and it might even be different levels for different people. But I assume at least the severely intolerant can't handle 15g of lactose in a sitting.
Yes, it's definitely different levels in different people. All of my 3 medications contain lactose, and I have to take not one, but two, Milkaid lactase tablets, for my body to handle just the lactose in those 3 tiny pills!
It disturbs me to think of all the lactose-intolerant people out there whose doctors haven't realised their patients are lactose-intolerant - especially the infants and the dementia patients, who can't necessarily communicate it. A nurse once told me that diarrhea doesn't affect medication absorption, but I don't believe that claim.
I'd assume infants are not often lactose-intolerant, as it's their main food (human milk has more of it than cow milk). They can sometimes have allergy to some protein in milk, which can be then amended by switching to another mammal's milk.
I think all human infants are born with lactase, the enzyme to digest lactose. Then, we lose it at some point. The adaptation for dairy-adapted peoples is to NOT lose the lactase after infancy.
Not only are there various reasons why a car broke down, it also often isn’t the same reason when it happens again. Meaning an approach you find that works for you today, may not be the one to use next year. That’s why imho we should work towards finding diagnostic parameters that indicate this in a dependable manner, rather than having to play Wheel of Fortune repeatedly so see if we can find something that works by mere chance (or elimination).
It might well be that alternating herp and derp will provide an optimal effect, but that’s not something any of those ‘the x diet is the best’ ever offers as a possibility. Instead they often propagate the opposite, stick to it like a monk to his faith or you too shall be damned (“dirty” keto rings a bell)? While that makes so little sense from the perspective of tweaking a self regulating system, where by design it will try to cope with the circumstances rather than throw its hands in the air and say “all right you got me, take everything you want”. Wasn’t it Einstein that said something like “the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?”. I think we might add expecting the *same* results to that as well.
I agree that it'd be cool to find the actual mechanisms, but I think experimentation is a better way of finding them than anything else. If you lost 100lbs doing X, that's a really good hint and you can look for mechanisms there. If it stops working, you can say "Ok, my assumptions of why X worked were wrong, was there overlap, maybe with Y?"
But if we wait until Science (tm) has figured this all out, we'll probably wait another 100 years or more.
But that's the thing, X might have worked fine and your assumptions might have been correct all along. It's just that you can't expect X to work in all cases and contexts, and the fact that you've changed, thanks to X working, changed your case and context from then on out. That's why in medicine a treatment is generally considered a temporary measure to alleviate a specific condition. Not a lifestyle change to permanently adhere to. So say you're overweight, you go on some diet, you lose a lot of weight, you then might have to prepare to change to a different or at least tweaked diet to manage the different circumstances. Now people tend to stay in the same regimen regardless of their change (or worse, exactly because they changed) and then find out it doesn't keep working, then they rebound or get into other issues. Basically it's not anticipatory and it isn't handled as an interventional measure. Thus you get stories like 'I tried keto/carnivore/IF and lost a looot of weight but then it stopped working', no it didn't stop working you continued using something after it has done its job. Wearing a cast longer than it takes to heal your broken arm won't help you make it stronger.
So I'm not saying we should first find the actual mechanisms, what I'm saying is that there should be a feedback loop that alters the approach, preferably with more than just simple factors like continuous weight loss. As you want to have a clear view on how the system is functioning (reading diagnostic data from the car engine) rather than simply observing if it hasn't stopped working yet (the car broke down). That's long before science has figured it all out, we might as well find better indicators that help us tweak the system before knowing the exact workings. Top of my mind I would at least consider using full blood lipid panel, glucose tolerance test, fasting glucose + insulin and dexa scan. I would see it as much more tailored and productive than just trying to eat just potatoes or ex150 or carnivore and see what it brings. Emphasis on 'just', as my point is not that either of those wouldn't work fine as a treatment, but that it should be coordinated from the feedback review loop.
Oh, yea, I basically agree. And I am using full blood panel + glucose (wearing a CGM right now) + dexa scans. I tried doing a glucose tolerance test but they wouldn't let me take it without an Rx haha and now with the CGM the point is kind of moot..
