How to really lose weight? Energy balance vs hormones - Dr Jason Fung vs Lyle McDonald

[everythingmatters]

In the past I fell into the meme of counting calories, and my conclusion is that it is not healthy either physically, mentally or socially. I have to say that I actually managed to lose weight but as soon as I stopped that horrible regimen, impossible to carry in the long term, I gained weight like never before and I have not been able to get slim again since then.

Until a few days ago, I still believed that energy balance was the most important thing to lose weight but that you simply had to eat a little less intuitively (not counting calories) and exercise. But just yesterday I discovered Dr. Jason Fung and he totally changed my paradigm. So now I am aware that hormones (especially insulin) play an important role in weight loss.

However, I know perfectly well that the internet gurus who defend the theory of energy balance (people like Lyle McDonald) deny the influence of insulin on obesity or weight loss, and they want to justify everything with the equation of the energetic balance.

Also, normies and lowiqcels will defend the theory of energy balance because it is what sounds the most logical in their minds and the least complicated answer.

I still need to do a lot of research, and I don't like to think in black and white, but my common sense tells me that Dr. Jason Fung is right and that Lyle McDonald could be a bookseller charlatan; or probably the truth is a combination of both theories.

What you think? I would like to hear opinions especially from people who understand the topic of hormones and not only say "eat less calories = lose weight"

 

[everythingmatters]

@Seth Walsh

 

[everythingmatters]

up

 

[everythingmatters]

up

 

[Entschuldigung]

0

 

[everythingmatters]

up

 

[ChangeOfHeart]

At the end of the day it's CICO. Bodybuilders cut their carbs before shows to look more shredded, but that is it. When people fast, they lose weight because they aren't taking in any calories, has fuck all to do with hormones. You can eat fast food for a month, and still lose weight provided energy is in check. I have lost 40 pounds purely with CICO

 

[everythingmatters]

At the end of the day it's CICO. Bodybuilders cut their carbs before shows to look more shredded, but that is it. When people fast, they lose weight because they aren't taking in any calories, has fuck all to do with hormones. You can eat fast food for a month, and still lose weight provided energy is in check. I have lost 40 pounds purely with CICO

Things are not as easy as saying it's all about CICO.

The explanations of things 99% of the time are unfortunately complex things.

It's like the subject of haircare, people want to believe that haircare is as simple as just stopping using shampoo and things like porsity, elasticity, hair type, hydration, moisture, scalp type, etc. do not matter when it comes to taking care of our hair.

Basically the same thing happens with weight loss.

That said, I am not saying that if you eat less, you do not lose weight, and I believe that you have lost weight by counting calories (I also did it in the past). But things are not so easy or black and white.

I have been trying to lose weight for a couple of months, using the principle of energy balance, and it is physical and mental torture. In addition, I have realized that by eating less food, my body tends to be more passive, which in the end is reduced to less caloric expenditure and therefore not to lose weight or lose very little.

I am thoroughly researching this subject, I am an open-minded man and I do not rule out anything yet, I listen to both versions and soon I will have a definitive conclusion to all this. But the truth is I lean more to the version of hormones.

 

[SexyMofo]

Things are not as easy as saying it's all about CICO.

The explanations of things 99% of the time are unfortunately complex things.

It's like the subject of haircare, people want to believe that haircare is as simple as just stopping using shampoo and things like porsity, elasticity, hair type, hydration, moisture, scalp type, etc. do not matter when it comes to taking care of our hair.

Basically the same thing happens with weight loss.

That said, I am not saying that if you eat less, you do not lose weight, and I believe that you have lost weight by counting calories (I also did it in the past). But things are not so easy or black and white.

I have been trying to lose weight for a couple of months, using the principle of energy balance, and it is physical and mental torture. In addition, I have realized that by eating less food, my body tends to be more passive, which in the end is reduced to less caloric expenditure and therefore not to lose weight or lose very little.

I am thoroughly researching this subject, I am an open-minded man and I do not rule out anything yet, I listen to both versions and soon I will have a definitive conclusion to all this. But the truth is I lean more to the version of hormones.

Obviously theres tons of factors at play with weightloss but I found, at least for me, the easiest and fastest way was to just eat very little and only drink water while also cutting fast food.

I don't count calories but I eat roughly 1000cal-1300cal daily. I've lost 35 pounds since mid august and have a slow af metabolism. Mostly sitting on my ass too.

I've been on my feet more and am losing more rapidly.

The best thing imo is just to not overcomplicate it.

 

[everythingmatters]

Obviously theres tons of factors at play with weightloss but I found, at least for me, the easiest and fastest way was to just eat very little and only drink water while also cutting fast food.

