Physical or psychological adaptation

[Vuja]

From my own circle: folks I pointed toward sources and walked through the fundamentals with.

A handful of patterns stood out.

Among those who don't train or care much about fitness, I see willpower crumbling sooner when the dose is low, which pushes them toward bumping it up.

Daily chocolate treats feel like the default for them.

A different psychological case: one guy, on the eve of his following injection, went on a full-blown binge — out of nowhere hunger hit and he simply couldn't stop eating.

The drug triggered that hunger, and still he never once thought about steering the situation himself. Even though he'd already been on Reta for a month.

On the flip side, with fitness-minded people, I notice that even a tiny dose goes a long way toward hitting the macro targets they want. They also get that the food going in is ultimately our own doing, and the medication is just a tool.

(This would be an example that physical adaptation can at least be significantly slowed down.)

I've tried to summarize my thoughts here.

The question is: which type of adaptation do you think has a greater impact?

 

[AngieHolmes]

Vuja said:

From my own circle: folks I pointed toward sources and walked through the fundamentals with.

A handful of patterns stood out.

Among those who don't train or care much about fitness, I see willpower crumbling sooner when the dose is low, which pushes them toward bumping it up.

Daily chocolate treats feel like the default for them.

A different psychological case: one guy, on the eve of his following injection, went on a full-blown binge — out of nowhere hunger hit and he simply couldn't stop eating.

The drug triggered that hunger, and still he never once thought about steering the situation himself. Even though he'd already been on Reta for a month.

On the flip side, with fitness-minded people, I notice that even a tiny dose goes a long way toward hitting the macro targets they want. They also get that the food going in is ultimately our own doing, and the medication is just a tool.

(This would be an example that physical adaptation can at least be significantly slowed down.)

I've tried to summarize my thoughts here.

The question is: which type of adaptation do you think has a greater impact?

What does it actually mean to be "into fitness" versus "not into fitness"? Where do the two groups diverge in terms of behavior?

My guess is that the fitness-oriented crowd directs more effort and focus toward tracking calories, adhering strictly to their eating plan, and exercising more often. It functions like a hobby that consumes time and energy; it's simply how they prefer to spend their time. Those who are less fitness-inclined have other pastimes and priorities, and their commitment to watching CICO may therefore be weaker. Is that right? Or is there something I'm overlooking?

 

[Vuja]

AngieHolmes said:

Vuja said:

From my own circle: folks I pointed toward sources and walked through the fundamentals with.

A handful of patterns stood out.

Among those who don't train or care much about fitness, I see willpower crumbling sooner when the dose is low, which pushes them toward bumping it up.

Daily chocolate treats feel like the default for them.

A different psychological case: one guy, on the eve of his following injection, went on a full-blown binge — out of nowhere hunger hit and he simply couldn't stop eating.

The drug triggered that hunger, and still he never once thought about steering the situation himself. Even though he'd already been on Reta for a month.

On the flip side, with fitness-minded people, I notice that even a tiny dose goes a long way toward hitting the macro targets they want. They also get that the food going in is ultimately our own doing, and the medication is just a tool.

(This would be an example that physical adaptation can at least be significantly slowed down.)

I've tried to summarize my thoughts here.

The question is: which type of adaptation do you think has a greater impact?

What does it actually mean to be "into fitness" versus "not into fitness"? Where do the two groups diverge in terms of behavior?

My guess is that the fitness-oriented crowd directs more effort and focus toward tracking calories, adhering strictly to their eating plan, and exercising more often. It functions like a hobby that consumes time and energy; it's simply how they prefer to spend their time. Those who are less fitness-inclined have other pastimes and priorities, and their commitment to watching CICO may therefore be weaker. Is that right? Or is there something I'm overlooking?

When I say people in fitness, I'm referring to those who train (at any level) and who understand the fundamentals of nutrition and calorie tracking. Still, as is true for me and for most others, sticking to nutrition and goals remains difficult.

On the other hand, those outside fitness lack any understanding of calorie counting or any form of healthy eating. So they move to higher doses sooner, since they don't try to optimize what the medication is doing and instead count on it to handle everything on its own.

 

[betterathalo]

I'm inclined to agree. Plenty of data also shows that weight returns once people quit. Still, I'm curious how many of them actually follow a workout plan and understand calorie tracking.

 

[BrightCandle]

A tiny slice of the population has always been able to shed pounds and sculpt their physiques once they decide to get healthy. That group has never been large, and the placebo arms in GLP1 trials point to a figure around 5%. For everyone else, it's a condition that needs ongoing management, and stopping that management means things deteriorate regardless of effort. What the GLP1 drugs have really revealed is that CICO, along with the whole weight-loss sector that came before, was built on a sham resting on a handful of success stories. The medication exists now; the only remaining step is to put it to use.

 

[Enyola]

Vuja said:

AngieHolmes said:

Vuja said:

From my own circle: folks I pointed toward sources and walked through the fundamentals with.

A handful of patterns stood out.

Among those who don't train or care much about fitness, I see willpower crumbling sooner when the dose is low, which pushes them toward bumping it up.

Daily chocolate treats feel like the default for them.

A different psychological case: one guy, on the eve of his following injection, went on a full-blown binge — out of nowhere hunger hit and he simply couldn't stop eating.

The drug triggered that hunger, and still he never once thought about steering the situation himself. Even though he'd already been on Reta for a month.

On the flip side, with fitness-minded people, I notice that even a tiny dose goes a long way toward hitting the macro targets they want. They also get that the food going in is ultimately our own doing, and the medication is just a tool.

(This would be an example that physical adaptation can at least be significantly slowed down.)

I've tried to summarize my thoughts here.

The question is: which type of adaptation do you think has a greater impact?

What does it actually mean to be "into fitness" versus "not into fitness"? Where do the two groups diverge in terms of behavior?

My guess is that the fitness-oriented crowd directs more effort and focus toward tracking calories, adhering strictly to their eating plan, and exercising more often. It functions like a hobby that consumes time and energy; it's simply how they prefer to spend their time. Those who are less fitness-inclined have other pastimes and priorities, and their commitment to watching CICO may therefore be weaker. Is that right? Or is there something I'm overlooking?

When I say people in fitness, I'm referring to those who train (at any level) and who understand the fundamentals of nutrition and calorie tracking. Still, as is true for me and for most others, sticking to nutrition and goals remains difficult.

On the other hand, those outside fitness lack any understanding of calorie counting or any form of healthy eating. So they move to higher doses sooner, since they don't try to optimize what the medication is doing and instead count on it to handle everything on its own.

What led you to reach that conclusion?