I think it depends a lot on the mechanism. E.g. if you break your leg, they put you on a cast and crutches, but after it's all healed up, those stop being useful and become detrimental.
But there are conditions (as opposed to, say, "diseases" or "accidents?" not sure what the medical terminology is exactly) that are permanent.
E.g. if you have celiac, you'll probably have to make a permanent "lifestyle change."
If you have type 1 diabetes, you'll probably have to inject insulin for the rest of your life.
If you have type 2 diabetes and you push it so far that your pancreas gives up, you have pushed yourself into that same boat.
So it would depend on the root cause of an individual's obesity. E.g. I'm very open to the idea that I will get to a healthy weight I'm happy with, and then I can eat whatever and don't have to do any keto or anything any more.
But I'm not holding my breath.
My Non24 specifically is almost certainly a permanent condition, and so, unless I find that keto is just a corollary, I'll probably largely keep doing keto for the rest of my life.
Ex150 specifically is designed as an intervention diet. I don't intend to keep eating like this for the rest of my life, although, honestly, it's not that bad. I'd probably try to find a balance of eating more protein and adding more variety. If I can do that without gaining the weight back, perfect.
Overall I agree with your point that there should be a feedback loop, and maybe even an anticipatory component.
How would the decision tree work if I’ve only ever lost large amounts of weight on CICO/calorie restriction? Especially if I’ve been able to largely keep the weight off after the fact?
The first fat loss that worked was chicken, green beans, cauliflower, and rarely fruit for 6 months (high protein, near-zero carb, near-zero fat) at 900-1100 kcal/day. Exercised 4-5 days/week. Lost 70lbs. Ruined my health.
The second fat loss that worked was 2 months ago, exclusively chicken for 1.5 months (high protein, zero carb, near-zero fat) at 1600 kcal/day. Exercised 3 days/month. Lost 20lbs. Messed up my energy levels.
Both fat losses normalized and were largely maintained (TBD on recent fat loss, but maintaining new lower weight so far). The second fat loss was required due to an acute fat gain of 15lbs due to acutely very high calorie processed foods, not due to a creeping return to a higher bodyfat.
That said, I have never lost weight consuming at or near my TDEE on any of the various non-CICO diets I’ve tried, whether it was low fodmap, high-carb meat-based (carbs from organic fruit), high-fat meat-based (fat from tallow or egg yolks) or otherwise. Eating at or around my TDEE has always meant maintaining weight.
Not asking from the perspective of advocating CICO. I badly want it not to be that reductionist. But only calorie restriction has worked for me, macros aside. So long as I’m below my TDEE by >200-300 calories/day, I’ve seen rapid weight loss.
Could very well be that "regular ol' CICO" is a viable strategy for some. It does seem to be the only strategy for already-lean people who want to be bodybuilder thin.
Also seems like all your CICO successes have been high protein/low everything else? So maybe that's one lever for you? I probably have the opposite lever, but that's why it's slightly complicated.
Although from what it sounds like you didn't gain the weight back immediately, but stabilized. So that's good, but you seem to have suffered significant other effects from what sounds like colloquially a "ruined metabolism."
If I were you (unless you're now 100% happy with your diet/weight) I'd keep experimenting in a direction that seems to have worked partially (high protein, low rest), but try to find a combination that doesn't have the side effects.
> Could very well be that "regular ol' CICO" is a viable strategy for some. It does seem to be the only strategy for already-lean people who want to be bodybuilder thin.
Yep. In my case, the aim is to avoid being skinny fat.
> you seem to have suffered significant other effects from what sounds like colloquially a "ruined metabolism."
Spot on—felt and feels that way
> while you lost fat, it caused significant issues. This probably wouldn't quite fit into my definition of "diet success"
Agree strongly with your framing of "diet success". Well-written article!
> I'd keep experimenting in a direction that seems to have worked partially (high protein, low rest), but try to find a combination that doesn't have the side effects.
I would do that again, but since this latest fat loss, I've added tallow and fruit back, and I really don't want to give them back up—in fact I'd like to somehow get past my dairy intolerance and have raw milk/cream.
