For me, the "do something" was to fire doctor after doctor until one listened and was willing to increase my thyroid medications. After getting optimal levels of medication (took almost 10 years) it took over six month for my body to heal from the lack of hormones before the weight started coming off slowly.
With optimal hormones I lost 50+ lbs. I kept the weight off for 3+years. Then, in mid 2012, the pounds started coming back. Blood tests showed low hormone levels. An increase in meds has those gained lbs slowly departing.
So, in my world CICO, when thought of as eat less, move more without looking at hormones is utter BS.
CICO doesn't work because the calories we put into our mouth from the external environment does not translate as the same energy that goes into each of our individual cells.
Each and every individual are different and each of their respect cells require multi-cofactors for caloric break down, metabolism, absorption etc.
In physics....in a controlled, closed scientific system where the equation is balanced and equilibrium is achieved then the 1st law of thermodynamics is observed.
Unfortunately, human physiology, human biology, human metabolism, is not perfectly controlled, is not perfectly balanced, is not perfectly efficient....etc.
Until somebody can derive the formula for the "calories OUT" half of the CICO equation and prove that it is correct, this argument is moot.
5'0" female, 42 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Current weight: 109 lbs because of travel.
MY PRIMAL: I (try to) follow by-the-book primal as advocated by Mark Sisson, except for whey powder and a bit of cream. I aim for 80-90 g carb/day and advocate a two-month strict adjustment for newbies. But everybody is different and other need to tweak Primal to their own needs.
"The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln
Ok the reason we all frequent this site is so we can throw high fives about when we do it as grok would've done it, right?
Maybe not everybody, but what I'm saying is a great many insights can be gained from discovering how our bodies over came the environmental influences it faced on a daily basis over the period of a few million years. The reason this is so pertinent is that although we believe we are far removed from those millions of years we are in fact a direct copy of it.
With that sitting in our minds. lets look at CICO. The CICO theory of body composition and any other alternative theories have only existed for a somewhere within 100 years, an extremely small amount of time considering how long this body of ours has been doing its own "body composition" for.
For 1,999,900 years, our bodies didn't have books or the internet or even scientists to help us decipher the best way of eating. In fact it has nothing to do with the best way of eating, there was no choice, no deciding on low carbs or CICO or alternative theory or anything. For that length of time our bodies have adjusted themselves (evolved) to the food that was available and when it was available, our bodies had to deal with extreme calorie deficiencies and surpluses, deal with extremely variable amounts of macro's, deal with variable times and meal sizes, all on a daily basis.
After I reread the above paragraph I came across a thought, maybe our bodies are just doing today what they've been doing for millions of years; adjusting themselves (getting fat) to the food that is available (all kinds) and when it is available (all the time).
A good analogy for this thread is:
On one side we have bunch of physicists (CICO theory), on the other we have a bunch of endocrinologists (Hormone/insulin theory). Both telling each other and us (with valid points) for what the body needs. My question is: Why don't we ask the body what it needs? why don't we look at how our own bodies have been doing it for millions of years? Maybe our bodies are experts in their own composition, after all our bodies have been studying our diet for millions of years.
So the next question is, what does the experts (our bodies) want? this is what I came up with quickly:
What do the experts (our own bodies) want us to eat? whole foods very much like that was available for millions of years, I think Mark Sisson has a good list that is a fair representation of these foods. How do the experts (our bodies) want us to eat? with great variance and inconsistency like they have been dealing with for millions of years, im not sure how we all can apply that to modern day life, so I've started a thread that tries to further the discussion, have a look.
Applying fitness principles to your diet.
In summary maybe ALL the scientists are wrong, yes thats the endocrinologists and the physicists (probably the reason why non scientists like Mark Sisson are making the most ground in overcoming obesity) as their view is too narrow to cover the subject at hand. Maybe looking at where we have come from will provide great inspiration for where we should go.
A little primal gem - My Success Story
Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)
Repost below for relevance.
Oh dear, well I made it thru pg15 of this "discussion forum" thread and had to stop, because after 15pgs of "discussion", there were only three intelligent posts discussing the topic...and one of them was mine.
The problem with the "eat less, exercise more" folk wisdom, aside from the fact that it doesn't work and doesn't explain many observations, is that it a lazy way to dismiss all other possibilities. Well the ocean exists cause a lot of water is in it. Okay how did the water get there? Oh shut up KimchiNinja, we don't like to think about that.
Below I disaggregated the calories in / calories out formula. If the original formula holds, then the disaggregation also necessarily holds. The disaggregation makes it much more complex, you change one variable and one or more other variables must change. But it's not obvious which are changing, and probably not the ones people would think (if you believe people think)...