5 Comments
User's avatar
Experimental Fat Loss's avatar

Plenty of space between "homeostat" and "I gained weight doing the thing that originally made me gain weight."

Expand full comment
John Lawrence Aspden's avatar

Like I say, I think we've got into one of those arguments that are about words not about predictions of what will happen.

So I'm planning to eat whatever, ad lib for a bit (only no PUFAs or sulphites), never letting myself be hungry, and I'm saying "homeostat" implies "weight should return to 95kg or below". If it stays up high or climbs then I'm wrong because I don't think I'm doing anything to sod up my lipostat so it should stay in the same state as it has been.

Straight "CICO-as-stupid-plan" implies weight stays high or climbs, because I'm not doing anything to bring it down and I'm unlikely to accidentally run a calorie deficit if I'm not trying to.

There are for sure other models, but I'm not sure what yours is, except that it involves equilibria somehow.

You're predicting?

Expand full comment
Experimental Fat Loss's avatar

I predict that eating ad-lib high-protein swamp, even without PUFAs, will consistently make you gain weight until you get to at least the fattest you've ever been.

Expand full comment
John Lawrence Aspden's avatar

Excellent, we have a crux. ad-lib high-protein swamp without PUFA is a good description of what I normally eat. At least high-protein compared to ex150 anyway. More like 'protein whenever I feel like it'.

So if I'm understanding correctly: You think I'll rise until at least 99kg, I think I'll come back down to 95kg.

I'll delay ex150ish-6 and just eat normally without worrying too much until the situation becomes clear.

Expand full comment
Experimental Fat Loss's avatar

Sounds good!

Expand full comment