Given I agree with your concept of "diet success," protein-only doesn't feel like a sustainable diet long term even at above-TDEE levels. And/or whether it is in fact sustainable, I don't want it sustain it, because I feel more energy when eating fruits and fats. Restricting fats, carbs, and/or calories is a huge drag.
Interesting that you're so into tallow and fruit specifically :) Do you just cook the tallow, or how do you consume it? I am only able to use a tiny amount, basically to cook my meat in. Eating it on its own instantly gives me fat blergh feel after just one teaspoon, lol.
Occasionally cook with tallow if cooking chicken. Mainly eat raw beef though. So generally eat tallow with a spoon. if you have zero fat for a while it tastes like gold ;)
This is not radically different than how many psych pharmaceuticals are prescribed! You try drug 1 for a few weeks, see if it works and if you can tolerate the side effects - if you can't, you ask your doc for drug 2 and repeat until you find one that does. Ideally yes, we'd have a better theory of how it all works and just skip right to drug 13 for you and it magically works best, but we aren't there yet.
Yea. I think this is a more accepted way of doing things when your field is honest about "this stuff is way too complex for us to reason our way through." Medicine in general seems to be a lot of throwing poop at the wall and seeing what sticks - lots of drugs are tested for one thing, and it's found to do something else (too).
Great article. I've come to very similar conclusions after reading A LOT of RCTs. I call the approach n=Dave ... because who really cares what worked for 8/10 subjects, I'm trying to figure out what works for Dave.
I like your GIGO analogy. I wonder if the analogy to a fever would make more sense to the medical & wellness communities. Elevated body temperature can be a problem in and of itself, but we don't know whether it's a problem or how to manage it until we understand what is causing the elevated temperature. I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure you've gotten the point. Oh, and thank you, because this has given me a new discussion point wrt elevated weight.
Gradually becoming aware of how complicatedly homeostatic the human metabolism is, and how unaligned with our goals it is has been shocking for me in a way that has a kind of harsh beauty to it. E.g. understanding how our nearest relatives among the animals can lie around and eat fruit all day and effortlessly maintain frightening (tear-your-arm-off) amounts of muscle gives a person a "being human is so very strange and also I feel like we chose the wrong evolutionary path -- I hope the tragic beauty is worth it".
Reading Pontzer's "Burn" was eye-opening as well, and perversely increased my desire to exercise.
Despite him claiming that exercise won't actually do anything to help you? Haha ;)
Don't forget that almost all the animals who eat copious amounts of fiber (e.g. gorillas) don't actually digest fiber. They have gut bacteria that turns the fiber into fatty acids. So they all live on a very high fat diet. It seems chimpanzees eat about 20% of their diet from leaves, which would indicate a pretty decent percentage of calories from fatty acids, depending on how efficient these bacteria are.
Heh, I remember him saying it won't help -you-. It's necessary for me not to gain weight, but it can't help you lose it. But the real frustration is that I have to work out in order not to lose strength, unlike chimps.
The exercise-is-good-tho part, which matches my observations, is that not exercising allows one's metabolism to shunt the energy saved somewhere else -- stress, inflammatory responses, or whatever.
I like the car analogy (though I personally don't drive). Also, there must be something morally wrong with your car or it's just lazy. You were lying about how much gas you put in. Or it's societies expectations and social conditioning that a car should be running that are the problem, stop oppressing the car by trying to force it to adhere to your standards of functionality.
It's unfortunate that there is little interest into research on behavioral tools and diet approaches, all the money is in pharmaceutical drugs and getting the government to fund anything is just not worth it. I like that there is a national weight control registry. I think we need more citizen research, technology seems to make this a lot easier over time and I have hopes that biosensors and blood tests become more accessible over time. While anxiety / excitement over the metrics can be a thing I still think it's a net positive.
Agreed, it seems citizen scientists are the only ones actually curious. The other sides you've described well: moralizing or removal of any mechanistic/personal explanations whatsoever.
"[W]what if it’s not that simple? What if it’s just slightly complicated enough so different people will thrive on different diets, and there isn’t one that works for everybody?"
This is, quite literally, how I've defined calorie in, calorie out over the years. One has to find their own way to making it work, and adding more things like heavy cardio, long walks, lifting, etc. to dieting is the path.