I don't count calories but I eat roughly 1000cal-1300cal daily. I've lost 35 pounds since mid august and have a slow af metabolism. Mostly sitting on my ass too.

I've been on my feet more and am losing more rapidly.

The best thing imo is just to not overcomplicate it.

Literally just a few days ago I thought exactly the same as you. I came to the same conclusion as you.

I have counted calories in the past. I have a good idea of all that that entails, I know my basal caloric expenditure, my NEAT, etc. I have a good idea of calories from food, exercise, etc. But even so I have not lost almost weight in the last few months, I practically stay the same and that I have been hungry and I have exercised.

I think the reason for this is because by eating less, I also remain more passive unconsciously, at the end of the day I do not lose weight. I would have to literally torture myself by eating almost nothing and exercising a lot to lose weight. Do you really think this is the smart thing to do in my case? Or less understand how the hormones in my body work and feed myself as my body asks me to in order to have the hormones in my favor and lose weight without torture.

Look for and listen to Dr Jason Fung, believe me, he will present you the other side of the coin that the gurus of youtube have not told you. Listen to both versions and form your own opinion. YOU DON'T GET ONLY ONE VERSION OF THE FACTS.

 

[everythingmatters]

Obviously theres tons of factors at play with weightloss but I found, at least for me, the easiest and fastest way was to just eat very little and only drink water while also cutting fast food.

I don't count calories but I eat roughly 1000cal-1300cal daily. I've lost 35 pounds since mid august and have a slow af metabolism. Mostly sitting on my ass too.

I've been on my feet more and am losing more rapidly.

The best thing imo is just to not overcomplicate it.

I still think keeping things simple is best. Do not complicate things. But like I said above, the explanation of things 99% of the time is complex.

 

[Gaia262]

In the past I fell into the meme of counting calories, and my conclusion is that it is not healthy either physically, mentally or socially. I have to say that I actually managed to lose weight but as soon as I stopped that horrible regimen, impossible to carry in the long term, I gained weight like never before and I have not been able to get slim again since then.

Until a few days ago, I still believed that energy balance was the most important thing to lose weight but that you simply had to eat a little less intuitively (not counting calories) and exercise. But just yesterday I discovered Dr. Jason Fung and he totally changed my paradigm. So now I am aware that hormones (especially insulin) play an important role in weight loss.

However, I know perfectly well that the internet gurus who defend the theory of energy balance (people like Lyle McDonald) deny the influence of insulin on obesity or weight loss, and they want to justify everything with the equation of the energetic balance.

Also, normies and lowiqcels will defend the theory of energy balance because it is what sounds the most logical in their minds and the least complicated answer.

I still need to do a lot of research, and I don't like to think in black and white, but my common sense tells me that Dr. Jason Fung is right and that Lyle McDonald could be a bookseller charlatan; or probably the truth is a combination of both theories.

What you think? I would like to hear opinions especially from people who understand the topic of hormones and not only say "eat less calories = lose weight"

Bro you wont win on this forum. It has not evolved beyond counting calories.

Yet they are understand that taking steroids and other hormones literally effects how your body partitions food in favour of muscle gain and amplifies fat loss. The only difference hormones were changed.

Focus on one meal a day for 2 months and see for yourself.

 

[everythingmatters]

sorry bro it's thermodynamics, at the ens it's CICO, I used to think like you, I diminished my carbs and sugar intake and all that bs, I couldn't sustain it, now I just CICO, eat whatever I want and lose more fat than before

Thanks for commenting bro.

But from what little I know now, it is not about cutting carbs literally zero (Dr. Jason himself says it in an article I read).

People always go to extremes. That is what makes some things not work as they should.

Any regime that is extreme and unsustainable in the long term will fail sooner or later. Either cutting carbs to zero, counting calories to millimeters, etc.

There are other things at stake, it is not as simple as just giving up carbohydrates.

I am informing myself about it every day, soon I will have more information to refine my point of view.

 

[everythingmatters]

Bro you wont win on this forum. It has not evolved beyond counting calories.

Yet they are understand that taking steroids and other hormones literally effects how your body partitions food in favour of muscle gain and amplifies fat loss. The only difference hormones were changed.

Focus on one meal a day for 2 months and see for yourself.

Haha 100% agree and I will.

 

[ChangeOfHeart]

Bro you wont win on this forum. It has not evolved beyond counting calories.

Yet they are understand that taking steroids and other hormones literally effects how your body partitions food in favour of muscle gain and amplifies fat loss. The only difference hormones were changed.

Focus on one meal a day for 2 months and see for yourself.

