All Ozempic does is make you eat less, and viola, fats lose weight when that happens.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073715)

suppose someone argues that CICO is too simple because some calories provoke your body's fullness sensors and some (perhaps processed foods) bypass the sensors.

if that's true, it's consistent with the success of these new drugs, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073972)

Just because we've engineered foods to be calorie-dense and non-filling doesn't negate CICO.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073988)

Food, and especially sugars, should be viewed as drugs for this reason alone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074243)

although to be fair, "eat less and exercise more" was easier when addictive, calorie-dense foods weren't as common as they are now. don't blame the fats entirely, but give them the majority of the blame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073721)

Obesity is more common in poor people

> More cars per capita

Maybe. OP said it was all over-eating

> Calorie in calorie out

The conservation of energy is bedrock. And it is about as explanative for the obesity epidemic as it is for the 1970s energy crisis. You need to learn to distinguish proximate and ultimate causes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073794)

The obesity epidemic, which is new, is not explained by CICO, which has always been true.

In fact, obesity is caused by the historically novel easy availability of nutrition-dense (ie., calorie-dense), easily digestible, and highly-palatable (ie., addictive) foods. Take away any of those three things, and obesity is not as bad. Take them away during childhood, and obesity is not as bad. In the presence of all three, genetic resistance to massive weight gain has historically been the best prophylactic, with "discipline" being rarely effective for more than a 1-2 year time frame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073876)

*links you to multiple threads*

The point of this thread is extremely simple: CICO is not flame, its vey real, and ozempic makes that clear. not really interested in your or donnys jewish sophistry.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073956)

*joins debate*

what you're saying isn't particularly hard to understand. if someone is too obtuse to understand that's on them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073975)

Not a fat but that’s the obvious takeaway.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073803)

Many people react to stress by consuming dangerous substances and are literally always craving a substance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073986)

You can only achieve your goals with a true change in how you live your life, from this day to the end.

All the strength you need is inside you, bro.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074500)

Ozempic shows these people aren’t necessary overeating…they are eating until they are full just like everyone else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073887)

Smoking was really big in the '90s, and there was a huge (& successful) anti-smoking push in the '00s.

I really thought they'd go after obesity in the same manner, but, unfortunately, no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073949)

I've been in the weightlifting scene since my teens, so the idea of not treating food like a drug is still foreign to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49073990)

I'm not sure how this is "disproved" by the fact that you can your body more in line with its natural chemical state by injecting Gila Monster venom into your stomach.

Moreover, it looks like one big way it works is it physically keeps food in your stomach for longer - which again, suggests (i) hunger is not simply a mental test but has a physical component as well and (ii) the physical component is influenced heavily by hormones.

So I'd challenge the OP, if Gila Monster venom can keep food in your stomach for longer, isn't it possible that food dyes/microplastics/chemical sweeteners/background radiation could have the reverse effect?

My point has always been people started getting super fat in the late 90s early 2000s with super sized McDonald's meals. People don't really eat that stuff anymore, plus more people are exercising than ever, yet (until Ozempic) people are still getting fatter....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074198)

People are eating out more than ever, and it's all similarly bad food. Even in grocery stores, real food is a very small part of what they sell.

"more people are exercising than ever"

I think people talk about exercising more than ever, and buy more exercising products/services. ("Look how many steps this screen said I took yesterday!")

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074210)

if you just walked around your local mainstreet you see fewer fat people than years ago. but obesity is still on the rise. bleak.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074220)

I'm adamantly against the concept of walking as exercise, but only because it should be part of everyday life, regardless of one's occupation. How can people live lives where walking is considered exercise?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074231)

but its impossible to deny CICO now, because *even if* all these other explanations have any merit, CICO is still king, none of them supersede CICO, and sticking solely with CICO is all that is necessary.

the solution to losing weight, as has now been conclusively proven with ozempic, is just eat less, as ozempic forces you to do. all these other factors dont matter if you just eat less, thats the point. CICO is still king.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074272)

If anything ozempic shows humans don’t have free will and thus you can’t attach any moral failure for obesity. What you really want to do is judge obese people for their “choices” , just like generations before you judged addicts, those with mental illness, epileptics, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074556)

it's like you're arguing medicine is stupid because we're mortal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074561)

I think xoxo has always been on board with the "eat less, move more" movement in terms of losing weight for an individual.

But I'm sympathetic to the idea that Americans didn't go from being 10% obese to 50% obese simply because people started moving less and eating more - it seems like in the 90s almost everyone was naturally normal looking even if they did eat McDonalds 5 timse a week and never worked out. People then ate tons of sugary cereals and chips and cookies too. Now conversely there's lots of people who eat salads every day and who go to some type of gym a few times a week and are still 30 pounds overweight.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074927)

The nuance is at best an interesting topic for academics. There’s been far too much emphasis on the types of calories we take in and not anywhere near enough on the simple caloric intake. Check out the recent article on Italian diets. an American dietician would scream at the amount of carbs they consume, and yet, they live long lives and weigh much less. They simply consume less.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074953)

CICO is a signpost or a start to the weight loss conversation but there are plenty of other factors involved beyond it

if you have only one weight loss axiom to go off of though its one of the better ones

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074943)

"count calories and exercise" works 100% of the time because of thermodynamics. it doesn't matter whether those calories come from cake or kale.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49074982)

Do normal people even do cheat days?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49075001)

Likewise, I think a lot of the 'nuances' mentioned ITT apply to athletes, but not to average middle-age people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49075012)

so yeah for non-athletic normies "count calories, *eat a high quality and balanced diet, and exercise" is cr and most attempts to learn the science behind food just confuse the issue if youre trying to get normies to be healthy.

*eating mcdonalds at a caloric deficit will cause weight loss but is still super unhealthy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49075028)

popcorn. air pop some popcorn, very filling, great fiber content, ok protein, very healthy if you don't slather butter or oil on. i like salt, pepper, and sumac on mine. can gorge yourself on it and still be calorie negative despite all the energy it gives you as a fairly low glycemic index grain

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746393&forum_id=2...id.#49075666)