For me, it was exercising more and tracking my intake with an app; as it turns out, that app is from Nutritionix (it's just called Track now, and just as janky as before).
I think the important facet of the conversation around CICO is trying to steer oneself toward communicating with people that aren't assholes. In other terms, the Universal Internet Constant.
On a side note, thanks for all of the work that you do on this blog. You've sparked two different changes in me. For one, I started tracking my intake again, and I'm already seeing small amounts of weight loss beyond water weight disappearing. For another, I'm going to try a few supplements and see how they help (or don't). I think I've been low on potassium for years and never realized it. I'm also switching my magnesium lactate to citrate to see if that helps support fat loss for me.
It very well could be. I'm trying to see if increasing how much citric acid I have available will let me burn through some of my body fat better. That's about as far as I'd gotten. So, we'll see (or, better yet, *won't* figure that out).
Me too, haha. It's difficult to draw how I think about it though. I basically keep various potential paths through it in my head, because I don't know which one is actually the correct one.
At the beginning you basically have the entire graph open, and then you slowly cut off certain paths one by one to narrow it down.
> Pro tip: if you’re lactose intolerant, don’t do a heavy cream diet.
I still do consume a lot of it at times, it's too good.🤣 Though my intolerance is better these days. It used to be extremely bad, where any dairy would set me off hard and give the runs within 30 minutes.
Fun article, though, loved the humor. 😆Also very relatable to what I have seen in various groups online. Nutrition With Judy podcast mentions this at times, how "just try harder" is not the solution for everything as well, and how it can be very detrimental at times even.
It can be tricky, because, sometimes, it IS the answer. There are certainly treshold effects. E.g. many people find that stricter keto works way better than wishy-washy low-carb for them, because they're not constantly cycling between carb and fat metabolism.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but heavy cream has a lot less lactose than regular milk, right? Obviously if you are very sensitive that isn't good enough, but just checking.
I assume so, because lactose is sugar and heavy cream has very little sugar. But it's still 15g per pint or so. I'm not sure what levels of lactose cause problems in lactose-intolerant people, and it might even be different levels for different people. But I assume at least the severely intolerant can't handle 15g of lactose in a sitting.
Yes, it's definitely different levels in different people. All of my 3 medications contain lactose, and I have to take not one, but two, Milkaid lactase tablets, for my body to handle just the lactose in those 3 tiny pills!
It disturbs me to think of all the lactose-intolerant people out there whose doctors haven't realised their patients are lactose-intolerant - especially the infants and the dementia patients, who can't necessarily communicate it. A nurse once told me that diarrhea doesn't affect medication absorption, but I don't believe that claim.
I'd assume infants are not often lactose-intolerant, as it's their main food (human milk has more of it than cow milk). They can sometimes have allergy to some protein in milk, which can be then amended by switching to another mammal's milk.
I think all human infants are born with lactase, the enzyme to digest lactose. Then, we lose it at some point. The adaptation for dairy-adapted peoples is to NOT lose the lactase after infancy.
Wow, even just for pills? I honestly have no concept of the amounts needed to trigger different people.
Thank you for a very humorous explanation.
Not only are there various reasons why a car broke down, it also often isn’t the same reason when it happens again. Meaning an approach you find that works for you today, may not be the one to use next year. That’s why imho we should work towards finding diagnostic parameters that indicate this in a dependable manner, rather than having to play Wheel of Fortune repeatedly so see if we can find something that works by mere chance (or elimination).
It might well be that alternating herp and derp will provide an optimal effect, but that’s not something any of those ‘the x diet is the best’ ever offers as a possibility. Instead they often propagate the opposite, stick to it like a monk to his faith or you too shall be damned (“dirty” keto rings a bell)? While that makes so little sense from the perspective of tweaking a self regulating system, where by design it will try to cope with the circumstances rather than throw its hands in the air and say “all right you got me, take everything you want”. Wasn’t it Einstein that said something like “the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?”. I think we might add expecting the *same* results to that as well.
I agree that it'd be cool to find the actual mechanisms, but I think experimentation is a better way of finding them than anything else. If you lost 100lbs doing X, that's a really good hint and you can look for mechanisms there. If it stops working, you can say "Ok, my assumptions of why X worked were wrong, was there overlap, maybe with Y?"