CICO is literally all you need though. Whatever you eat right now, eat a little less, and you will lose weight. OMAD is another form of CICO

 

[everythingmatters]

CICO is literally all you need though. Whatever you eat right now, eat a little less, and you will lose weight. OMAD is another form of CICO

OMAD is not the same as CICO nor does it have the same objective. This is the main problem, people interpret things as they want. The goal of OMAD is in fact to control your hormonal environment (to prevent insulin from firing at random times during the day) to lose weight. Only that people misunderstand it and think it is to eat fewer calories without starving.

 

[everythingmatters]

CICO is literally all you need though. Whatever you eat right now, eat a little less, and you will lose weight. OMAD is another form of CICO

Imagine these two scenarios:

1. You torture your body and mind by eating 1500 kcal a day to force your body to lose weight.

2. You eat until you are satisfied by listening to your body and common sense (hunger is controlled by hormones, specifically leptin) and you lose weight thanks to the fact that you have a hormonal environment that does that work for you.


Which prefer? Keep in mind that scenario 2 could eat more kcal than scenario 1, only the kcals do not matter because you are listening to your body and your hormones are healthy.

 

[brainded]

Imagine these two scenarios:

1. You torture your body and mind by eating 1500 kcal a day to force your body to lose weight.

2. You eat until you are satisfied by listening to your body and common sense (hunger is controlled by hormones, specifically leptin) and you lose weight thanks to the fact that you have a hormonal environment that does that work for you.


Which prefer? Keep in mind that scenario 2 could eat more kcal than scenario 1, only the kcals do not matter because you are listening to your body and your hormones are healthy.

Difference is that 1 actually gets you results.

 

[everythingmatters]

CICO is literally all you need though. Whatever you eat right now, eat a little less, and you will lose weight. OMAD is another form of CICO

In other words:

You have a lock and you have two ways to open it:

1. You use some tool to break it and force it open.

2. You use the key and just open it.

Which option do you choose?

 

[everythingmatters]

Difference is that 1 actually gets you results.

Check this thread

https://looksmax.org/threads/6-months-of-weight-loss-20kg-44lbs-and-mewing.213390/

@Gaia262 is right, this forum is a basket case.

 

[brainded]

Check this thread

https://looksmax.org/threads/6-months-of-weight-loss-20kg-44lbs-and-mewing.213390/

@Gaia262 is right, this forum is a basket case.

Im not discounting alternatives to CICO but in my personal experience as well as looking at other peoples experience CICO is the way to go for losing weight. If you believe that the alternative is better than by all means make a high IQ thread on it and convince people otherwise.

 

[everythingmatters]

Im not discounting alternatives to CICO but in my personal experience as well as looking at other peoples experience CICO is the way to go for losing weight. If you believe that the alternative is better than by all means make a high IQ thread on it and convince people otherwise.

LOL, I don't have to convince people on this forum. I just wanted feedback from people who knew about it.

At no point did I say that CICO will not work (in fact if you read my main post I said to use that method and I lost weight, in fact it was the slimmest I ever was).

But JFL at torturing yourself starving and normies to see you as a madman obsessed with weighing your food. Instead of understanding how your body works and having the hormones do the work for you while you lead a normal life.

 

[PYT]

so you're advocating for something you haven't eben tried our yourself

jfl

 

[Deleted member 2632]

Fasting is the sercet to lose weight

If you dont eat anything you LOSE WEIGHT

 

[everythingmatters]

so you're advocating for something you haven't eben tried our yourself

I am not advocating anything. This post was opened to discuss and debating about it. Read the main post.

Where do you see that it says it is a guide? The label of the post is DISCUSSION not GUIDE.

In addition, what I am talking about it is not a method, it is rather an understanding of how the human body really works when it comes to weight loss.

 

[Deleted member 4209]

meta-analysis of the topic found cico is more or less accurate

Obesity Energetics: Body Weight Regulation and the Effects of Diet Composition

Weight changes are accompanied by imbalances between calorie intake and expenditure. This fact is often misinterpreted to suggest that obesity is caused by gluttony and sloth and can be treated by simply advising people to eat less and move more. However, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Figure 2A shows the daily energy expenditure differences between isocaloric diets with equal protein but differing in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat. The pooled weighted mean difference in energy expenditure was 26 kcal/d (P <.0001) greater with lower fat diets. Figure 2B shows differences in the rate of body fat change between diets with the pooled weighted mean difference of 16 g/d (P <.0001) greater body fat loss in favor of the lower fat diets. These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat.

