Before digging into what is a really sensitive, nuanced, and stressful topic, we need to state a few things up front: Fat-phobia is rampant, especially in the medical world, and causes significant mental and physical harm. Being fat is not a moral failing. Fat people should not be treated differently than “straight-sized” people.
I really appreciate this, because as somebody who had Anorexia as a teenager and became very underweight, I know that you can indeed continue to lose weight if you restrict your calories, and I had the same thought when I listened to this episode. I get what they were trying to do with this episode. I felt like they were trying to explain why people who say to fat people "calories in and calories out!" are incredibly unhelpful (which they are, it's factually correct, but actually counting calories and working out how many you need for a deficit is somewhat complex), but their logic seemed confused. They're right that people oversimplify the factors which affect the calories you consume and expend. Some people don't seem to know about RMR / BMR at all, and think you have to actually burn off every calorie you consume through activity. There's a lot of misconception. But I don't think this episode helped with that, because as you point out, it's not the science that's wrong here, it's the interpretation that ordinary people make.
Thank you so much for this. I listened to this podcast as it came highly recommended and found myself sputtering and yelling at my phone especially at this episode . You have articulated my sputtering far more thoroughly than I ever could have.
And now serious yet stupid question! “Metabolism is complex but also well understood.” - is it really? I don’t know, but was under impression that it’s something still mysterious and that’s why set-point theory emerged, to explain irregularities
On emotional level it’s sort of relief to learn that losing weight is possible after all. It’s like I can accept myself as fat person (and I do accept myself as fat person), but there are very objective reasons why I’d prefer to not be fat, like: moving is harder, I take more space. Like with any disability activism, social model of disability doesn’t answers all struggles, because some are intrinsic to condition. I don’t understand why Michael and Aubrey completely cut their viewers off hope that change is possible.
Your analogy to a financial consultant at the end is great - it perfectly captures why “CICO” is correct but not always very helpful. I wish MT could handle this level of nuance!
Came here from She's A Beast, great debunking. I do not follow this podcast, but I was curious because in my home country, Romania, there are plenty of folks that spread such misinformation online. Everyone skims an article, they get to the Discussions (maybe) part of it, then Conclusion, wrap it up and present it to you as factual evidence.
I recently listened to a gym enthusiast advertising focusing solely on calories when eating - because the oatmeal that you prepare with milk and put some banana in, coupled with a spoon of honey will in fact be less healthy (= more calories) than a proteic bar from Aldi that has 50 unknown ingredients, toppled with some protein shake made with ultraprocessed "milk" (almond milk exists, but how much of the one we drink is actual almond milk?)
The misinformation they advance in the name of health is absurd.
Really great critique of their podcast. The only comment I have is that I would have liked timestamps for where you quoted the hosts so readers can jump immediately to that point in the episode. Looking forward to more posts, especially about the Ozempic episode.
The study you cite about long term weight loss being possible for about 20% of people seems strange. It appears to say that long term weight loss means "10% of body weight off for 1 year". One year does not seem particularly long term at all.
Seems arbitrary to correct the 1 liter vs 1 kilogram when the density of water means they’re the same thing?
I really appreciate this, because as somebody who had Anorexia as a teenager and became very underweight, I know that you can indeed continue to lose weight if you restrict your calories, and I had the same thought when I listened to this episode. I get what they were trying to do with this episode. I felt like they were trying to explain why people who say to fat people "calories in and calories out!" are incredibly unhelpful (which they are, it's factually correct, but actually counting calories and working out how many you need for a deficit is somewhat complex), but their logic seemed confused. They're right that people oversimplify the factors which affect the calories you consume and expend. Some people don't seem to know about RMR / BMR at all, and think you have to actually burn off every calorie you consume through activity. There's a lot of misconception. But I don't think this episode helped with that, because as you point out, it's not the science that's wrong here, it's the interpretation that ordinary people make.
Thank you so much for this. I listened to this podcast as it came highly recommended and found myself sputtering and yelling at my phone especially at this episode . You have articulated my sputtering far more thoroughly than I ever could have.
And now serious yet stupid question! “Metabolism is complex but also well understood.” - is it really? I don’t know, but was under impression that it’s something still mysterious and that’s why set-point theory emerged, to explain irregularities
On emotional level it’s sort of relief to learn that losing weight is possible after all. It’s like I can accept myself as fat person (and I do accept myself as fat person), but there are very objective reasons why I’d prefer to not be fat, like: moving is harder, I take more space. Like with any disability activism, social model of disability doesn’t answers all struggles, because some are intrinsic to condition. I don’t understand why Michael and Aubrey completely cut their viewers off hope that change is possible.
I like calories labels, because I want to know how much and what food should I eat to not be hungry
Your analogy to a financial consultant at the end is great - it perfectly captures why “CICO” is correct but not always very helpful. I wish MT could handle this level of nuance!
Came here from She's A Beast, great debunking. I do not follow this podcast, but I was curious because in my home country, Romania, there are plenty of folks that spread such misinformation online. Everyone skims an article, they get to the Discussions (maybe) part of it, then Conclusion, wrap it up and present it to you as factual evidence.
I recently listened to a gym enthusiast advertising focusing solely on calories when eating - because the oatmeal that you prepare with milk and put some banana in, coupled with a spoon of honey will in fact be less healthy (= more calories) than a proteic bar from Aldi that has 50 unknown ingredients, toppled with some protein shake made with ultraprocessed "milk" (almond milk exists, but how much of the one we drink is actual almond milk?)
The misinformation they advance in the name of health is absurd.
Really great critique of their podcast. The only comment I have is that I would have liked timestamps for where you quoted the hosts so readers can jump immediately to that point in the episode. Looking forward to more posts, especially about the Ozempic episode.
The study you cite about long term weight loss being possible for about 20% of people seems strange. It appears to say that long term weight loss means "10% of body weight off for 1 year". One year does not seem particularly long term at all.