But if we wait until Science (tm) has figured this all out, we'll probably wait another 100 years or more.
But that's the thing, X might have worked fine and your assumptions might have been correct all along. It's just that you can't expect X to work in all cases and contexts, and the fact that you've changed, thanks to X working, changed your case and context from then on out. That's why in medicine a treatment is generally considered a temporary measure to alleviate a specific condition. Not a lifestyle change to permanently adhere to. So say you're overweight, you go on some diet, you lose a lot of weight, you then might have to prepare to change to a different or at least tweaked diet to manage the different circumstances. Now people tend to stay in the same regimen regardless of their change (or worse, exactly because they changed) and then find out it doesn't keep working, then they rebound or get into other issues. Basically it's not anticipatory and it isn't handled as an interventional measure. Thus you get stories like 'I tried keto/carnivore/IF and lost a looot of weight but then it stopped working', no it didn't stop working you continued using something after it has done its job. Wearing a cast longer than it takes to heal your broken arm won't help you make it stronger.
So I'm not saying we should first find the actual mechanisms, what I'm saying is that there should be a feedback loop that alters the approach, preferably with more than just simple factors like continuous weight loss. As you want to have a clear view on how the system is functioning (reading diagnostic data from the car engine) rather than simply observing if it hasn't stopped working yet (the car broke down). That's long before science has figured it all out, we might as well find better indicators that help us tweak the system before knowing the exact workings. Top of my mind I would at least consider using full blood lipid panel, glucose tolerance test, fasting glucose + insulin and dexa scan. I would see it as much more tailored and productive than just trying to eat just potatoes or ex150 or carnivore and see what it brings. Emphasis on 'just', as my point is not that either of those wouldn't work fine as a treatment, but that it should be coordinated from the feedback review loop.
Oh, yea, I basically agree. And I am using full blood panel + glucose (wearing a CGM right now) + dexa scans. I tried doing a glucose tolerance test but they wouldn't let me take it without an Rx haha and now with the CGM the point is kind of moot..
I think it depends a lot on the mechanism. E.g. if you break your leg, they put you on a cast and crutches, but after it's all healed up, those stop being useful and become detrimental.
But there are conditions (as opposed to, say, "diseases" or "accidents?" not sure what the medical terminology is exactly) that are permanent.
E.g. if you have celiac, you'll probably have to make a permanent "lifestyle change."
If you have type 1 diabetes, you'll probably have to inject insulin for the rest of your life.
If you have type 2 diabetes and you push it so far that your pancreas gives up, you have pushed yourself into that same boat.
So it would depend on the root cause of an individual's obesity. E.g. I'm very open to the idea that I will get to a healthy weight I'm happy with, and then I can eat whatever and don't have to do any keto or anything any more.
But I'm not holding my breath.
My Non24 specifically is almost certainly a permanent condition, and so, unless I find that keto is just a corollary, I'll probably largely keep doing keto for the rest of my life.
Ex150 specifically is designed as an intervention diet. I don't intend to keep eating like this for the rest of my life, although, honestly, it's not that bad. I'd probably try to find a balance of eating more protein and adding more variety. If I can do that without gaining the weight back, perfect.
Overall I agree with your point that there should be a feedback loop, and maybe even an anticipatory component.
How would the decision tree work if I’ve only ever lost large amounts of weight on CICO/calorie restriction? Especially if I’ve been able to largely keep the weight off after the fact?
The first fat loss that worked was chicken, green beans, cauliflower, and rarely fruit for 6 months (high protein, near-zero carb, near-zero fat) at 900-1100 kcal/day. Exercised 4-5 days/week. Lost 70lbs. Ruined my health.
The second fat loss that worked was 2 months ago, exclusively chicken for 1.5 months (high protein, zero carb, near-zero fat) at 1600 kcal/day. Exercised 3 days/month. Lost 20lbs. Messed up my energy levels.
Both fat losses normalized and were largely maintained (TBD on recent fat loss, but maintaining new lower weight so far). The second fat loss was required due to an acute fat gain of 15lbs due to acutely very high calorie processed foods, not due to a creeping return to a higher bodyfat.
