You can scream until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't contradict massive amounts of data and research done by people that have actual training in human physiology.

You, as one person, are just one data point. And that's not how science works. It isn't, and never will be.

IDGAF what you believe, you can believe your farts are magic and grant wishes for all that. But it doesn't matter when it comes to reproducible data. And it is reproducible. The research on it all has been covered in multiple ways by multiple studies.

So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Nah, I get it. Not screaming or whatever either. You are correct that human physiology is complicated. There are indeed many factors that go into nutrient absorbsion, etc. However, no one that has stopped eating for a significant amount of time stays fat. Not eating isn't comfortable. The constant dopamine hit of always putting something into your mouth and having your taste buds light up your brain is super addicting. Feeling hunger is uncomfortable. No one denies any of this. But ultimately, it is up to you, what you choose to put into your mouth and what level of activity to perform to expend energy. If you need psychological help and coaching (think life style changes, CBT, etc), I'm 100% in support. But the responsibility for being fat is on the person for the vast majority of the cases. Modern, car-focused society is not very supportive of fitness endeavors. Weaponized food science (high calorie, low nutrient shit designed to addict you) and weaponized psychology (I bet you can sing at least three jingles for some company if you live in the US) is not supportive of healthy diets.

The research and me are both correct. You can have metabolism issues and still be responsible for your fatness. Thermodynamics ultimately decides your fatness. Without a source of surplus calories, you will lose weight, period. If you don't, it is a measurement error or some adjustment in metabolic output estimation needs to be made. And if you've somehow magically measured, perfect, all of your input and output and are still not losing weight, get yourself a Nobel for perpetual motion. You just broke physics.

[–] secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

brutal but accurate

[–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 4 days ago

To be clear, i'm asking a very specific question about a very specific statement.

when you say :

So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

Are you claiming that basic CICO, which is peer reviewed science has "nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism."

or was that just poor phrasing ?

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There is variability in the human metabolism, for sure, but CICO is thermodynamics. There's not a person on the planet who can gain weight without eating.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago

The extent to which the CI is absorbed and utilized can vary to some degree. That seems to be the point. Physics doesn't stop at a catchy saying.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yet another person missing the entire fucking point.

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My point is that all these factors are real, and they do tip the scale, but at the end of the day, how much you eat determines whether you gain or lose weight.

I'm not saying other factors can't make a significant difference. (genetics and epigenetics play a role.) I'm also not saying that it's easy. (food, especially fast food can light up people's brains in a way that mirrors drug addiction.)

But if you eat less while burning the same number of calories, you WILL lose weight. That's not an opinion, it's a law of physics.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I hate to agree with southsamurai, they downvote nearly every post i make, but... they have some truth here.

https://hackertalks.com/post/4875937/5471544

If you want to lose 1 lb in a month, or gain 1 lb, you need to consume or burn 3,500 calories. Or 116 calories a day. Or 38 calories per meal… Easy right? … In the US, calorie estimates are allowed to be off by as much as 25%, and that’s just packaged food, forget any restaurant or line cook being exactly precise with portions… So for 2,500 average daily diet, over three meals, the margin of error is 208 calories. Your target is 38 calories. You’re trying to do something within the margin of error of all of your estimates. Calorie counting is a very difficult game to do! The deck is stacked against you. This is why it’s important to allow the homeostasis machinery in your body to handle all of this through satiation. It’s going to do the right thing if you let it

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This is not in support at all. In fact, it further supports moonlight's and others' position. You cannot escape physics. That the numbers on the back of cereal box lie to you is not a get-out-responsibility card. You adjust your intake until you start losing. It is stupid simple. You body is a PID controller. And you need you learn how to operate it.

Does it make it more difficult to accomplish goal? Yep. Does it prevent you from actually doing it? Nah.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 4 days ago

The thermodynamics doesn't change, its true.

But the body is an amazing homeostasis machine, letting the body function properly will let it self regulate with all of its internal feedback loops.