 

[Deleted member 4209]

but i agree long term ur not going to eat 1500 cals forever or eat 1500 to get shredded then magically stay that way. it has to be a lifestyle change.

 

[everythingmatters]

Fasting is the sercet to lose weight

If you dont eat anything you LOSE WEIGHT

The conclusion that I am coming to is that fasting is a FUNDAMENTAL and immovable pillar of weight loss.

But fasting is not the explanation, the explanation is the hormones. And the point of fasting is not to eat fewer calories as the dumb fitness gurus tell us.

As I say, I still have to investigate more but without a doubt I have found the heart of the matter.

 

[livelaughlooksmax]

Traditional CICO and no carb control produces low quality weightloss. Without addressing the hormone equation, the high insulin telltale fat distribution (for males, chest, nipples, abdomen) remains or takes fat too long to lose and is first to come back when the unsustainable lifestyle of being sub 10% is discontinued. Hormones regulate the metabolism and dictate where on the body fat is stored. Trenbolone is an extreme example of the importance of optimal hormones where the user's metabolism increases significantly and fat deposits due to previously poor hormones melt away. Attaining a sexually dimorphic body is not a muscle question, rather it is the way the body stores fat - determined by hormones. Simply put, men with good hormones gain muscle effortlessly and are naturally sub 12%. Eating excess calories goes to building more muscle and storing glycogen. For them, to put on lots of bodyfat it would take an absurd amount calories, compared to some genetic disgrace with ruined insulin sensitivity and low testosterone who would get fat on fucking 1500 calories.

BTW all of this is purely intuitive, I've never had to research or deeply think about this opinion. If you asked me when I was 15 I would have given the same answer. Glad to see more research and empirical evidence established lately. It's absolutely over for those who disagree with the hormone theory to weightloss, and its also over for those who needed extensive research and input from professionals like Dr. Fung to arrive at the hormone conclusion.

 

[everythingmatters]

Traditional CICO and no carb control produces low quality weightloss. Without addressing the hormone equation, the high insulin telltale fat distribution (for males, chest, nipples, abdomen) remains or takes far longer to lose and is first to come back when the unsustainable lifestyle of being sub 10% is discontinued. Hormones regulate the metabolism and dictate where on the body fat is stored. Trenbolone is an extreme example of the importance of optimal hormones where the user's metabolism increases significantly and fat deposits due to previously poor hormones melt away. Attaining a sexually dimorphic body is not a muscle question, rather it is the way the body stores fat - determined by hormones. Simply put, men with good hormones gain muscle effortlessly and are naturally sub 12%. Eating excess calories goes to building more muscle and storing glycogen. For them, to put on lots of bodyfat it would take an absurd amount calories, compared to some genetic disgrace with ruined insulin sensitivity and low testosterone who would get fat on fucking 1500 calories.

BTW all of this is purely intuitive, I've never had to research or deeply think about this opinion. If you asked me when I was 15 I would have given the same answer. Glad to see more research and empirical evidence established lately. It's absolutely over for those who disagree with the hormone theory to weightloss, and its also over for those who needed extensive research and input from professionals like Dr. Fung to arrive at the hormone conclusion.

Brutal your comment, you are a very intelligent and knowledgeable guy. In fact everything you said is 100% correct and I know it because I just read everything you say a few hours ago.

I have a question, if hormones regulate the loss and gain of fat, why is it that CICO sometimes works?

 

[livelaughlooksmax]

Brutal your comment, you are a very intelligent and knowledgeable guy. In fact everything you said is 100% correct and I know it because I just read everything you say a few hours ago.

I have a question, if hormones regulate the loss and gain of fat, why is it that CICO sometimes works?

CICO works up to around 15-20% bodyfat for individuals with cooked insulin sensitivity and other poor hormones. For them to attain sub 12% levels on CICO they would need to be ridiculously diligent in dieting with constant strategic refeeds etc so their metabolism doesnt stop, as well as hardcore training regimes and many months of hard work. All of it not necessary in those volumes if they addressed their hormones with the methods Dr. Fung talks about.

 

[everythingmatters]

CICO works up to around 15-20% bodyfat for individuals with cooked insulin sensitivity and other poor hormones. For them to attain sub 12% levels on CICO they would need to be ridiculously diligent in dieting with constant strategic refeeds etc so their metabolism doesnt stop, as well as hardcore training regimes and many months of hard work. All of it not necessary in those volumes if they addressed their hormones with the methods Dr. Fung talks about.

So I guess cutting and bulking is bs, what would be the correct way to gain muscle?

I guess just fixing our hormonal environment, having a healthy weight and exercising with weights? Do we really need a caloric surplus to gain muscle?