That said, I have never lost weight consuming at or near my TDEE on any of the various non-CICO diets I’ve tried, whether it was low fodmap, high-carb meat-based (carbs from organic fruit), high-fat meat-based (fat from tallow or egg yolks) or otherwise. Eating at or around my TDEE has always meant maintaining weight.
Not asking from the perspective of advocating CICO. I badly want it not to be that reductionist. But only calorie restriction has worked for me, macros aside. So long as I’m below my TDEE by >200-300 calories/day, I’ve seen rapid weight loss.
Could very well be that "regular ol' CICO" is a viable strategy for some. It does seem to be the only strategy for already-lean people who want to be bodybuilder thin.
Also seems like all your CICO successes have been high protein/low everything else? So maybe that's one lever for you? I probably have the opposite lever, but that's why it's slightly complicated.
It also sounds like in both cases, while you lost fat, it caused significant issues. This probably wouldn't quite fit into my definition of "diet success": https://exfatloss.substack.com/p/the-definition-of-diet-success
Although from what it sounds like you didn't gain the weight back immediately, but stabilized. So that's good, but you seem to have suffered significant other effects from what sounds like colloquially a "ruined metabolism."
If I were you (unless you're now 100% happy with your diet/weight) I'd keep experimenting in a direction that seems to have worked partially (high protein, low rest), but try to find a combination that doesn't have the side effects.
Thanks for the thorough response Ex
> Could very well be that "regular ol' CICO" is a viable strategy for some. It does seem to be the only strategy for already-lean people who want to be bodybuilder thin.
Yep. In my case, the aim is to avoid being skinny fat.
> you seem to have suffered significant other effects from what sounds like colloquially a "ruined metabolism."
Spot on—felt and feels that way
> while you lost fat, it caused significant issues. This probably wouldn't quite fit into my definition of "diet success"
Agree strongly with your framing of "diet success". Well-written article!
> I'd keep experimenting in a direction that seems to have worked partially (high protein, low rest), but try to find a combination that doesn't have the side effects.
I would do that again, but since this latest fat loss, I've added tallow and fruit back, and I really don't want to give them back up—in fact I'd like to somehow get past my dairy intolerance and have raw milk/cream.
Given I agree with your concept of "diet success," protein-only doesn't feel like a sustainable diet long term even at above-TDEE levels. And/or whether it is in fact sustainable, I don't want it sustain it, because I feel more energy when eating fruits and fats. Restricting fats, carbs, and/or calories is a huge drag.
Interesting that you're so into tallow and fruit specifically :) Do you just cook the tallow, or how do you consume it? I am only able to use a tiny amount, basically to cook my meat in. Eating it on its own instantly gives me fat blergh feel after just one teaspoon, lol.
Occasionally cook with tallow if cooking chicken. Mainly eat raw beef though. So generally eat tallow with a spoon. if you have zero fat for a while it tastes like gold ;)
Ha, wow. You're a greater man than I ;)
To that I say keep up the good work! I await drinking cream
This is not radically different than how many psych pharmaceuticals are prescribed! You try drug 1 for a few weeks, see if it works and if you can tolerate the side effects - if you can't, you ask your doc for drug 2 and repeat until you find one that does. Ideally yes, we'd have a better theory of how it all works and just skip right to drug 13 for you and it magically works best, but we aren't there yet.
Yea. I think this is a more accepted way of doing things when your field is honest about "this stuff is way too complex for us to reason our way through." Medicine in general seems to be a lot of throwing poop at the wall and seeing what sticks - lots of drugs are tested for one thing, and it's found to do something else (too).
Great article. I've come to very similar conclusions after reading A LOT of RCTs. I call the approach n=Dave ... because who really cares what worked for 8/10 subjects, I'm trying to figure out what works for Dave.
Exactly. Godspeed to all those who can lose weight by eating less and going for runs. I'm not them.
I like your GIGO analogy. I wonder if the analogy to a fever would make more sense to the medical & wellness communities. Elevated body temperature can be a problem in and of itself, but we don't know whether it's a problem or how to manage it until we understand what is causing the elevated temperature. I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure you've gotten the point. Oh, and thank you, because this has given me a new discussion point wrt elevated weight.
A very similar point was made recently by Slime Mold Time Mold:
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2023/04/14/n1-symptom-vs-syndrome/
Gradually becoming aware of how complicatedly homeostatic the human metabolism is, and how unaligned with our goals it is has been shocking for me in a way that has a kind of harsh beauty to it. E.g. understanding how our nearest relatives among the animals can lie around and eat fruit all day and effortlessly maintain frightening (tear-your-arm-off) amounts of muscle gives a person a "being human is so very strange and also I feel like we chose the wrong evolutionary path -- I hope the tragic beauty is worth it".
Reading Pontzer's "Burn" was eye-opening as well, and perversely increased my desire to exercise.
Despite him claiming that exercise won't actually do anything to help you? Haha ;)
Don't forget that almost all the animals who eat copious amounts of fiber (e.g. gorillas) don't actually digest fiber. They have gut bacteria that turns the fiber into fatty acids. So they all live on a very high fat diet. It seems chimpanzees eat about 20% of their diet from leaves, which would indicate a pretty decent percentage of calories from fatty acids, depending on how efficient these bacteria are.
Heh, I remember him saying it won't help -you-. It's necessary for me not to gain weight, but it can't help you lose it. But the real frustration is that I have to work out in order not to lose strength, unlike chimps.
The exercise-is-good-tho part, which matches my observations, is that not exercising allows one's metabolism to shunt the energy saved somewhere else -- stress, inflammatory responses, or whatever.
I love your complaint about randomized control trials and quoted it in a footnote to an article I posted the same day:
https://theotherendofthegalaxy.substack.com/publish/post/117996251#footnote-anchor-2
Thanks!
I like the car analogy (though I personally don't drive). Also, there must be something morally wrong with your car or it's just lazy. You were lying about how much gas you put in. Or it's societies expectations and social conditioning that a car should be running that are the problem, stop oppressing the car by trying to force it to adhere to your standards of functionality.
It's unfortunate that there is little interest into research on behavioral tools and diet approaches, all the money is in pharmaceutical drugs and getting the government to fund anything is just not worth it. I like that there is a national weight control registry. I think we need more citizen research, technology seems to make this a lot easier over time and I have hopes that biosensors and blood tests become more accessible over time. While anxiety / excitement over the metrics can be a thing I still think it's a net positive.
Agreed, it seems citizen scientists are the only ones actually curious. The other sides you've described well: moralizing or removal of any mechanistic/personal explanations whatsoever.
"The evil food companies made me do it!"
"[W]what if it’s not that simple? What if it’s just slightly complicated enough so different people will thrive on different diets, and there isn’t one that works for everybody?"
This is, quite literally, how I've defined calorie in, calorie out over the years. One has to find their own way to making it work, and adding more things like heavy cardio, long walks, lifting, etc. to dieting is the path.
For me, it was exercising more and tracking my intake with an app; as it turns out, that app is from Nutritionix (it's just called Track now, and just as janky as before).
I think the important facet of the conversation around CICO is trying to steer oneself toward communicating with people that aren't assholes. In other terms, the Universal Internet Constant.
On a side note, thanks for all of the work that you do on this blog. You've sparked two different changes in me. For one, I started tracking my intake again, and I'm already seeing small amounts of weight loss beyond water weight disappearing. For another, I'm going to try a few supplements and see how they help (or don't). I think I've been low on potassium for years and never realized it. I'm also switching my magnesium lactate to citrate to see if that helps support fat loss for me.
So, thank you.
Isn't magnesium citrate the one that gives people the runs? Not sure now but I'd read up on the different types.
It very well could be. I'm trying to see if increasing how much citric acid I have available will let me burn through some of my body fat better. That's about as far as I'd gotten. So, we'll see (or, better yet, *won't* figure that out).
I think about this algorithm/choice diagram a lot
Me too, haha. It's difficult to draw how I think about it though. I basically keep various potential paths through it in my head, because I don't know which one is actually the correct one.
At the beginning you basically have the entire graph open, and then you slowly cut off certain paths one by one to narrow it down.